I am excited to hear that at my undergrad, Multnomah Bible College, Dr. John Perkins is giving lectures. Coming to Union last semester was dramatically different to say the least (though it was something I was looking for) and in that difference I found myself reading and listening to critiques, some solid and others flimsy. Here following is part two of three responsorial writings to three books I read for Social Ethics as Social Criticism dealing with race, as I presume some of Multnomah is going through too.
Part 2 – Disruptive Christian Ethics: When Racism and Women’s Lives Matter, by Traci C. West (Louisville: Westminster Press, 2006).
I was particularly interested with the chapter on liturgy. Having read Theopolitical Imagination (I am sorry if I am beginning to sound like a broken record), I was looking in West’s chapter on liturgy specifically for a treatment on the Eucharist. Cavanaugh, in my opinion, writes wonderfully about the death of Rutilio Grande and the response of Archbishop Oscar Romero – a single mass (121-122). The Eucharist broke through economic barriers bringing together rich and poor. And so reading Disruptive Christian Ethics, I was excited to see that liturgy was included. I would have liked to have seen more from West on baptism and communion, but even with the limited treatment, I feel like she brought an important component of race to my thought, which I will tease out here.
Liturgy accomplishes multiple functions: personal reflection, a visible representation of the body of Christ, unity, and “recogniz[ing] and contest[ing] repressive cultural norms like white superiority” to name a few (112). For instance, the Eucharist: prompts personal reflection on the person and work of Jesus Christ; visibly depicts the body of Christ in both time and space before one’s eyes; brings to light the unity in the body of Christ (both visible and universal); and thus, in theory, portrays each Christian as a human being of equal worth and equal acceptance.
However, white dominance (117), or white isolation, breaks the tangible image of the body of Christ existing in the world. The universal body of Christ is made up of all types of people, of all skin colors, and for a local church to be racially dominated by whiteness creates a Eucharist that is fundamentally myopic and thus a poor misrepresentation of the Eucharist. The body and blood no longer visibly shows the breadth of the church, nor does it portray each Christian as equally accepted. The representation of only whiteness can only lead to personal reflection (a personal reflection that is probably inherently white too), unless the Christian is confronted by a church that looks like him/herself.
The specific liturgical form of the Eucharist in my church in Portland, Oregon is different from the norm and I think one of the most powerful ways I have ever encountered the church and subsequently the Eucharist. The way in which they give the elements is helpful in retaining a sense of equality and importance – they share it together, literally. Instead of getting in a line to individually receive the bread and drink, they circle around the drink (the bread has already been dispensed), pick up the cup, take it to another person, let them drink, and then give words of encouragement or solidarity. They do this over and over again, making sure no one is left out and that we each gave to those whom we individually sought to affirm. Across racial lines (and there are multiple racial lines), this congregation personally ministers to itself, and in my mind, truly fulfilling the function of the Eucharist ritual.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Church and Race Part 1: Inclusion
I am excited to hear that at my undergrad, Multnomah Bible College, Dr. John Perkins is giving lectures. Coming to Union last semester was dramatically different to say the least (though it was something I was looking for) and in that difference I found myself reading and listening to critiques, some solid and others flimsy. Here following is part one of three responsorial writings to three books I read for Social Ethics as Social Criticism dealing with race, as I presume some of Multnomah is going through too.
Part 1 – Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998, by James H. Cone (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).
James Cone’s book Risks of Faith, I have to admit, was convicting. I come from the evangelical tradition and a fundamentalist home. While I left the literalist roots, the evangelical doctrine continues to hold some sway. During my time in undergrad, under the influence of authors and friends, I came to hold a quasi-Mennonite stance. Also Kingdom theology, championed by Moltmann, Pannenberg and others, has largely shaped me, and fits well (in my mind) within the Anabaptist tradition. Kingdom theology leads to Kingdom ethics; thus when I think ethics, I think to care for the poor and the widow.
I was so focused on the poor and the widow, I neglected other aspects of theology; I was too simplistic. It felt like Cone specifically talked to me when he addressed hope theology: “white American theologians have been virtually silent on black liberation, preferring instead to do theology in the light of a modern liberalism that assumes that black people want to integrate into the white way of life" (27). I was and am fully aware that the poor are stuck at the bottom in a system of power structures; nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, I saw it as merely economic injustice – not also racial. Kingdom theology can cohere with Liberation theology, and to some degree it had for me, but I lacked the color dimension.
However, the book was far from done with me. As pitiful an excuse as it may sound, I felt that I was not allowed previously into the discussion. Whether it is culture, my up bringing, or whatever, I felt that since I was not black, I had no right to speak. I’ve been silent. Cone, however, has called me out. I felt invited into the discussion of racism, particularly in the chapter “White Theology Revisited.” My theology should reflect the richness of all the Christian traditions. I can and should include black theology right along side Yoder, Grenz, and Hauerwas. If I aim to teach theology at a college somewhere and one of the first classes I want to do will incorporate the non-white, non-male, and non-heterosexual theologies – essentially, liberationists. I especially see the need to do this at the Bible College I went to, not to be the token class that covers recent movements (for they already have one that briefly glosses over black theology and feminism), but to interact with the traditions that the evangelical world has marginalized. I want to balance out the white theology and incorporate the other voices.
