As I have processed some more the conversation I had this morning, I want to say that I feel a great deal of tension, and am a little astounded at my own responses, and what this reveals of the changes Reconciler has brought about in me.
I appreciate the concern for particular denominational identity: When I left seminary I was very seriously thinking that the Covenant should attempt shore up its Lutheran Pietist origins. Though the founding of the Community of the Holy Trinity had already directed my energies and thoughts elsewhere and towards more ecumenical and seeking after the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, which had been the subject of my senior paper in seminary. But even when I started this blog and Reconciler was in its final planning stages, I was self identifying as a Lutheran Pietist in the Covenant, and it was based on this identity that I entered the work of starting an ecumenical congregation. Those of you who may have followed this blog from its beginning may recall that the "Lutheran Pietist Goth" was once part of the title. I think I even argues much as Rev. Canon Scott argued today about needing a strong particular identity to enter into ecumenical work and dialog. I might have even so argued right here in this blog.
Now when I think back to it we were asserting perhaps two somewhat contradictory things: one that we needed strong particular denominational identities and two that we needed to hold these identities lightly because they were a barrier to people hearing the claims of the Gospel and the Church. We also affirmed that something particular was being articulated in such documents as Baptism Eucharist and Ministry and could form a sufficient Christian identity for those who came to faith or for Christians who did not have a strong denominational identity. I wonder if our original vision tried to say two different and possibly contradictory things: our identities as members of particular Christian traditions was necessary and important and that they were problematic and useful to some degree but completely optional. I think we all felt this tension in ourselves, we had been trained were being trained to serve in particular Christian traditions, and wanted to be faithful members of those traditions, we also had begun to see the cracks in denominationalism even for our own sense of identity, but especially for the emerging situation both as the culture shifts in the US, but also due to 50 years of intense ecumenical bilateral and multilateral dialog between various Christian groups.
So, my responses both that i spoke in our meeting and in myself that were unspoken at the time, some of which were articulated in my earlier post, are revealing to me how much Reconciler has changed me, and how I no longer have a strong identity as a Lutheran Pietist or as being part of the Evangelical Covenant church. This identity certainly is part of my Christian identity, but seeking after the mind of Christ and the One Church in this church plant has brought me to feel the weakness of denominational identity and that it is deeply problematic. Some of this has been listening to those who have actually come to Reconciler and their interest in Reconciler as an Ecumenical work that is seeking to embody the faith and tradition of the church and seeking the One Church, but completely uninterested in the three Traditions of the pastors who started Reconciler. These people were one of the two main demographics we had said we were seeking to meet with this church start: Christians who could not find a home in established churches whether of the traditional denominations or the denomination like post-denominational networks of churches or non-denominational evangelical.
This means that to a part of me that held similar views is not really all that surprised by today's conversation, the one who immersed himself in this emerging reality that is Reconciler and is still emerging finds himself somewhere he did not foresee, and is a little surprised not only by the Canon's responses and assertions but that he finds himself so far on the edge of most things as even the Emergent Movement and New Monasticism, and that he no longer sees denominational identity as terribly important let alone essential for a strong Christian identity.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Archiving the Work of the Spirit
(note: edited 4/28/2009, 10:30 pm, LEK)
I met with the Canon to the Ordinary of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago this morning to begin again/continue conversation around what a relationship between Reconciler and the diocese might look like. It was an invigorating time. As a pastor in a denomination that is not even in conversation with the Episcopal Church, I am thankful for the opportunity, after our Episcopal Priest resigned, to continue the conversation with the diocese. I also must say that I genuinely like Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, and our conversation was not only informative and genuine but also enjoyable.
Now you may be awaiting a "but", and there is a "but". I begin here because there is also frustration and I want to be clear about the source of the frustration and that I think this is a theological problem and issue, and not personal. Also, I want all to understand that I really do have a deep appreciation of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. On many occasions I have considered becoming an Episcopalian, but each time have have been stuck with that I'd simply be trading one non-essential Christian identity for another that would have the analogous places of misfit and fit as my being Evangelical Covenant. So far in my spiritual journey this is true about all denominations I have considered, and it is my experience of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they mimic Protestant denominational-ism which keeps me from finding a way to truly evaluate their claims of being the One Church. So, the frustrations I had with the conversation with the Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, is not surprising given this long term struggle with denominational identity, and given the theological conclusions I have been coming to over the years.
It was also frustrating because I entered into the conversation with an expectation that was quickly shown to be unrealistic. I had hoped that both given that the Canon has known of us from nearly our beginning and was Canon to the Ordinary under the previous Bishop and given that Bishop Jeff Lee had spoken very positively and shown great interest in Reconciler at his visit that the Diocese might be able to offer Reconciler some options of relationship. Bishop Lee has appeared to be a creative thinker ecclesiologicaly speaking and I had hoped today's conversation would show this. From the outset the question of what to do about Reconciler was put in my lap, as something I needed to articulate to the diocese. This was certainly appropriate since no one who has been with Reconciler since its inception and who helped form its original vision had spoken this directly to the diocese before today. The blame for this can be laid both at our feet and the feet of the previous bishop. Tripp and I felt that this sort of conversation needed to be initiated by an Episcopal priest, but our first priest was not resident in the Diocese of Chicago, and when Laura came on and first began the conversation she was still learning the ropes and the shifting reality of Reconciler. It is also possible that this conversation could really only happen at this time and under these circumstances.
We were able to have a candid conversation, and I think I might have even given the Canon, what my wife calls, my "flashy eyes". We asked each other difficult questions and pushed each other on our positions. So genuine dialog around the nature of Christian identity and the importance of denominational identity for having a robust Christian identity. At this point in time and what we have more or less asked of the three denominations from the beginning was that they each accept as a congregation something that could not be said to be either Covenant, or Episcopal or Baptist. Denominational identity is a problem, and becoming less and less of an asset certain studies and statistics suggest, so we started Reconciler as a way to be Christian without these particular identities but with the hope that our three denominations could find away to hold their own identity more loosely. It is the Rev Canon Scott's sense that the Episcopal church will never hold its identity lightly enough to enter into situtation that would allow a congregation to affiliate with denominations with whom it is not in communion with (and the Covenant and it are hardly in conversation). In short the canons (church law, not those with the title of canon) of the Episcopal church, simply wont allow it. Preservation of Apostolic succession is part of this, or rather if we were an episcopal church and a Covenant and a Baptist it would mean being in communion with those without Apostolic succession, yet Apostolic succession is needed for communion. This makes sense at times the lack or tenuousness of the Apostolic succession for the ECC is a concern and makes Rome and Orthodoxy very attractive.
So, I asked for other barriers besides Apostolic succession, and of all things to my surprise and consternation was baptism! And not that baptism were invalid if done by me or an Episcopal priest at Reconciler but that they could not be recorded as being Episcopal baptisms! That is the diocese of Chicago could not record or archive for Reconciler even of a baptism performed by one of its priests because it could not say that at that time said person was also being received into the Episcopal Church. I very nearly went into a tirade about that baptism must only be into the one Church or that it is not baptism, but this did not seem the appropriate time to become "flashy eyed" about that bit of theology. In part because it was tied up with the issue of identity and whether or not Christian identity could be specific enough or strong enough to be a sustained and sustaining identity. On this point I did become "flashy eyed" (I suspect, this is not something I am generally aware of, but Kate has been pointing it out to me over the years and I do find that on certain topics or at certain points in a discussion or argument I will become very pointed and I can feel the energy in my self all focus around my eyes.) I simply pointed out that it seems to me that to be part of the Body of Christ and to have the Mind and Spirit of Christ should be a fairly specific identity, that one does not need to narrow down or improve upon. I think I also bore down fairly hard on denominational-ism as something at least the Faith and order Commission of the WCC was seeking to bring us all beyond. I refrained from quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians, even though I do believe it is a clear and obvious condemnation of the idea that a more specific identity than that of Christ is necessary for Christian faith. It seemed undiplomatic to carry this argument too far when I was also seeking to be identified with that which I am also critiquing. Ah yes the beauty and the challenge of this vision of Reconciler's.