I do have a concern though: violence. I first want to preface that I have come to hold some sort of loose pacifism, or better described as, peace ethic. My value of peace and non-violence stems from Kingdom ethics – the Kingdom is here but not here, however, as Christians we should endeavor to spread the Kingdom through Kingdom acts (i.e. non-violence). Also, the Kingdom liberates people and contradicts earthly power structures. Cone allows for violence, but I do not…I think. I understand that the oppressed should not work within the oppressor’s paradigm, yet at the same time, I believe the Kingdom not only liberates, but addresses the world and its evil in entirely different ways than the world acts. For now I disagree with Cone on the tactics of liberation, not because I am white and worried about the status quo, rather because I think the Kingdom ethics include non-violence and liberation together.
Part 1 – Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998, by James H. Cone (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).
James Cone’s book Risks of Faith, I have to admit, was convicting. I come from the evangelical tradition and a fundamentalist home. While I left the literalist roots, the evangelical doctrine continues to hold some sway. During my time in undergrad, under the influence of authors and friends, I came to hold a quasi-Mennonite stance. Also Kingdom theology, championed by Moltmann, Pannenberg and others, has largely shaped me, and fits well (in my mind) within the Anabaptist tradition. Kingdom theology leads to Kingdom ethics; thus when I think ethics, I think to care for the poor and the widow.
I was so focused on the poor and the widow, I neglected other aspects of theology; I was too simplistic. It felt like Cone specifically talked to me when he addressed hope theology: “white American theologians have been virtually silent on black liberation, preferring instead to do theology in the light of a modern liberalism that assumes that black people want to integrate into the white way of life" (27). I was and am fully aware that the poor are stuck at the bottom in a system of power structures; nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, I saw it as merely economic injustice – not also racial. Kingdom theology can cohere with Liberation theology, and to some degree it had for me, but I lacked the color dimension.
However, the book was far from done with me. As pitiful an excuse as it may sound, I felt that I was not allowed previously into the discussion. Whether it is culture, my up bringing, or whatever, I felt that since I was not black, I had no right to speak. I’ve been silent. Cone, however, has called me out. I felt invited into the discussion of racism, particularly in the chapter “White Theology Revisited.” My theology should reflect the richness of all the Christian traditions. I can and should include black theology right along side Yoder, Grenz, and Hauerwas. If I aim to teach theology at a college somewhere and one of the first classes I want to do will incorporate the non-white, non-male, and non-heterosexual theologies – essentially, liberationists. I especially see the need to do this at the Bible College I went to, not to be the token class that covers recent movements (for they already have one that briefly glosses over black theology and feminism), but to interact with the traditions that the evangelical world has marginalized. I want to balance out the white theology and incorporate the other voices.
I do have a concern though: violence. I first want to preface that I have come to hold some sort of loose pacifism, or better described as, peace ethic. My value of peace and non-violence stems from Kingdom ethics – the Kingdom is here but not here, however, as Christians we should endeavor to spread the Kingdom through Kingdom acts (i.e. non-violence). Also, the Kingdom liberates people and contradicts earthly power structures. Cone allows for violence, but I do not…I think. I understand that the oppressed should not work within the oppressor’s paradigm, yet at the same time, I believe the Kingdom not only liberates, but addresses the world and its evil in entirely different ways than the world acts. For now I disagree with Cone on the tactics of liberation, not because I am white and worried about the status quo, rather because I think the Kingdom ethics include non-violence and liberation together.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Moltmann and Metz
Note: I know earlier I said I was done reposting from myspace, but I realized that the theses I put up would probably do a lot better on blogger than on myspace.
I am taking a class from Professor Haight on Jürgen Moltmann and Johann Baptist Metz. And in the class we present weekly papers. The parameters for the paper are rather specific: a short thesis at the beginning, interact with the readings, address one of the themes, answer the question posed by Haight, and prove/display your thesis in 300 words or less. So here reposted are three theses.
Part 1
The question we were to answer was: which theme, out of the many themes (of which secularization was one), do we find the most crucial for today? I went with secularization (which Metz spends a long time talking about), but I also saw the connection between another theme that Metz addresses over and over - Auschwitz.
Thesis: The memory of Auschwitz has been supplanted within the church by the secularized American hope to the detriment of the church.
Our culture, as Metz shows, has become increasingly hominized (The Future of Faith 57). While it seems we may be shifting back towards a more cosmological idea due to scientific discoveries, these breakthroughs have had little effect on some aspects of secularization, namely an ideological, secularized hope – a hope that clings to the idea that humanity will overcome, thrive, and conquer future frontiers. It is the secularized and nationalistic hope provided by Reagan (one of many proponents) that has become a controlling ideology that Metz warned against (The Future of Faith 68). This ideology of hope has taken hold of even the American church by mimicking the eschatological Christian hope and, instead of liberating, the ideology holds the globe within Americana's oppressive custody (Theology in Struggle 55). Thus the American church has ceased remembering the atrocities of Auschwitz for the hope of American promises.
It is no wonder that the church has largely ignored Darfur, for the American church has found its hope in the bright, anthropological destiny preached by Reagan. Consequently the church has held to theologies that remain unchanged and unresponsive in the face of Darfur, much less other civil wars, starvation, and drought. We have in turn lost the "messianic praxis" of "discipleship, conversion, love, and suffering", because we have accepted the secularized notion of a nationalistic hope (Christians and Jews 27). With unchanged theologies and the forgetting of Christian suffering, the church does not act in its prophetic role to the world. The secularization of the church through a form of secular hominization has caused us to lose not only the idea of suffering with and for others, but we have also lost ourselves.
Summary for the net: when the church here rejects the Christological hope of the cross and the future for the nationalistic hope of america (we accept the secular hope), we lose our ability to reach out for those who are oppressed -- this acceptance of the American dream (and American "Manifest Destiny) by the church is killing our ability to be the church.
Part 2
This paper covers about the first hundred and forty pages of Theology of Hope.
Thesis: Moltmann's vision consists of hopeful promises revealed in dynamic history finding their culmination in the now, future and ultimate horizon.
The foundation of Moltmann's vision (hope) comes from the revelatory promises of God; hope, driving theology, is rooted in promise, and therefore, capable of standing in "contradiction to the reality" of present experience (18). These promises come in the midst of history, but at the same time orient a believer from the "dawn" of the day, looking forward with expectation although still mired in one's circumstances (31).
Since history is framed by promise, history is in flux, which is to say, that history is dynamic. The fulfillment of promise continues throughout history, and this "overspill" changes history from merely singularly event oriented to a continual fulfillment or revelation of the promise (107-108). Thus the active story that history tells, framed by promises, is re-imagined at every fulfillment; the promises become larger and larger as the fulfillments become bigger and bigger (105). Thus history, or the representation of the past, is changed continually in light of the revelation of promise/fulfillment and in turn "will lead us to open ourselves and our present to that same future" (108).
However, hope is not merely related to promises, but also fuels our human faith, in fact, hope and faith are inextricably linked. Faith, our belief in the divine, "hopes in order to know what it believes"; it is hope, from our faith, that drives our vitality so necessary to faith (33). Thus faith and the hope of the future explodes the future into the present and the future to come, resulting in church engagement with the world funneling the vision of the future – "righteousness, freedom and humanity" – into the current events of today (22).
Part 3
Here again is another thesis and taken from Theology of Hope.
Thesis: Moltmann's term "eschatological" is defined by a forward-looking, Christological dialectic between the cross and resurrection within the kingdom of God.
To understand the cross and resurrection, particularly as the basis for eschatology and the breaking in of the kingdom, it is necessary to understand death and re-life as a theological category, as opposed to an andocentric idea; cross and resurrection is fundamentally not existential (Bultmann) or historical (Schweitzer), but rather an action that makes our history and locating us within a promise and identity, while pushing us toward the eschaton (165, 181).
The heart of Moltmann's use of the term "eschatological" is found in the Christological dialectic of the cross and resurrection (200), this is to say, that both the suffering death and glorious resurrection retain an equal amount of weight and continually informing the other, all the while, both push us forward into the promise and hope of the future horizon (211). Simply put, "one could say that Christian eschatology is the study of the tendency of the resurrection and future of Christ" (195).
While eschatology finds its specific understanding in the cross and resurrection, we cannot rightly understand the death and resurrection without the greater foundation of the kingdom of God (216). It is in the cross and resurrection that the kingdom and its promises are fulfilled and proclaimed; the kingdom breaks into the current reality in proclamation and action about and through the cross and resurrection (the conquering of death, 210-211), and at the same time speaking of a future through the "mission and love of Christ" through cross and resurrection (220).
Eschatological also has another aspect that is inherently participatory; we proclaim Christ as the Christ who proclaimed the kingdom (219), while at the same time we imbue the missional idea in Christ-like suffering and solidarity (211, 212, 224).
I am taking a class from Professor Haight on Jürgen Moltmann and Johann Baptist Metz. And in the class we present weekly papers. The parameters for the paper are rather specific: a short thesis at the beginning, interact with the readings, address one of the themes, answer the question posed by Haight, and prove/display your thesis in 300 words or less. So here reposted are three theses.
Part 1
The question we were to answer was: which theme, out of the many themes (of which secularization was one), do we find the most crucial for today? I went with secularization (which Metz spends a long time talking about), but I also saw the connection between another theme that Metz addresses over and over - Auschwitz.
Thesis: The memory of Auschwitz has been supplanted within the church by the secularized American hope to the detriment of the church.
Our culture, as Metz shows, has become increasingly hominized (The Future of Faith 57). While it seems we may be shifting back towards a more cosmological idea due to scientific discoveries, these breakthroughs have had little effect on some aspects of secularization, namely an ideological, secularized hope – a hope that clings to the idea that humanity will overcome, thrive, and conquer future frontiers. It is the secularized and nationalistic hope provided by Reagan (one of many proponents) that has become a controlling ideology that Metz warned against (The Future of Faith 68). This ideology of hope has taken hold of even the American church by mimicking the eschatological Christian hope and, instead of liberating, the ideology holds the globe within Americana's oppressive custody (Theology in Struggle 55). Thus the American church has ceased remembering the atrocities of Auschwitz for the hope of American promises.