The problem of Reconciler then can be summarized (with a nod of appreciation and debt to Derrida and deconstruction) as a problem of the archive. The problem of our desire to be affiliated at once with three denominations or for the denominations to recognize at all what we are doing is asking them to be the archive of the work of the Spirit in our midst but which does not technically reside where they are. Or more to the point how does one archive what has no current domicile, and which does not want to be its own archive. The denominations, and perhaps especially the the Episcopal Church and quickly following the Covenant Church, can only archive what they posses as a denomination, that is the work of the Spirit that they can identify as being something more than simply the Spirit of Christ. The denominations can only archive a baptism (which all claim, based on agreed upon multilateral statements based in approved and accepted in ecumenical dialog and statements of the WCC, is an act of God and thus the Spirit, and is the entrance into not any particular group or expression of Christianity but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) if in addition to being the entrance the the One Church it is also the entrance into a particular denomination. I was shocked, infuriated, practically speechless as the Rev. Canon Scott genuinely and without irony presented this as this great barrier, and backed it up by insisting on the necessity of particular denominational identity. It simply appears to me to be a basic contradiction that one cannot get around if there is only one Baptism and one faith then if one is a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church one records that fact and archives the work of the Spirit and the one church whether or not said person wishes to be a member of your particular order of Christian. I also know and understand the purely human institutional and worldly need to count your members and to then be able to extract money from them for the perpetuation of your group, but that as Paul says is to speak in merely human terms which is at odds with the Spirit of Christ. I understand human pragmatic concerns, but we are talking about the greater things of the Spirit of Christ and the reality of the One Church, or at least my reading of the work of the WCC has lead me to think this was what we were all talking about. At times I wonder though.
Thanks to our conversation I do know what Reconciler has been asking of any who will listen and specifically the Episcopal Church the Evangelical Covenant Church and the American Baptist Churches, Metro Chicago. Reconciler is asking that the denominations seek to be the archive of a hoped for and future reality of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolci Church. That they be willing to archive a work of the Spirit that is gathering the lost sheep back into the fold but who for what ever reason are kept outside the church,where ever the Church may be (and I realize my Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends believe they know where it is, but I repeat these are two competing claims difficult to assess at the moment, for me and many others). Whether this return and this gathering is for the entrance into a re-united, or simply re-entering of the One True Church, this is a future and not present reality, and we are asking that those who see in our midst the work of the Spirit be willing to archive a work that they cannot posses and thus to be the archive of another reality and to house the record of what God has begun in our midst, though it may be small and not worthy of mention in the worldly pragmatic account of statistically significant numbers, I also realize that this request goes against the logic of the Archive,for the archive means control and power, it means to have a domicile of a particular narrow identity. In that sense Archive and Spirit may be in tension or at odds, and yet, the Church is to be such an Archive one that is in the end only an eschatological archive, the Church archives not for its own power and control but to be the conduit of the Spirit and a sign and sacrament of the present and coming dominion of God! So in a sense a Christian archive is something the Church does not control but holds without domicile for that day when we enter the New Jerusalem. The archive of the Spirit resists all identity and power that is not Christs. If Reconciler is a work of the Spirit than any one can archive it without needing to posses it. And it would be our hope that someday that archive would be taken up and recognized by the One Church, as an archive of the Spirit bringing home those who could not find their way through the morass of claims and counter claims and multiple identities, but whom the Spirit of Christ sought out and found and is bringing home.
This just might have something there for this Sunday, Sunday of the Good Sheppard.
I met with the Canon to the Ordinary of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago this morning to begin again/continue conversation around what a relationship between Reconciler and the diocese might look like. It was an invigorating time. As a pastor in a denomination that is not even in conversation with the Episcopal Church, I am thankful for the opportunity, after our Episcopal Priest resigned, to continue the conversation with the diocese. I also must say that I genuinely like Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, and our conversation was not only informative and genuine but also enjoyable.
Now you may be awaiting a "but", and there is a "but". I begin here because there is also frustration and I want to be clear about the source of the frustration and that I think this is a theological problem and issue, and not personal. Also, I want all to understand that I really do have a deep appreciation of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. On many occasions I have considered becoming an Episcopalian, but each time have have been stuck with that I'd simply be trading one non-essential Christian identity for another that would have the analogous places of misfit and fit as my being Evangelical Covenant. So far in my spiritual journey this is true about all denominations I have considered, and it is my experience of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they mimic Protestant denominational-ism which keeps me from finding a way to truly evaluate their claims of being the One Church. So, the frustrations I had with the conversation with the Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, is not surprising given this long term struggle with denominational identity, and given the theological conclusions I have been coming to over the years.
It was also frustrating because I entered into the conversation with an expectation that was quickly shown to be unrealistic. I had hoped that both given that the Canon has known of us from nearly our beginning and was Canon to the Ordinary under the previous Bishop and given that Bishop Jeff Lee had spoken very positively and shown great interest in Reconciler at his visit that the Diocese might be able to offer Reconciler some options of relationship. Bishop Lee has appeared to be a creative thinker ecclesiologicaly speaking and I had hoped today's conversation would show this. From the outset the question of what to do about Reconciler was put in my lap, as something I needed to articulate to the diocese. This was certainly appropriate since no one who has been with Reconciler since its inception and who helped form its original vision had spoken this directly to the diocese before today. The blame for this can be laid both at our feet and the feet of the previous bishop. Tripp and I felt that this sort of conversation needed to be initiated by an Episcopal priest, but our first priest was not resident in the Diocese of Chicago, and when Laura came on and first began the conversation she was still learning the ropes and the shifting reality of Reconciler. It is also possible that this conversation could really only happen at this time and under these circumstances.
We were able to have a candid conversation, and I think I might have even given the Canon, what my wife calls, my "flashy eyes". We asked each other difficult questions and pushed each other on our positions. So genuine dialog around the nature of Christian identity and the importance of denominational identity for having a robust Christian identity. At this point in time and what we have more or less asked of the three denominations from the beginning was that they each accept as a congregation something that could not be said to be either Covenant, or Episcopal or Baptist. Denominational identity is a problem, and becoming less and less of an asset certain studies and statistics suggest, so we started Reconciler as a way to be Christian without these particular identities but with the hope that our three denominations could find away to hold their own identity more loosely. It is the Rev Canon Scott's sense that the Episcopal church will never hold its identity lightly enough to enter into situtation that would allow a congregation to affiliate with denominations with whom it is not in communion with (and the Covenant and it are hardly in conversation). In short the canons (church law, not those with the title of canon) of the Episcopal church, simply wont allow it. Preservation of Apostolic succession is part of this, or rather if we were an episcopal church and a Covenant and a Baptist it would mean being in communion with those without Apostolic succession, yet Apostolic succession is needed for communion. This makes sense at times the lack or tenuousness of the Apostolic succession for the ECC is a concern and makes Rome and Orthodoxy very attractive.
So, I asked for other barriers besides Apostolic succession, and of all things to my surprise and consternation was baptism! And not that baptism were invalid if done by me or an Episcopal priest at Reconciler but that they could not be recorded as being Episcopal baptisms! That is the diocese of Chicago could not record or archive for Reconciler even of a baptism performed by one of its priests because it could not say that at that time said person was also being received into the Episcopal Church. I very nearly went into a tirade about that baptism must only be into the one Church or that it is not baptism, but this did not seem the appropriate time to become "flashy eyed" about that bit of theology. In part because it was tied up with the issue of identity and whether or not Christian identity could be specific enough or strong enough to be a sustained and sustaining identity. On this point I did become "flashy eyed" (I suspect, this is not something I am generally aware of, but Kate has been pointing it out to me over the years and I do find that on certain topics or at certain points in a discussion or argument I will become very pointed and I can feel the energy in my self all focus around my eyes.) I simply pointed out that it seems to me that to be part of the Body of Christ and to have the Mind and Spirit of Christ should be a fairly specific identity, that one does not need to narrow down or improve upon. I think I also bore down fairly hard on denominational-ism as something at least the Faith and order Commission of the WCC was seeking to bring us all beyond. I refrained from quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians, even though I do believe it is a clear and obvious condemnation of the idea that a more specific identity than that of Christ is necessary for Christian faith. It seemed undiplomatic to carry this argument too far when I was also seeking to be identified with that which I am also critiquing. Ah yes the beauty and the challenge of this vision of Reconciler's.
The problem of Reconciler then can be summarized (with a nod of appreciation and debt to Derrida and deconstruction) as a problem of the archive. The problem of our desire to be affiliated at once with three denominations or for the denominations to recognize at all what we are doing is asking them to be the archive of the work of the Spirit in our midst but which does not technically reside where they are. Or more to the point how does one archive what has no current domicile, and which does not want to be its own archive. The denominations, and perhaps especially the the Episcopal Church and quickly following the Covenant Church, can only archive what they posses as a denomination, that is the work of the Spirit that they can identify as being something more than simply the Spirit of Christ. The denominations can only archive a baptism (which all claim, based on agreed upon multilateral statements based in approved and accepted in ecumenical dialog and statements of the WCC, is an act of God and thus the Spirit, and is the entrance into not any particular group or expression of Christianity but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) if in addition to being the entrance the the One Church it is also the entrance into a particular denomination. I was shocked, infuriated, practically speechless as the Rev. Canon Scott genuinely and without irony presented this as this great barrier, and backed it up by insisting on the necessity of particular denominational identity. It simply appears to me to be a basic contradiction that one cannot get around if there is only one Baptism and one faith then if one is a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church one records that fact and archives the work of the Spirit and the one church whether or not said person wishes to be a member of your particular order of Christian. I also know and understand the purely human institutional and worldly need to count your members and to then be able to extract money from them for the perpetuation of your group, but that as Paul says is to speak in merely human terms which is at odds with the Spirit of Christ. I understand human pragmatic concerns, but we are talking about the greater things of the Spirit of Christ and the reality of the One Church, or at least my reading of the work of the WCC has lead me to think this was what we were all talking about. At times I wonder though.
Thanks to our conversation I do know what Reconciler has been asking of any who will listen and specifically the Episcopal Church the Evangelical Covenant Church and the American Baptist Churches, Metro Chicago. Reconciler is asking that the denominations seek to be the archive of a hoped for and future reality of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolci Church. That they be willing to archive a work of the Spirit that is gathering the lost sheep back into the fold but who for what ever reason are kept outside the church,where ever the Church may be (and I realize my Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends believe they know where it is, but I repeat these are two competing claims difficult to assess at the moment, for me and many others). Whether this return and this gathering is for the entrance into a re-united, or simply re-entering of the One True Church, this is a future and not present reality, and we are asking that those who see in our midst the work of the Spirit be willing to archive a work that they cannot posses and thus to be the archive of another reality and to house the record of what God has begun in our midst, though it may be small and not worthy of mention in the worldly pragmatic account of statistically significant numbers, I also realize that this request goes against the logic of the Archive,for the archive means control and power, it means to have a domicile of a particular narrow identity. In that sense Archive and Spirit may be in tension or at odds, and yet, the Church is to be such an Archive one that is in the end only an eschatological archive, the Church archives not for its own power and control but to be the conduit of the Spirit and a sign and sacrament of the present and coming dominion of God! So in a sense a Christian archive is something the Church does not control but holds without domicile for that day when we enter the New Jerusalem. The archive of the Spirit resists all identity and power that is not Christs. If Reconciler is a work of the Spirit than any one can archive it without needing to posses it. And it would be our hope that someday that archive would be taken up and recognized by the One Church, as an archive of the Spirit bringing home those who could not find their way through the morass of claims and counter claims and multiple identities, but whom the Spirit of Christ sought out and found and is bringing home.
This just might have something there for this Sunday, Sunday of the Good Sheppard.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
inter-religious exchange
Today the Edgewater Community Religious Association(ECRA), that in the past year I have become more and more actively part of was invited to as part of our monthly meeting to come out the the new Ismaili Center (Jamat Khana) in Glenview. We were given a tour of the facility, and given of the ways in which the architecture that joins a prayer hall, with gathering space, and education wing for Saturday religious education. It is a quite beautiful, and the holistic approach to faith and life as expressed in the building and in their education and training of their children in their faith/religion/spirituality is all very impressive. Slightly intimidating, especially when one realizes that there is no one who is paid to keep things going, everything from spiritual leaders to the teachers of the Saturday "Sunday Schools"(as our tour guide called them on the tour, who was a volunteer). Such commitment and dedication certainly is commendable and impressive. I could see my fellow Christian pastors nod their heads as we all kind of had the thought that it takes a lot of work to get volunteers for much less intensive activities: volunteer teachers that would spend every Saturday teaching in a religious school is simply astounding.
The whole building that includes offices, classrooms a meeting hall and prayer hall, all form a unified whole, each flowing easily and seamlessly together so that one is always aware that one is in a religious space. This particular by the repetition of heptagons and Charbahg which is symbolic to Ismailis (and at least we were told other Muslims as well. I found these geometric designs very compelling and their were panels of fabric patched together to make heptagonal designs, and the designs in the floor and fountain as a charbahg and then concentric heptagons in the ceiling resonated similarly to me as Icons. Of course geometric shapes are the underlying structure of icons.
The whole building that includes offices, classrooms a meeting hall and prayer hall, all form a unified whole, each flowing easily and seamlessly together so that one is always aware that one is in a religious space. This particular by the repetition of heptagons and Charbahg which is symbolic to Ismailis (and at least we were told other Muslims as well. I found these geometric designs very compelling and their were panels of fabric patched together to make heptagonal designs, and the designs in the floor and fountain as a charbahg and then concentric heptagons in the ceiling resonated similarly to me as Icons. Of course geometric shapes are the underlying structure of icons.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
paper presentation on AIDS preventiong in Africa
Melissa Browning presented "HIV/AIDS Prevention and Sexed Bodies: Rethinking Abstinence in Light of the African AIDS Pandemic" paper at Loyola today. I had made good progress on my sermon and so I went. It was a small group gathered to hear her presentation of the paper.
The paper offers a critique of both abstinence and condom based programs designed to prevent aids, with attention given to abstinence as both a moral category and prevention program. She argued that abstinence especially in the African context in which mere emphasis on abstinence becomes a confluence of things that include prevention of aids, moral prohibition and thus tied to purity and taboo create an imoral situation especially when women have no or limited agency due to cultural issues and legal standing. However she also argued that she offered up a veiw of abstinence that could be a moral stance. This view of abstinence is based on space rather than as prohibition. To explore abstinence as space she used the Song of Songs to explore how abstinence could be empowering and create space for self knowledge for women and African Women in particular.
The discussion following focused on what might follow from this paper for African women, for Melissa and missionaries from developing countries and African Women who have been empowered but who do not live in Africa but abraod and have been in part empowered through their cross cultural position as Africans in the US. Questions of the ways in which poverty rather than sexuality or sexual behavior contribute to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, as well as how so much communication about AIDS in Africa even that which attempts to offer treatment as well as programs of prevention follow colonial patterns of cultural imperialism and that even the language of AIDS is language imposed from others and not taken up from with in African cultural and linguistic matrices. This was also a point discussed in the paper itself in evaluating certain campaigns for the prevention of aids seeking to alter behavior.
The presentation and discussion impacted me in pushing me to further question the ways in which we attempt to offer monolithic solutions to issues or perceived problems, with out reflecting on meaning. Even our reactions say to abstinence in general are often knee jerk either in support or opposition. It seems to me that the approach in Melissa's paper is one that is needed in a variety of areas perhaps especially where moral and ethical considerations are used to bring about certain desired societal or governmental ends.
Well, I think i Have more thoughts on this but I think they will need to wait, must get back to Sunday's sermon.
The paper offers a critique of both abstinence and condom based programs designed to prevent aids, with attention given to abstinence as both a moral category and prevention program. She argued that abstinence especially in the African context in which mere emphasis on abstinence becomes a confluence of things that include prevention of aids, moral prohibition and thus tied to purity and taboo create an imoral situation especially when women have no or limited agency due to cultural issues and legal standing. However she also argued that she offered up a veiw of abstinence that could be a moral stance. This view of abstinence is based on space rather than as prohibition. To explore abstinence as space she used the Song of Songs to explore how abstinence could be empowering and create space for self knowledge for women and African Women in particular.
The discussion following focused on what might follow from this paper for African women, for Melissa and missionaries from developing countries and African Women who have been empowered but who do not live in Africa but abraod and have been in part empowered through their cross cultural position as Africans in the US. Questions of the ways in which poverty rather than sexuality or sexual behavior contribute to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, as well as how so much communication about AIDS in Africa even that which attempts to offer treatment as well as programs of prevention follow colonial patterns of cultural imperialism and that even the language of AIDS is language imposed from others and not taken up from with in African cultural and linguistic matrices. This was also a point discussed in the paper itself in evaluating certain campaigns for the prevention of aids seeking to alter behavior.
The presentation and discussion impacted me in pushing me to further question the ways in which we attempt to offer monolithic solutions to issues or perceived problems, with out reflecting on meaning. Even our reactions say to abstinence in general are often knee jerk either in support or opposition. It seems to me that the approach in Melissa's paper is one that is needed in a variety of areas perhaps especially where moral and ethical considerations are used to bring about certain desired societal or governmental ends.