It is no wonder that the church has largely ignored Darfur, for the American church has found its hope in the bright, anthropological destiny preached by Reagan. Consequently the church has held to theologies that remain unchanged and unresponsive in the face of Darfur, much less other civil wars, starvation, and drought. We have in turn lost the "messianic praxis" of "discipleship, conversion, love, and suffering", because we have accepted the secularized notion of a nationalistic hope (Christians and Jews 27). With unchanged theologies and the forgetting of Christian suffering, the church does not act in its prophetic role to the world. The secularization of the church through a form of secular hominization has caused us to lose not only the idea of suffering with and for others, but we have also lost ourselves.
Summary for the net: when the church here rejects the Christological hope of the cross and the future for the nationalistic hope of america (we accept the secular hope), we lose our ability to reach out for those who are oppressed -- this acceptance of the American dream (and American "Manifest Destiny) by the church is killing our ability to be the church.
Part 2
This paper covers about the first hundred and forty pages of Theology of Hope.
Thesis: Moltmann's vision consists of hopeful promises revealed in dynamic history finding their culmination in the now, future and ultimate horizon.
The foundation of Moltmann's vision (hope) comes from the revelatory promises of God; hope, driving theology, is rooted in promise, and therefore, capable of standing in "contradiction to the reality" of present experience (18). These promises come in the midst of history, but at the same time orient a believer from the "dawn" of the day, looking forward with expectation although still mired in one's circumstances (31).
Since history is framed by promise, history is in flux, which is to say, that history is dynamic. The fulfillment of promise continues throughout history, and this "overspill" changes history from merely singularly event oriented to a continual fulfillment or revelation of the promise (107-108). Thus the active story that history tells, framed by promises, is re-imagined at every fulfillment; the promises become larger and larger as the fulfillments become bigger and bigger (105). Thus history, or the representation of the past, is changed continually in light of the revelation of promise/fulfillment and in turn "will lead us to open ourselves and our present to that same future" (108).
However, hope is not merely related to promises, but also fuels our human faith, in fact, hope and faith are inextricably linked. Faith, our belief in the divine, "hopes in order to know what it believes"; it is hope, from our faith, that drives our vitality so necessary to faith (33). Thus faith and the hope of the future explodes the future into the present and the future to come, resulting in church engagement with the world funneling the vision of the future – "righteousness, freedom and humanity" – into the current events of today (22).
Part 3
Here again is another thesis and taken from Theology of Hope.
Thesis: Moltmann's term "eschatological" is defined by a forward-looking, Christological dialectic between the cross and resurrection within the kingdom of God.
To understand the cross and resurrection, particularly as the basis for eschatology and the breaking in of the kingdom, it is necessary to understand death and re-life as a theological category, as opposed to an andocentric idea; cross and resurrection is fundamentally not existential (Bultmann) or historical (Schweitzer), but rather an action that makes our history and locating us within a promise and identity, while pushing us toward the eschaton (165, 181).
The heart of Moltmann's use of the term "eschatological" is found in the Christological dialectic of the cross and resurrection (200), this is to say, that both the suffering death and glorious resurrection retain an equal amount of weight and continually informing the other, all the while, both push us forward into the promise and hope of the future horizon (211). Simply put, "one could say that Christian eschatology is the study of the tendency of the resurrection and future of Christ" (195).
While eschatology finds its specific understanding in the cross and resurrection, we cannot rightly understand the death and resurrection without the greater foundation of the kingdom of God (216). It is in the cross and resurrection that the kingdom and its promises are fulfilled and proclaimed; the kingdom breaks into the current reality in proclamation and action about and through the cross and resurrection (the conquering of death, 210-211), and at the same time speaking of a future through the "mission and love of Christ" through cross and resurrection (220).
Eschatological also has another aspect that is inherently participatory; we proclaim Christ as the Christ who proclaimed the kingdom (219), while at the same time we imbue the missional idea in Christ-like suffering and solidarity (211, 212, 224).
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Torture and Class - as if they're different...
Alright theoblogosphere, I've got a little challenge of my own (however it is not nearly as demanding as Halden's recent one). I'm looking at taking a few classes here at school over the summer - primarily reading classes, and I get to pick the topics. Well, I'm going to address torture for my social ethics MA thesis (or at least I'm planning on it right now and it might look a little something like this: I. Why American Christianity is inclined to accept torture; II. Critique American Christianity; and III. Produce a better theology which A. Fills the holes in the church and B. Talks about what a healthy church can do to respond). With that in mind I'm hoping to use one of these reading classes to help me get a leg up on research and forming a better outline. So, does anyone have any good books to recommend other than William Cavanaugh's Torture and Eucharist for me to read this summer?
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Theological Frustrations
This is also a repost from my myspace (and my last), but it is also fairly recent, as in... oh last friday.
I was reading a friend's blog and the comments left on an article of his. One of the comments cites theopedia and I came away annoyed for two reasons.