Well, I think i Have more thoughts on this but I think they will need to wait, must get back to Sunday's sermon.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Easter Vigil
Tonight I was simply a member of the congregation at the Easter Vigil joint service of the 4 congregations that meet each week at Immanuel Lutheran Church. It took me a while to focus. I think I was still kind of in the space I was in after the Good Friday service. Whatever it was things felt a little flat as we began, the blessing of the fire and the lighting of the Paschal candle and the singing "the light of Christ" with response "Thanks be to God." was flat, it did not impact me much. A motion we went through. Which was odd since usually this is one of those places in the Christian liturgy where I find a real connection with the primordial. As we entered the parish hall set up for the story of salvation portion of the vigil, I felt distracted, not by anything in particular but still found it difficult to take in or focus on the liturgy. Finally about half way through the exultet as most of the hand held candles were finally lit I began to awaken to the beauty of the service and the chant sung alternately by two cantors. As the first readings were read I still had trouble focusing but the readings, the singing of the psalms and the prayers slowly did their work and the joy of this night slowly dawned on me. The joy of the Gospel acclamation and then eventually the "Christ is Risen", "He is Risen indeed" was deeper somehow than often in the past but also of a different quality in myself.
None of this that I experienced interestingly enough had much to do with how people sang or read, or how Pastor Monte presided at this liturgy, in many ways it was the same liturgy as the first year Reconciler joined Immanuel and St Elias for the celebration of the Three Days. And actually not that different a liturgy from my first Easter Vigil at St Peter's Episcopal Church in San Pedro, CA. that in part being so foreign totally fascinated me and felt like one of the best worship services I had been to, (No one in my entire life up till that time had ever lit a fire in a church service , the exception being worship around a camp fire at camp.) Yet, I experienced it very differently, in part I think because of what I preached on Good Friday, and what that sermon brought up in me.
After the service there was a wonder full buffet reception with champagne. I ended up talking with the bishop elect of the independent catholic congregation that meets now also at Immanuel and joined us for these joint worship services. She had been episcopal. We had a wonderful conversation. But I don't know quite what to make of these folk. I have also gotten to know the priest and deacon of the Community of St Francis better over the course of the past few weeks as we finished up lent and the liturgy of the Three Days. I am not sure why one would move from being Protestant to join this particular group of Christians. There is both a weird spiritual connection it seems, or perhaps it is a similar desire or searching (that may be it more than spiritual connection) in this group but there is also something that does not sit well with me, that kind of makes me cautious and wary, not about them as persons but about the way they well are independent I guess, this strange attempted combination of both a claim to catholicity and a claim to independence which seems a little odd. Not that I have any ground to stand on and actually critique such a thing, but I am doing this ecumenical thing seeking some form of catholicity admitting I do so as a Protestant. And while I'd like to and have argued in the past for a certain catholicity in Protestantism, I am less certain of this. though this puzzles me since I still feel that the Lutheran Pietism of my Evangelical Covenant upbringing instilled in me a catholic and apostolic sensibility and desire. This is all very odd my work with reconciler and being at Immanuel seems to have brought me into an interesting group of former Roman Catholics, independent catholics and struggling mainline Protestants who seem to long for something more. Not sure what to make of this and with some of these it feels like we may be ships passing in opposite directions, and for a moment we share the same waters. I don't know but it has made for an interesting Easter Vigil.
None of this that I experienced interestingly enough had much to do with how people sang or read, or how Pastor Monte presided at this liturgy, in many ways it was the same liturgy as the first year Reconciler joined Immanuel and St Elias for the celebration of the Three Days. And actually not that different a liturgy from my first Easter Vigil at St Peter's Episcopal Church in San Pedro, CA. that in part being so foreign totally fascinated me and felt like one of the best worship services I had been to, (No one in my entire life up till that time had ever lit a fire in a church service , the exception being worship around a camp fire at camp.) Yet, I experienced it very differently, in part I think because of what I preached on Good Friday, and what that sermon brought up in me.
After the service there was a wonder full buffet reception with champagne. I ended up talking with the bishop elect of the independent catholic congregation that meets now also at Immanuel and joined us for these joint worship services. She had been episcopal. We had a wonderful conversation. But I don't know quite what to make of these folk. I have also gotten to know the priest and deacon of the Community of St Francis better over the course of the past few weeks as we finished up lent and the liturgy of the Three Days. I am not sure why one would move from being Protestant to join this particular group of Christians. There is both a weird spiritual connection it seems, or perhaps it is a similar desire or searching (that may be it more than spiritual connection) in this group but there is also something that does not sit well with me, that kind of makes me cautious and wary, not about them as persons but about the way they well are independent I guess, this strange attempted combination of both a claim to catholicity and a claim to independence which seems a little odd. Not that I have any ground to stand on and actually critique such a thing, but I am doing this ecumenical thing seeking some form of catholicity admitting I do so as a Protestant. And while I'd like to and have argued in the past for a certain catholicity in Protestantism, I am less certain of this. though this puzzles me since I still feel that the Lutheran Pietism of my Evangelical Covenant upbringing instilled in me a catholic and apostolic sensibility and desire. This is all very odd my work with reconciler and being at Immanuel seems to have brought me into an interesting group of former Roman Catholics, independent catholics and struggling mainline Protestants who seem to long for something more. Not sure what to make of this and with some of these it feels like we may be ships passing in opposite directions, and for a moment we share the same waters. I don't know but it has made for an interesting Easter Vigil.
Priestly Goth Preaching Chronicles, XI: Good Friday
I spent much of yesterday refining the sermon. Though in the morning I had some errands to run, and I had a few e-mails that I needed to respond to for church. I spent the rest of the day reflecting on the Crucifixion of Christ and our Good Friday Service. I think as I did I was struck by how odd it is to sit and reflect, sing, listen to things read, about a mans crucifixion and then adore a replica of that means of execution and torture. We then call it the "life giving cross." as I prepared my sermon I was struck to what degree I simply take this for granted even to some extent in my mind rush on to the Resurection. Yet, I also believe that the crucifixion of Christ is central and essential to the Christian faith.
In my sermon I attempted to address why we are doing this, and why we do this year after year. The why of the what we do in worship and the why of elements of Christian faith have been at the forefront of my mind lately and I think of much of my preaching. In part the make up of Reconciler brings this up because most of the congregation comes from traditions that put more emphasis on spontaneous, music and word based forms of liturgy as opposed to the more structured less spontaneous and explicitly theological liturgy. So, helping them understand the why of the form of liturgy that is completely foreign to them is key. But also, I think looking into the Goth Eucharist and its different iterations has got me thinking along these lines as well. So, my sermon sought to address the question of why do what we were doing in this worship service and why the crucifixion is central to our faith. You can let me know if you think I was successful, in offering a why.
I was a little afraid being so insistent that Jesus' crucifixion gave the context for all his teaching and as the key to the incarnation and the revelation of God's love, would not necessarily be well received. In the least it did strike a chord for many there several who sought me out after the service to thank me for the sermon, saying that they needed to hear what I had said. No one came up and said they objected to my sermon but that rarely happens anyway, so someone may have objected to my emphasis but many found it helpful and made a point to let me know.
The sermon affected me deeply. I found myself questioning a little if I even believed what I was saying. I needed to go pick up some groceries and on the way to the store, everything seemed very distinct and sharp, in a kind of icy static way. I could feel the confusion of Jesus in the tomb, and questions and doubts swarmed in my mind. Even a temptation to feel a bit hypocritical about such a sermon if I could within an hour of preaching entertain doubts about the veracity of it all. The life given cross, really?!! It is hard to see when you face it squarely, and yet in facing it squarely one also finds hope, one encounters Christ in way that really doesn't allow for "Buddy Jesus", really Jesus who died on the cross is your buddy, he died so you could have a supernatural buddy!? No sitting for an hour at the foot of the cross contemplating the crucifixion kind of makes abundantly clear the caricature of faith that conception of Christian faith really is. so much else evaporates or crumbles as well, Jesus as a good teacher, or revolutionary leader of non-violence resistance. It is also hard or at least I found it hard last night to be terribly confident about any singular intperpretation of Jesus' death on the cross. The possible meanings all of which all seem insuficient swarm in my head and I found myself loosing all sense of time, what should have been 15 minutes in the grocery store turned into close to 40 minutes. I have no idea why, i must have just sort of wandered slowly about the store. It was odd, when I realized how long I had spent in the store.
My sermon challenged me, and began to give me some theological language for all this. Which has been my sermons in the last month or so. I am finding that for the first time in the preaching I am actually preaching to myself as much as to the congregation. I am learning about the faith in the preaching and not just the preparation. This feels a little odd because it almost feels like I am not the one preaching. Perhaps this is what inspiration feels like, I don't know. I know it is me preaching, It is my voice my thoughts, and yet somehow there is more than what I thought was there, and I find that what I say almost comes as a surprise to me, and shakes me up a little after having said it. I feel quite uneasy about the sermon both the text posted on this blog and what I spoke last night. I am not comfortable with this. I feel slightly condemned and definitely challenged by my own words. Fear and trembling indeed. If yo see me you may not know it but I am deeply shaken by what I preached last night, and don't know I am up to my own words. Lord have mercy.