First, I've looked at theopedia before, but I've been put off because on first look it seems like a democratized wikipedia, but it really *only* allows for a reformed and a hyper-literalized methodolical outlook which in my book restricts the conversation about the subject or the richness of the articles themselves. Encyclopedia's do not have statments of faith.
"All of Theopedia's content is, in accordance with the writing guide, required to conform to the following:
... Calvinism - Inasmuch as this refers to the five points of Calvinism and absolute predesination, we affirm it.
... Creation - We affirm a literal understanding of six-day creation."
Not to mention that personally an editor must affirm:
"We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God's truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice."
Barth could not be allowed to be involved in the shaping of the website. Um... thats a fairly large exclusion and seems entirely counter to the point of theology - discussion. So point #1, one ought to proceed through theopedia with caution.
Unfortunately on the other hand, Gunton summaries do not seem to have a large presence on the internet, or Trinitarian Theology as a whole for that matter. Neither the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology or Religion Online devote specific space, which is clearly a hole that will hopefully be fixed. The hole is worrisome, but points to a greater problem, or at least something that I think is problematic - the conversation about, or lack thereof, of Trinitarian theology.
Here at Union, whenever I refer back to a social Trinitarian God within my papers, teachers write good marks about it, but it rarely comes up in class. Thus, there isn't necessarily a lack of acceptance in a very liberal seminary, but rather, little talk on it. And so I wonder, if Trinitarian theology is accepted by all manner of theologians, why is there seemingly little talk about it on the internet? It is not that people don't ever talk about Gunton's work or are impacted by it, so why is there seemingly, on the whole, a lack of talk on recent Trinitarian work?
I was reading a friend's blog and the comments left on an article of his. One of the comments cites theopedia and I came away annoyed for two reasons.
First, I've looked at theopedia before, but I've been put off because on first look it seems like a democratized wikipedia, but it really *only* allows for a reformed and a hyper-literalized methodolical outlook which in my book restricts the conversation about the subject or the richness of the articles themselves. Encyclopedia's do not have statments of faith.
"All of Theopedia's content is, in accordance with the writing guide, required to conform to the following:
... Calvinism - Inasmuch as this refers to the five points of Calvinism and absolute predesination, we affirm it.
... Creation - We affirm a literal understanding of six-day creation."
Not to mention that personally an editor must affirm:
"We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God's truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice."
Barth could not be allowed to be involved in the shaping of the website. Um... thats a fairly large exclusion and seems entirely counter to the point of theology - discussion. So point #1, one ought to proceed through theopedia with caution.
Unfortunately on the other hand, Gunton summaries do not seem to have a large presence on the internet, or Trinitarian Theology as a whole for that matter. Neither the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology or Religion Online devote specific space, which is clearly a hole that will hopefully be fixed. The hole is worrisome, but points to a greater problem, or at least something that I think is problematic - the conversation about, or lack thereof, of Trinitarian theology.
Here at Union, whenever I refer back to a social Trinitarian God within my papers, teachers write good marks about it, but it rarely comes up in class. Thus, there isn't necessarily a lack of acceptance in a very liberal seminary, but rather, little talk on it. And so I wonder, if Trinitarian theology is accepted by all manner of theologians, why is there seemingly little talk about it on the internet? It is not that people don't ever talk about Gunton's work or are impacted by it, so why is there seemingly, on the whole, a lack of talk on recent Trinitarian work?
R. Niebuhr
This is a repost from my myspace site. This post is comprised of two papers on Niebuhr that I did for two Dorrien classes here at Union.
Part 1
So this is a paper I had to read for class discussion in American Theological Liberalism. Its a response to Dorriens Volume 2 on American Theological Liberalism, specifically on Reinhold Niebuhr as a Neo-Liberal (not a Neo-Orthodox).
One caveat, I approach this critique as a theologian, not an ethicist (actually I personally don't like the categories as separate, rather that my theology is my ethics, or at least so close to being ethics that it is uncomfortable to separate the categories). Niebuhr liked to just get straight to the issues and set up an ethical answer to a problem, and without a method. In other words, Niebuhr was not a theologian, and in fact never claimed to be (actually claimed he was not a theologian), rather he was a social ethicist and constructed systematic, ethical thought structures. Niebuhr did not construct a theological systematic structure (for example, he had virtually no ecclesiology); however, Niebuhr still did theological things and spoke on theological subjects. And so it is from a theological standpoint that I critique the man who vehemently turned against pacifism and the social gospel.
Thoughts anyone?
Niebuhr as Critic and Prophet
If there is one thing to write easily about Reinhold Niebuhr, it was his prophetic role within theology; Niebuhr was clearly a critic. However, he and his followers thought of themselves as more than critics, but rather they were carving a new way (459), and the first steps along this new path required the rejection of past theology.
Although Niebuhr did build up his own theses and ideas within theology, he neglected to flesh out a systematic theology in any sense of the term or outline a method (480) and thus seemed to remain a critic by virtue of what he did say. In other words, Reinhold Niebuhr was a man who yelled "no" very loudly, repeatedly, and many times harshly (449). For instance: "The United States had barely entered the war against Japan when Niebuhr began to complain that American Christianity's prowar pronouncements were nearly as insufferable as its earlier isolationism" (472).
As Niebuhr played the critic, without acknowledgement to the debt he owed liberal theology, he achieved a renowned status. Nevertheless, it was a status of negation, without a strong systemized thought of his own and taking liberal theology for granted, the result of Niebuhr's work satisfied not only himself and fellow neoliberals, but also encouraged something he did not intend – "illiberalism, dogmatism or conservatism in politics or religion" (479). It is difficult for others to appropriate to a large extent what one says when one is explicitly grounded in a systematic thought.
To Niebuhr's credit, near the end of his life, he did attempt to further clarify his position (478-479, 482), but only with varying degrees of success. Ultimately, Niebuhr as critic gained a great deal of support, but not necessarily only those with Niebuhr's goals in mind, rather anyone opposed to the conventional liberalism of the time. However, personally, I feel that Niebuhr by and large retained too much of a prophetic role and did not flesh out well enough a theology for others to build upon.
Niebuhr the Critic as Ideologue for the Government Status Quo.
It is arguable, and indeed seems likely, that Niebuhr as a critic wrote for the advancement into World War II when he backed the re-election of Roosevelt (465), but it is very clear that Niebuhr the critic became the basis "for the 'containment' strategy of Cold War liberalism" and his realism "a form of apologetics for the American status quo" (473, 475). Niebuhr as critic wrote for an action of containment of communism, that "perverted religion" bent on world conquest, with the idea to maintain pressure on the Soviet Union and limit its growth (475). To a theoretical end, Niebuhr's realism of the 1950s could be used to justify actions like the Korean and Vietnam wars – which actually did happen, despite Niebuhr's eventual denouncement of the Vietnam war (475). Thus in the end, Niebuhr spoke for the status quo.
Niebuhr also spoke the status quo concerning domestic issues:
"Welfare-state capitalism was attaining as much of the democratic socialist ideal of social justice as appeared to be attainable, he believed. By creating a system of countervailing labor, capitalist, and governmental power, American civilization had vindicated the dreams of the social gospelers and progressives without resorting to (much) economic nationalization." (475)
Unfortunately, Niebuhr's grasp of the social gospel seems limited, for when setting power against power, the poor are now crushed between the two mighty powers in their fights against each other, instead of powers off setting one another and therefore freeing the poor.
Ultimately for a time, Niebuhr the critic became apologist for the status quo in his refutation against the communist threat and, though he said, "the struggle for social justice is never finished," his realism became the American status quo and ceased acting prophetically, but instead argued for American conquest.
Niebuhr's Idea of the Sin and Social
One of the redeeming actions that Niebuhr took, for me that is, was his stance on sin. Though I disagree that sin equals pride, for it seems too simplistic and may have hindered him from speaking out on race problems, I do agree with the relational aspects that Niebuhr incorporated (456, 476). Also, I agree that liberalism of the past had lost touch with the nature of humanity, biblically speaking, and Niebuhr stood as a good corrective for the liberal tradition. If there is one great and lasting mark that Niebuhr has made within the liberal tradition, it is the fact that liberalism will always have some voice that speaks prophetically against the Enlightment ideals of humanity in favor of human fallenness (456).
However, I strongly disagree with Niebuhr's formulation of the individual and society, particularly in this case that Jesus preached moral ideals for the individual, not for the social (458). Niebuhr broke apart the individual and the social, claiming the social can "never overcome the power of self-interest and collective egotism that sustains their existence" (449). I can see how Niebuhr got to his compartmentalizing, but I disagree with it. Unfortunately, he seemed to ignore the church within the kingdom, because he looked upon it as "sentimental idealism" of the Social Gospel (450).
My path towards a Social Gospel is a minority for most social gospelers. I started with a problem that I saw in the evangelical church, that it lacked cohesion and relationality in the church, specifically the mega-church. Instead of brothers and sisters gathering for encouragement and support for themselves and those in the surrounding community, the church in my eyes seemed like a poorly done academic lecture with the inclusion of a popular sub-culture that had no intention of addressing the needs of people, much less addressing people holistically. I began focusing on what I saw to be the root of the problem, the presupposition of individualism over community; instead of relational nature of the church acting like the body of Christ, the church attempted to merely convey bits of knowledge for personal change, if the change was not too uncomfortable, and a few songs in a sing-a-long form. My struggle for visioning a right community led me towards kingdom theology – that is, the body of Christ enacting now the values of the suffering Christological and eschatological kingdom. From kingdom theology, it is a very small step to the Social Gospel.
I realize I come at this from a very different way than Niebuhr, perhaps he was not located or rooted well within the church or he focused too much on Americanizing himself and his German church, but it seems inadequate to merely call idealistic and brush away the idea of the kingdom breaking into the now, particularly after I have experienced it with others on a continual basis. While the Social Gospel would have done well with a critique, I fear that Niebuhr dismissed too quickly and too radically the Social Gospel in his prophetic role and, when he did finally find a foundation, it was as the status quo of imperialism which the Social Gospel is always seeking to change and not the final realization of the Social Gospel.