In my sermon I attempted to address why we are doing this, and why we do this year after year. The why of the what we do in worship and the why of elements of Christian faith have been at the forefront of my mind lately and I think of much of my preaching. In part the make up of Reconciler brings this up because most of the congregation comes from traditions that put more emphasis on spontaneous, music and word based forms of liturgy as opposed to the more structured less spontaneous and explicitly theological liturgy. So, helping them understand the why of the form of liturgy that is completely foreign to them is key. But also, I think looking into the Goth Eucharist and its different iterations has got me thinking along these lines as well. So, my sermon sought to address the question of why do what we were doing in this worship service and why the crucifixion is central to our faith. You can let me know if you think I was successful, in offering a why.
I was a little afraid being so insistent that Jesus' crucifixion gave the context for all his teaching and as the key to the incarnation and the revelation of God's love, would not necessarily be well received. In the least it did strike a chord for many there several who sought me out after the service to thank me for the sermon, saying that they needed to hear what I had said. No one came up and said they objected to my sermon but that rarely happens anyway, so someone may have objected to my emphasis but many found it helpful and made a point to let me know.
The sermon affected me deeply. I found myself questioning a little if I even believed what I was saying. I needed to go pick up some groceries and on the way to the store, everything seemed very distinct and sharp, in a kind of icy static way. I could feel the confusion of Jesus in the tomb, and questions and doubts swarmed in my mind. Even a temptation to feel a bit hypocritical about such a sermon if I could within an hour of preaching entertain doubts about the veracity of it all. The life given cross, really?!! It is hard to see when you face it squarely, and yet in facing it squarely one also finds hope, one encounters Christ in way that really doesn't allow for "Buddy Jesus", really Jesus who died on the cross is your buddy, he died so you could have a supernatural buddy!? No sitting for an hour at the foot of the cross contemplating the crucifixion kind of makes abundantly clear the caricature of faith that conception of Christian faith really is. so much else evaporates or crumbles as well, Jesus as a good teacher, or revolutionary leader of non-violence resistance. It is also hard or at least I found it hard last night to be terribly confident about any singular intperpretation of Jesus' death on the cross. The possible meanings all of which all seem insuficient swarm in my head and I found myself loosing all sense of time, what should have been 15 minutes in the grocery store turned into close to 40 minutes. I have no idea why, i must have just sort of wandered slowly about the store. It was odd, when I realized how long I had spent in the store.
My sermon challenged me, and began to give me some theological language for all this. Which has been my sermons in the last month or so. I am finding that for the first time in the preaching I am actually preaching to myself as much as to the congregation. I am learning about the faith in the preaching and not just the preparation. This feels a little odd because it almost feels like I am not the one preaching. Perhaps this is what inspiration feels like, I don't know. I know it is me preaching, It is my voice my thoughts, and yet somehow there is more than what I thought was there, and I find that what I say almost comes as a surprise to me, and shakes me up a little after having said it. I feel quite uneasy about the sermon both the text posted on this blog and what I spoke last night. I am not comfortable with this. I feel slightly condemned and definitely challenged by my own words. Fear and trembling indeed. If yo see me you may not know it but I am deeply shaken by what I preached last night, and don't know I am up to my own words. Lord have mercy.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Good Friday Sermon
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
Psalm 22
Heb. 10:16-25
John 18:1-19:42
A World Shaken: Sun Dark, Moon Turned to Blood
Why are we here? Why do we do this year after year? Why are you here tonight? I ask because what these three days celebrate and remember may be the most difficult thing to take in and truly accept. We can make sense of a great deal of Jesus' teaching: Love your neighbor as yourself, Love your enemy perhaps a bit more difficult, but perhaps understandable if one is seeking peace and justice. It may also be difficult to forgive but we can see the importance. Medical science of our day is recognizing the importance for our health of such things as forgiveness, of prayer and meditation. This may make it seem obvious to see that there is life in Jesus' teaching. But what we face and celebrate tonight, the cross, the crucifixion, Jesus suffering torture and a painful death as the center of our faith, and the source of the very life of the entire world, is incredible. Do we believe it? Do we truly believe that this was no accident, no mistake but the very center of Jesus' life and teaching, the very reason Jesus came. The cross makes Jesus' teaching and the incarnation a very difficult thing to make into a generalized principle of life, and Christian faith into a nice thing you do for good health. Here at the cross on Good Friday we may very well want to flee, like the disciples did, or deny that this has much importance. We may feel " Lets get on to new life and resurrection." And yet if we do this then the resurrection becomes a principle or an ideal. Yet without the cross and crucifixion of Jesus talk of the resurrection is just a wish and fantasy. Just as the cross is a tragedy, and Jesus a tragic failed figure, at best a legendary teacher, without the actual Resurrection.
I call us to remember that we are here that we take this time to celebrate the liturgy of the three days because the cross and crucifixion makes everything possible and makes all things new! Here at the cross all divisions cease, all animosity dies, all sin is forgiven, all oppression and injustice judged and reversed. Here all things are restored, all is made righteous. Here at the cross is the solution to all human struggle, to all animosity and hatred. Here God proclaims God's justice, and shows how it is other than our human conceptions of justice and righteousness. The prophet tells us that the suffering servant we now understand to be Jesus underwent the sufferings for others and for the sin and unrighteousness of others. the author of Hebrews reminds us that what this effects for us is the ability to enter the presence and rule of God, to boldly live again in God's presence! Because of Jesus' death on the cross it is possible for us to live with God as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
Yet there is something more: here at the Cross we see into the mind of Christ. We find that what we hope for does not come from a position of worldly power but worldly weakness. We discover that justice is ultimately a mater of relationship and unity. Thus injustice and unrighteousness show the lack of these things, or the attempt to enforce them through coercion. At the foot of the cross we see that God prefers free loving relationship rather than coerced obedience. In Christ we find that Love, the only love that deserves such a name, is the willingness to lay down everything to restore relationship and communion. To accomplish restored communion Love will not coerce but for the other suffers the consequences of the break down in communion; even allowing the continued the rejection by the other, in order to bring about a return and restoration of communion and Love.
At the cross our world is shaken, and turned around and upside down. What happened on Good Friday is too large to take in all at once, there is no principle to derive from it. Good Friday must be entered into and experienced, it must be received. It is difficult to take in this Love that requires everything, even ones life freely given without reserve or hesitation. Can we ever fully enter into such a reality? Only one has fully entered and lived in this love, Christ the crucified one. We are at best poor imitators of this love. So we come and worship at the cross of Christ so that we may be formed by this mind that was in Christ Jesus. We come here year after year again and again because what we encounter here at the cross is greater than we are, greater than our imagination, greater than our knowledge, greater than our ideals and hopes. So we honor the Cross by which God in Christ transforms us and the whole world through the power of God which is weakness in the eyes that see only with human vision and confounds the minds that only know human wisdom. We honor what we recognize is our only hope for the coming of true justice into the world and its transformation in patient love. So come and worship the crucified one and adore the life giving Cross, which has revealed the confounding world shaking Love of God.Amen.
Psalm 22
Heb. 10:16-25
John 18:1-19:42
A World Shaken: Sun Dark, Moon Turned to Blood
Why are we here? Why do we do this year after year? Why are you here tonight? I ask because what these three days celebrate and remember may be the most difficult thing to take in and truly accept. We can make sense of a great deal of Jesus' teaching: Love your neighbor as yourself, Love your enemy perhaps a bit more difficult, but perhaps understandable if one is seeking peace and justice. It may also be difficult to forgive but we can see the importance. Medical science of our day is recognizing the importance for our health of such things as forgiveness, of prayer and meditation. This may make it seem obvious to see that there is life in Jesus' teaching. But what we face and celebrate tonight, the cross, the crucifixion, Jesus suffering torture and a painful death as the center of our faith, and the source of the very life of the entire world, is incredible. Do we believe it? Do we truly believe that this was no accident, no mistake but the very center of Jesus' life and teaching, the very reason Jesus came. The cross makes Jesus' teaching and the incarnation a very difficult thing to make into a generalized principle of life, and Christian faith into a nice thing you do for good health. Here at the cross on Good Friday we may very well want to flee, like the disciples did, or deny that this has much importance. We may feel " Lets get on to new life and resurrection." And yet if we do this then the resurrection becomes a principle or an ideal. Yet without the cross and crucifixion of Jesus talk of the resurrection is just a wish and fantasy. Just as the cross is a tragedy, and Jesus a tragic failed figure, at best a legendary teacher, without the actual Resurrection.