Conclusion
While I value some critiques that Niebuhr brought forward, like his re-emphasis on sin and human fallenness, I wonder that he acted too prophetically and broke too radically from liberal tradition without acknowledging his debt and therefore actually left a relatively small legacy beyond his own time in comparison to his height during his life.
Part 2
This is an addition for another Dorrien class to the previous post. It should help explain the Social Gospel and Niebuhr a bit better for those of you have read neither.
...I have elected to focus on Walter Rauschenbusch's and Reinhold Niebhur's ideas of sin. I focus on sin because it was: a. one of the more positive steps I saw of Niebuhr (as I wrote earlier) and b. sin can be a starting point in theology – for we must recognize that there is something very wrong with the world in order to respond to the problem – and therefore the view of sin can govern our theology, much like the questions we ask determine the answers we discover.
Contrasting Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr's Ideas of Sin
Interestingly, both Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr reference the fall (Rauschenbusch, 39-40; Dorrien, 456), which should seem an obvious place to start; however, both also are intent with reinterpreting the fall, sin in general, and also specifically original sin (Rauschenbusch, 38-68; Dorrien, 456). However, there is little that they have in common beyond merely talking about sin and fallenness.
Rauschenbusch's definition of sin is "self-love", that is to say: "We set our desires against the rights of others, and disregard the claims of mercy, of gratitude, or of parental love" (Rauschenbusch, 46). And this sin of self-love is found in three forms: sensuousness, selfishness, and godlessness, which accordingly are sins against "our higher self, against the good of men, and against the universal good" (Rauschenbusch, 46-47). Importantly, Self-love is open and flexible to encompass all number of violations both personal and relational. Nevertheless, more important from an idea of sin as relational is the idea of identity. Sin is intrinsically linked to the kingdom of evil (Rauschenbusch, 77-94), the structure that opposes the kingdom of God in whom the Christian resides as a part of, specifically the body of Christ from which identity comes from. Thus the Christian opposes sin on two fronts, the personal and social.
Niebuhr saw sin as pride and pride, as defined by Niebuhr, is to: step beyond one's self; to assume too much about one's self; that "evil is always a good that imagines itself to be better than it is" (Dorrien, 456). Essentially pride is assuming a greater eminence of one's self than one ought – not in relation to others, but in terms of self-abilities, or lack thereof, and in relation to the infinite. In other words, pride (followed by deceit – which can be the relational aspect of sin) is decided by hierarchy, rather than through relationality. Simply put, pride is a comparison and misidentification of power and innate ability.
In my view, Niebuhr's view of sin is limiting, lacks nuance, and problematizes identity. While it is possible to extrapolate a social idea of pride, inherently the social pride would be the pride of a group of individuals and not the pride of an organism. Also, this group is given amnesty by Niebuhr when he charges that the teachings of Jesus are for "counsels of perfection, not prescriptions for social order or justice" (Dorrien, 458). Rightly understood, groups are not held to a theological understanding of right because Niebuhr claims there is none. Therefore, pride only extends to the individual and only to when the individual is not acting within a group, otherwise they would be exempt for their actions (i.e. war is not murder). Thus, Niebuhrian sin is limiting because: it only speaks to the individual; lacks depth for it only speaks of the vertical relationship between human and divine-infinite (Dorrien, 458); and resolves identity down to power and ability.
Ultimately I prefer the Rauschenbusch understanding of sin; it most clearly coincides with the identity of a Christian – within the organic body of Christ (the basileia) – and thus does not look at people as power, but rather as relational beings who embody and reflect the social Trinitarian God in both personal and social atmospheres.
The texts used are: Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity 1900-1950 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003) and Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1977).
Part 1
So this is a paper I had to read for class discussion in American Theological Liberalism. Its a response to Dorriens Volume 2 on American Theological Liberalism, specifically on Reinhold Niebuhr as a Neo-Liberal (not a Neo-Orthodox).
One caveat, I approach this critique as a theologian, not an ethicist (actually I personally don't like the categories as separate, rather that my theology is my ethics, or at least so close to being ethics that it is uncomfortable to separate the categories). Niebuhr liked to just get straight to the issues and set up an ethical answer to a problem, and without a method. In other words, Niebuhr was not a theologian, and in fact never claimed to be (actually claimed he was not a theologian), rather he was a social ethicist and constructed systematic, ethical thought structures. Niebuhr did not construct a theological systematic structure (for example, he had virtually no ecclesiology); however, Niebuhr still did theological things and spoke on theological subjects. And so it is from a theological standpoint that I critique the man who vehemently turned against pacifism and the social gospel.
Thoughts anyone?
Niebuhr as Critic and Prophet
If there is one thing to write easily about Reinhold Niebuhr, it was his prophetic role within theology; Niebuhr was clearly a critic. However, he and his followers thought of themselves as more than critics, but rather they were carving a new way (459), and the first steps along this new path required the rejection of past theology.
Although Niebuhr did build up his own theses and ideas within theology, he neglected to flesh out a systematic theology in any sense of the term or outline a method (480) and thus seemed to remain a critic by virtue of what he did say. In other words, Reinhold Niebuhr was a man who yelled "no" very loudly, repeatedly, and many times harshly (449). For instance: "The United States had barely entered the war against Japan when Niebuhr began to complain that American Christianity's prowar pronouncements were nearly as insufferable as its earlier isolationism" (472).