I call us to remember that we are here that we take this time to celebrate the liturgy of the three days because the cross and crucifixion makes everything possible and makes all things new! Here at the cross all divisions cease, all animosity dies, all sin is forgiven, all oppression and injustice judged and reversed. Here all things are restored, all is made righteous. Here at the cross is the solution to all human struggle, to all animosity and hatred. Here God proclaims God's justice, and shows how it is other than our human conceptions of justice and righteousness. The prophet tells us that the suffering servant we now understand to be Jesus underwent the sufferings for others and for the sin and unrighteousness of others. the author of Hebrews reminds us that what this effects for us is the ability to enter the presence and rule of God, to boldly live again in God's presence! Because of Jesus' death on the cross it is possible for us to live with God as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
Yet there is something more: here at the Cross we see into the mind of Christ. We find that what we hope for does not come from a position of worldly power but worldly weakness. We discover that justice is ultimately a mater of relationship and unity. Thus injustice and unrighteousness show the lack of these things, or the attempt to enforce them through coercion. At the foot of the cross we see that God prefers free loving relationship rather than coerced obedience. In Christ we find that Love, the only love that deserves such a name, is the willingness to lay down everything to restore relationship and communion. To accomplish restored communion Love will not coerce but for the other suffers the consequences of the break down in communion; even allowing the continued the rejection by the other, in order to bring about a return and restoration of communion and Love.
At the cross our world is shaken, and turned around and upside down. What happened on Good Friday is too large to take in all at once, there is no principle to derive from it. Good Friday must be entered into and experienced, it must be received. It is difficult to take in this Love that requires everything, even ones life freely given without reserve or hesitation. Can we ever fully enter into such a reality? Only one has fully entered and lived in this love, Christ the crucified one. We are at best poor imitators of this love. So we come and worship at the cross of Christ so that we may be formed by this mind that was in Christ Jesus. We come here year after year again and again because what we encounter here at the cross is greater than we are, greater than our imagination, greater than our knowledge, greater than our ideals and hopes. So we honor the Cross by which God in Christ transforms us and the whole world through the power of God which is weakness in the eyes that see only with human vision and confounds the minds that only know human wisdom. We honor what we recognize is our only hope for the coming of true justice into the world and its transformation in patient love. So come and worship the crucified one and adore the life giving Cross, which has revealed the confounding world shaking Love of God.Amen.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Preaching on Good Friday: Priestly Goth Preaching Chronicles X
I looked over this and have revised it slightly and added another paragraph 4/8/2009 10:50 pm. LEK
I am preaching on Good Friday and in the service there is both the chanting of the passion Gospel in John and the adoration of the cross. Reconciler's first Holy Week and Easter we had a Maundy Thursday service but I don't think we had a Good Friday service. At the time we were very small and we were also doing an Easter Vigil - late at night in the entire space of Chase Cafe (it was a lot of fun)- so I have never preached on Good Friday. Our first Holy Week and Easter with Immanuel we mostly showed up as a congregation for the services and subsequent two years I preached on Maundy Thursday. I will admit that I feel a little intimidated at preaching at that service. This is not because I will be preaching on Good Friday, but preaching in a service with such powerful liturgy, which has both the chanting of the Gospel and the adoration of the cross in one service. My preaching at first felt a little superfluous (There is also the knowledge that before we joined in the services it was Immanuel's practice to only have one sermon for the entire Great Three Days, so the preach preached on Maundy Thursday and there wasn't another sermon until Sunday. Sermons were added for Friday and Saturday to attempt to give liturgical leadership to Reconciler as well as Immanuel and St Elias). I am still struggling with what to say and how to say it given the rest of the liturgy.
I currently have two places to begin a meditation on Good Friday and the crucifixion. The first one is from my meditation this past Sunday, in which I talked about these events that we mark this week as being not only the center of our faith but the demonstrate for us the full extent of what the mind of Christ is and means. The mind of Christ ultimately means not only willingness to die but the conviction that although undesirable in many ways was the way to transform the world. The second comes from a comment Kate made this morning about it being difficult to both lay one's life down and stand up for what is just or against ones own oppression or an against injustice. Which has me wondering why this is? In part because as I see it in part based on Winks and Horsley's interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount etc., this laying down of life as a means to stand for justice. Though I must admit that I don't think I have thought this through thoroughly.
This is the beginning of my thinking this through more in depth. I will take the two examples I remember from Wink and Horsley: Walking the extra mile and turning the other cheek. For walking the extra mile, the argument is that this has to do with carrying the packs of Roman soldiers. According to Roman law a soldier could force a peasant (or anyone who was not a Roman citizen) to carry his pack for one mile but not more than a mile (if my memory serves me correctly a Roman soldier could be punished for having a peasant carry his pack further than a mile). Carrying the soldiers pack for two miles was both a laying one's life down (so as to take it up again) by submitting to the system but also forcing those in the system to face what they were doing, through embarrassing the soldier or getting him in trouble by a willingness to continue to carry his pack. Similarly, in turning the cheek the argument is that what is envisioned is that a master or wealthy/powerful person has back handed an inferior on the left cheek of the face with the dominant hand, the right. By turning the other cheek one is offering that the master or whoever hit you to treat you like an equal and hit you with the fist. What I am now thinking is that while these actions may have certain poignant message and may have even given Jesus' original hearers some moments of hilarity as they may have imagined a soldier begging a peasant to put down his pack and the follower of Jesus simply walking on as if oblivious to what he or she was doing, or imagining a servant offering the right cheek with the master flustering and stomping off. However, neither of these actually prevent violence from being meted out to the one following Jesus' recommendations, nor would it even necessarily change the oppressive situation. (I doubt very seriously that people insisting that they carry a soldiers pack for two miles instead of two would have brought down the Roman Empire, and end to its repressive and oppressive systems.) A master may very well take one up on the offer of the right cheek and deck you and all you would have for that is a broken nose or jaw. A soldier may very well beat you up for carrying his pack further than necessary and leave you maimed by the side of the road. My point is that if Jesus was suggesting or supporting some form of resistance movement and these are examples of the strategies of said movement then these are very poor examples of a successful resistance even of effective non-violent resistance. It seems thought that these teachings of Jesus are forcing the violence inherent in the other to come out even more (which could led to repentance but such is not guaranteed). What I am wondering is if Jesus' entire ministry, teaching, and suffering and death upon a cross actually doesn't fit with our current idea of justice as standing up for ones rights. Not that I would council in some generalized way for us to give up on this idea. Though we may have to admit that it is not a Christian idea or ideal.
Yet, this discrepancy between Jesus' teaching and actions and what we may hold as a means for achieving justice or conceiving justice, should not surprise us as Christians, if we agree that God's ways and thoughts are not our way and thoughts. The way of Jesus and the cross remain a difficult thing to swallow, the idea that justice comes to our world not by standing up but by passing through, by forcing the ways of the world to their logical and violent conclusions and suffering the consequences of that, seems insane. "Foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews..." says St Paul the Apostle. To resist by continuing to undergo a disgrace or injustice or oppression goes against every revolutionary idea, which calls to stand up, hold ones head high, resist, show the oppressor that he (lets go with the patriarchal narrative for a moment) doesn't hold all the power this is the means to effect justice and change in the world. And they may be right, but God in Jesus Christ was about something else or more than limited justice and change in the world, or the simple rectifying of oppressive situations: namely the complete and total passing away of the ways of the world and the transformation of the world into a new age. This passage we are told is the way of the cross, the change we seek in more just governments, the end of exploitation, freedom and a living wage, life that is more than survival, can come from nothing short of complete transformation that requires the repentance of all, through all coming to the cross. It is as odd for the Cross to be the banner of movements and resistance as it was and is for it to be the banner of armies.
The cross is the fullest way to justice but it claims that justice means letting go of the world and its expectations, and taking on the way of a God who did not speak out in defense and thus stands in judgment of all governments and human claims to justice. One cannot take up this way as some abstract principle, or as some ideal for the world as it should be. When this happens the cross itself becomes a means to manipulate and oppress by letting the powerful tell the poor and oppressed and abused that God does not want them to stand up and be accepted as equals and full humans. This is a great distortion of the way of the cross for it is not the way of the powerful, and it makes a mockery of the cross. However, it can be the way for all privileged, or powerless, powerful or oppressed, wealthy or poor, when they encounter Christ and from their places in society lay themselves down not because some one tells them but because they have heard the call of God in Christ, to take up their cross, believing that in laying down their life it is god who will take it up again and give them back their true selves, and in so doing will reveal the depth and breadth of the injustice of the world and its ways even in movements of resistance and community organizing. It proclaims that in truth only God is just and able to transform our world, and God chooses to do so by entering the suffering of the world and seeking to transform the world through example rather than power as force coercion and persuasion.
Hmm maybe i have a sermon after all.
Yet, I am well aware that I write this from a certain amount of privilege. So, I do not want this to be heard as asserting a particular interpretation of the cross for others, for the oppressed, the week or those without privilege I have. But I think it would be appropriate for my words to be an encouragement to see Jesus the cross and Jesus' teaching as something more than principles for successfully achieving justice in terms of current systems of government or as an ideology for resistance or even a movement of non-violent resistance. If eel there is a letting go a sacrifice if you will that Jesus' teaching, life and death call everyone to regardless of ones station or if one is or is not oppressed or victim of injustice. Yet this sacrifice can not and life of self-denial cannot be demanded of others by anyone with privilege or power. Though really it is not something that can be dictated by others, but comes through encountering the God who underwent crucifixion. The crucified one, not we humans of each other, and his teachings stand in judgment of us all and we must ask if we wish to follow the crucified one do we have the Mind of Christ, have we followed his way. On Good Friday we should be commiting ourselves once again to the way of the cross. This means different things in the living out and working it out depending on ones life circumstance. Jesus certainly never asked someone poor to sell all they had, but he did ask equally radical commitment to following himself no matter who one was poor or rich, oppressor or oppressed. I also could see how what I am attempting to get at might be seen as contradicting claims of "preferential option for the poor", yet I think what I am getting at is how God has "preferential option for the poor"- and it is not how we would carry out such a preferential option, and on some level it may not look like a good deal, to have God have such a preferential option for you if you are poor. It jsut seems to me that if we take the whole of the Gospels and follow their logic and let the passion actually be the emphasis they are for the Gospels then this is kind of disturbing and perhaps leaves more questions than answers. This may be a good thing perhaps especially for the oppressed and the poor. But I don't know, this all is hard to face squarely and face on. I want to find some wiggle room some very human hope, some ideology, some abstraction, and this Jesus the crucified one refuses to become a principle, and makes me sit at the foot of the cross and face his suffering as the way of God bringing about true justice and transformation to the world. It jut doesn't make sense, and yet I am convinced that the world is meaningless without this crucified God.
I am preaching on Good Friday and in the service there is both the chanting of the passion Gospel in John and the adoration of the cross. Reconciler's first Holy Week and Easter we had a Maundy Thursday service but I don't think we had a Good Friday service. At the time we were very small and we were also doing an Easter Vigil - late at night in the entire space of Chase Cafe (it was a lot of fun)- so I have never preached on Good Friday. Our first Holy Week and Easter with Immanuel we mostly showed up as a congregation for the services and subsequent two years I preached on Maundy Thursday. I will admit that I feel a little intimidated at preaching at that service. This is not because I will be preaching on Good Friday, but preaching in a service with such powerful liturgy, which has both the chanting of the Gospel and the adoration of the cross in one service. My preaching at first felt a little superfluous (There is also the knowledge that before we joined in the services it was Immanuel's practice to only have one sermon for the entire Great Three Days, so the preach preached on Maundy Thursday and there wasn't another sermon until Sunday. Sermons were added for Friday and Saturday to attempt to give liturgical leadership to Reconciler as well as Immanuel and St Elias). I am still struggling with what to say and how to say it given the rest of the liturgy.
I currently have two places to begin a meditation on Good Friday and the crucifixion. The first one is from my meditation this past Sunday, in which I talked about these events that we mark this week as being not only the center of our faith but the demonstrate for us the full extent of what the mind of Christ is and means. The mind of Christ ultimately means not only willingness to die but the conviction that although undesirable in many ways was the way to transform the world. The second comes from a comment Kate made this morning about it being difficult to both lay one's life down and stand up for what is just or against ones own oppression or an against injustice. Which has me wondering why this is? In part because as I see it in part based on Winks and Horsley's interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount etc., this laying down of life as a means to stand for justice. Though I must admit that I don't think I have thought this through thoroughly.
This is the beginning of my thinking this through more in depth. I will take the two examples I remember from Wink and Horsley: Walking the extra mile and turning the other cheek. For walking the extra mile, the argument is that this has to do with carrying the packs of Roman soldiers. According to Roman law a soldier could force a peasant (or anyone who was not a Roman citizen) to carry his pack for one mile but not more than a mile (if my memory serves me correctly a Roman soldier could be punished for having a peasant carry his pack further than a mile). Carrying the soldiers pack for two miles was both a laying one's life down (so as to take it up again) by submitting to the system but also forcing those in the system to face what they were doing, through embarrassing the soldier or getting him in trouble by a willingness to continue to carry his pack. Similarly, in turning the cheek the argument is that what is envisioned is that a master or wealthy/powerful person has back handed an inferior on the left cheek of the face with the dominant hand, the right. By turning the other cheek one is offering that the master or whoever hit you to treat you like an equal and hit you with the fist. What I am now thinking is that while these actions may have certain poignant message and may have even given Jesus' original hearers some moments of hilarity as they may have imagined a soldier begging a peasant to put down his pack and the follower of Jesus simply walking on as if oblivious to what he or she was doing, or imagining a servant offering the right cheek with the master flustering and stomping off. However, neither of these actually prevent violence from being meted out to the one following Jesus' recommendations, nor would it even necessarily change the oppressive situation. (I doubt very seriously that people insisting that they carry a soldiers pack for two miles instead of two would have brought down the Roman Empire, and end to its repressive and oppressive systems.) A master may very well take one up on the offer of the right cheek and deck you and all you would have for that is a broken nose or jaw. A soldier may very well beat you up for carrying his pack further than necessary and leave you maimed by the side of the road. My point is that if Jesus was suggesting or supporting some form of resistance movement and these are examples of the strategies of said movement then these are very poor examples of a successful resistance even of effective non-violent resistance. It seems thought that these teachings of Jesus are forcing the violence inherent in the other to come out even more (which could led to repentance but such is not guaranteed). What I am wondering is if Jesus' entire ministry, teaching, and suffering and death upon a cross actually doesn't fit with our current idea of justice as standing up for ones rights. Not that I would council in some generalized way for us to give up on this idea. Though we may have to admit that it is not a Christian idea or ideal.
Yet, this discrepancy between Jesus' teaching and actions and what we may hold as a means for achieving justice or conceiving justice, should not surprise us as Christians, if we agree that God's ways and thoughts are not our way and thoughts. The way of Jesus and the cross remain a difficult thing to swallow, the idea that justice comes to our world not by standing up but by passing through, by forcing the ways of the world to their logical and violent conclusions and suffering the consequences of that, seems insane. "Foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews..." says St Paul the Apostle. To resist by continuing to undergo a disgrace or injustice or oppression goes against every revolutionary idea, which calls to stand up, hold ones head high, resist, show the oppressor that he (lets go with the patriarchal narrative for a moment) doesn't hold all the power this is the means to effect justice and change in the world. And they may be right, but God in Jesus Christ was about something else or more than limited justice and change in the world, or the simple rectifying of oppressive situations: namely the complete and total passing away of the ways of the world and the transformation of the world into a new age. This passage we are told is the way of the cross, the change we seek in more just governments, the end of exploitation, freedom and a living wage, life that is more than survival, can come from nothing short of complete transformation that requires the repentance of all, through all coming to the cross. It is as odd for the Cross to be the banner of movements and resistance as it was and is for it to be the banner of armies.
The cross is the fullest way to justice but it claims that justice means letting go of the world and its expectations, and taking on the way of a God who did not speak out in defense and thus stands in judgment of all governments and human claims to justice. One cannot take up this way as some abstract principle, or as some ideal for the world as it should be. When this happens the cross itself becomes a means to manipulate and oppress by letting the powerful tell the poor and oppressed and abused that God does not want them to stand up and be accepted as equals and full humans. This is a great distortion of the way of the cross for it is not the way of the powerful, and it makes a mockery of the cross. However, it can be the way for all privileged, or powerless, powerful or oppressed, wealthy or poor, when they encounter Christ and from their places in society lay themselves down not because some one tells them but because they have heard the call of God in Christ, to take up their cross, believing that in laying down their life it is god who will take it up again and give them back their true selves, and in so doing will reveal the depth and breadth of the injustice of the world and its ways even in movements of resistance and community organizing. It proclaims that in truth only God is just and able to transform our world, and God chooses to do so by entering the suffering of the world and seeking to transform the world through example rather than power as force coercion and persuasion.
Hmm maybe i have a sermon after all.
Yet, I am well aware that I write this from a certain amount of privilege. So, I do not want this to be heard as asserting a particular interpretation of the cross for others, for the oppressed, the week or those without privilege I have. But I think it would be appropriate for my words to be an encouragement to see Jesus the cross and Jesus' teaching as something more than principles for successfully achieving justice in terms of current systems of government or as an ideology for resistance or even a movement of non-violent resistance. If eel there is a letting go a sacrifice if you will that Jesus' teaching, life and death call everyone to regardless of ones station or if one is or is not oppressed or victim of injustice. Yet this sacrifice can not and life of self-denial cannot be demanded of others by anyone with privilege or power. Though really it is not something that can be dictated by others, but comes through encountering the God who underwent crucifixion. The crucified one, not we humans of each other, and his teachings stand in judgment of us all and we must ask if we wish to follow the crucified one do we have the Mind of Christ, have we followed his way. On Good Friday we should be commiting ourselves once again to the way of the cross. This means different things in the living out and working it out depending on ones life circumstance. Jesus certainly never asked someone poor to sell all they had, but he did ask equally radical commitment to following himself no matter who one was poor or rich, oppressor or oppressed. I also could see how what I am attempting to get at might be seen as contradicting claims of "preferential option for the poor", yet I think what I am getting at is how God has "preferential option for the poor"- and it is not how we would carry out such a preferential option, and on some level it may not look like a good deal, to have God have such a preferential option for you if you are poor. It jsut seems to me that if we take the whole of the Gospels and follow their logic and let the passion actually be the emphasis they are for the Gospels then this is kind of disturbing and perhaps leaves more questions than answers. This may be a good thing perhaps especially for the oppressed and the poor. But I don't know, this all is hard to face squarely and face on. I want to find some wiggle room some very human hope, some ideology, some abstraction, and this Jesus the crucified one refuses to become a principle, and makes me sit at the foot of the cross and face his suffering as the way of God bringing about true justice and transformation to the world. It jut doesn't make sense, and yet I am convinced that the world is meaningless without this crucified God.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Walter Wink through the eyes of Shane Claiborne
Tonight Reconciler had its last Lenten Gathering at Mars Hill Tattoo in Rogers Park. One of the guys who works at the shop, has come around to Reconciler but also has another church he attends,( I think probably a more evangelical church) as we were wrapping up he asked Kate and I if we had heard of the book Jesus for President, we had though neither of us had read it. I am familiar with one of the authors Shane Clairborne, who is part of the New Monasticism movement and the Emergent Church conversation. I was also, somewhat familiar with the campaign that went along with the book during the lead up the election last year. Shane Claiborne irritates me a little though so I didn't pay a whole lot of attention. The irritation is partly out of sense that what much New Monasticism and Emergent stuff is doing at times feels to me like reinventing the wheel. I am more interested in catholicity than being evangelical, largely because I think that what evangelicals are seeking is in fact found in catholic and orthodox historic faith.
However, as the guy showed us the book, as we read through it we discovered that it was a distillation and putting in evangelical language the work of theologians and preachers we have long been familiar with and thus a theology that I have been living with for nearly 20 years. The main thinkers the book has interpreted for evangelicals, are Walter Wink, Tony Campolo, Brian Walsh, and Richard Horsley, among others. So it was a little odd to hear this guy start telling Kate and I summaries of Walter Winks, or Richard Horsleys ideas that were totally new to him and had completely turned his understanding of Christianity and Jesus on its head, and opened a new world to him. Odd because I forget that I encountered all of this in the academy, in Religious Studies courses and seminary courses. And so I found myself having to bite my tongue a bit, because I didn't want to squelch his sense of discovery and yet also wanted to affirm that I knew about this, but without giving a sense that this is old hat.
This is the relativity of the "new": for this guy Jesus for President was a new discovery and he could not quite grasp that Kate and I were very much familiar with the ideas and already mostly held them ourselves, and in my case have held to them most of my adult life. Now I also remember these things being new and radical, as I and the members of the Society in LA when we were all in college in the late 80' early 90's sat around and read an article by Walter Wink and discussed it, I think probably during the first Gulf War, under the first Bush administration. And about the same time reading Winks books on the Powers. I Read Horsley in Seminary in the mid 90's, and grew up on the thundering of Tony Campolo, at various conferences and at a college camp I attended every year during college. It was very much a liberating message for me then, and still remains one for me, though tempered by a certain catholic perspective. It seems to still be a liberating message, which is good. Though given that it is put in evangelical language it is a little odd because part of that liberation for me was freeing me from needing to be evangelical and needing to have evangelical faith language, which always fit poorly my own spirituality. So this was the other weird part to encounter these ideas couched in primarily evangelical language and definitely directed towards evangelicals, which was what I think made it make sense to this guy.
It made sense to me when I first encountered these ideas for similar reasons as our friend who was showing us the book, for these ideas present a call to a radical commitment to Jesus Christ and to the way Jesus calls us away from allegiances to the powers, because the powers ultimately answer to Jesus Christ. This itself is not necessarily new for this sort of affirmation in part was what the affirmation "Jesus is Lord" and thus not Caesar meant. This meant the Christians could not partake in the emperor cult which was one key element to the assertion of Roman sovereignty in the empire. and why it meant for Christians an inability to take part in the emperor cult. This position then was also very quickly in my mind connected to the christus victor understanding of redemption, that in the Crucifixion and resurrection that God in Christ was victorious over death and all powers of this world. What Shane Claiborne seems to have been able to do is make all of this make sense in the more individualistic each of us redeemed by the blood of Jesus ideas which is interesting since such a view is not my primary way of interpreting Jesus death and resurrection, not that I think such an interpretation is invalid just that I don't put the theological emphasis there. It is interesting to see where such ideas I encountered in college have ended up in 15 to 20 years.
However, as the guy showed us the book, as we read through it we discovered that it was a distillation and putting in evangelical language the work of theologians and preachers we have long been familiar with and thus a theology that I have been living with for nearly 20 years. The main thinkers the book has interpreted for evangelicals, are Walter Wink, Tony Campolo, Brian Walsh, and Richard Horsley, among others. So it was a little odd to hear this guy start telling Kate and I summaries of Walter Winks, or Richard Horsleys ideas that were totally new to him and had completely turned his understanding of Christianity and Jesus on its head, and opened a new world to him. Odd because I forget that I encountered all of this in the academy, in Religious Studies courses and seminary courses. And so I found myself having to bite my tongue a bit, because I didn't want to squelch his sense of discovery and yet also wanted to affirm that I knew about this, but without giving a sense that this is old hat.
This is the relativity of the "new": for this guy Jesus for President was a new discovery and he could not quite grasp that Kate and I were very much familiar with the ideas and already mostly held them ourselves, and in my case have held to them most of my adult life. Now I also remember these things being new and radical, as I and the members of the Society in LA when we were all in college in the late 80' early 90's sat around and read an article by Walter Wink and discussed it, I think probably during the first Gulf War, under the first Bush administration. And about the same time reading Winks books on the Powers. I Read Horsley in Seminary in the mid 90's, and grew up on the thundering of Tony Campolo, at various conferences and at a college camp I attended every year during college. It was very much a liberating message for me then, and still remains one for me, though tempered by a certain catholic perspective. It seems to still be a liberating message, which is good. Though given that it is put in evangelical language it is a little odd because part of that liberation for me was freeing me from needing to be evangelical and needing to have evangelical faith language, which always fit poorly my own spirituality. So this was the other weird part to encounter these ideas couched in primarily evangelical language and definitely directed towards evangelicals, which was what I think made it make sense to this guy.
It made sense to me when I first encountered these ideas for similar reasons as our friend who was showing us the book, for these ideas present a call to a radical commitment to Jesus Christ and to the way Jesus calls us away from allegiances to the powers, because the powers ultimately answer to Jesus Christ. This itself is not necessarily new for this sort of affirmation in part was what the affirmation "Jesus is Lord" and thus not Caesar meant. This meant the Christians could not partake in the emperor cult which was one key element to the assertion of Roman sovereignty in the empire. and why it meant for Christians an inability to take part in the emperor cult. This position then was also very quickly in my mind connected to the christus victor understanding of redemption, that in the Crucifixion and resurrection that God in Christ was victorious over death and all powers of this world. What Shane Claiborne seems to have been able to do is make all of this make sense in the more individualistic each of us redeemed by the blood of Jesus ideas which is interesting since such a view is not my primary way of interpreting Jesus death and resurrection, not that I think such an interpretation is invalid just that I don't put the theological emphasis there. It is interesting to see where such ideas I encountered in college have ended up in 15 to 20 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)