As Niebuhr played the critic, without acknowledgement to the debt he owed liberal theology, he achieved a renowned status. Nevertheless, it was a status of negation, without a strong systemized thought of his own and taking liberal theology for granted, the result of Niebuhr's work satisfied not only himself and fellow neoliberals, but also encouraged something he did not intend – "illiberalism, dogmatism or conservatism in politics or religion" (479). It is difficult for others to appropriate to a large extent what one says when one is explicitly grounded in a systematic thought.
To Niebuhr's credit, near the end of his life, he did attempt to further clarify his position (478-479, 482), but only with varying degrees of success. Ultimately, Niebuhr as critic gained a great deal of support, but not necessarily only those with Niebuhr's goals in mind, rather anyone opposed to the conventional liberalism of the time. However, personally, I feel that Niebuhr by and large retained too much of a prophetic role and did not flesh out well enough a theology for others to build upon.
Niebuhr the Critic as Ideologue for the Government Status Quo.
It is arguable, and indeed seems likely, that Niebuhr as a critic wrote for the advancement into World War II when he backed the re-election of Roosevelt (465), but it is very clear that Niebuhr the critic became the basis "for the 'containment' strategy of Cold War liberalism" and his realism "a form of apologetics for the American status quo" (473, 475). Niebuhr as critic wrote for an action of containment of communism, that "perverted religion" bent on world conquest, with the idea to maintain pressure on the Soviet Union and limit its growth (475). To a theoretical end, Niebuhr's realism of the 1950s could be used to justify actions like the Korean and Vietnam wars – which actually did happen, despite Niebuhr's eventual denouncement of the Vietnam war (475). Thus in the end, Niebuhr spoke for the status quo.
Niebuhr also spoke the status quo concerning domestic issues:
"Welfare-state capitalism was attaining as much of the democratic socialist ideal of social justice as appeared to be attainable, he believed. By creating a system of countervailing labor, capitalist, and governmental power, American civilization had vindicated the dreams of the social gospelers and progressives without resorting to (much) economic nationalization." (475)
Unfortunately, Niebuhr's grasp of the social gospel seems limited, for when setting power against power, the poor are now crushed between the two mighty powers in their fights against each other, instead of powers off setting one another and therefore freeing the poor.
Ultimately for a time, Niebuhr the critic became apologist for the status quo in his refutation against the communist threat and, though he said, "the struggle for social justice is never finished," his realism became the American status quo and ceased acting prophetically, but instead argued for American conquest.
Niebuhr's Idea of the Sin and Social
One of the redeeming actions that Niebuhr took, for me that is, was his stance on sin. Though I disagree that sin equals pride, for it seems too simplistic and may have hindered him from speaking out on race problems, I do agree with the relational aspects that Niebuhr incorporated (456, 476). Also, I agree that liberalism of the past had lost touch with the nature of humanity, biblically speaking, and Niebuhr stood as a good corrective for the liberal tradition. If there is one great and lasting mark that Niebuhr has made within the liberal tradition, it is the fact that liberalism will always have some voice that speaks prophetically against the Enlightment ideals of humanity in favor of human fallenness (456).
However, I strongly disagree with Niebuhr's formulation of the individual and society, particularly in this case that Jesus preached moral ideals for the individual, not for the social (458). Niebuhr broke apart the individual and the social, claiming the social can "never overcome the power of self-interest and collective egotism that sustains their existence" (449). I can see how Niebuhr got to his compartmentalizing, but I disagree with it. Unfortunately, he seemed to ignore the church within the kingdom, because he looked upon it as "sentimental idealism" of the Social Gospel (450).
My path towards a Social Gospel is a minority for most social gospelers. I started with a problem that I saw in the evangelical church, that it lacked cohesion and relationality in the church, specifically the mega-church. Instead of brothers and sisters gathering for encouragement and support for themselves and those in the surrounding community, the church in my eyes seemed like a poorly done academic lecture with the inclusion of a popular sub-culture that had no intention of addressing the needs of people, much less addressing people holistically. I began focusing on what I saw to be the root of the problem, the presupposition of individualism over community; instead of relational nature of the church acting like the body of Christ, the church attempted to merely convey bits of knowledge for personal change, if the change was not too uncomfortable, and a few songs in a sing-a-long form. My struggle for visioning a right community led me towards kingdom theology – that is, the body of Christ enacting now the values of the suffering Christological and eschatological kingdom. From kingdom theology, it is a very small step to the Social Gospel.
I realize I come at this from a very different way than Niebuhr, perhaps he was not located or rooted well within the church or he focused too much on Americanizing himself and his German church, but it seems inadequate to merely call idealistic and brush away the idea of the kingdom breaking into the now, particularly after I have experienced it with others on a continual basis. While the Social Gospel would have done well with a critique, I fear that Niebuhr dismissed too quickly and too radically the Social Gospel in his prophetic role and, when he did finally find a foundation, it was as the status quo of imperialism which the Social Gospel is always seeking to change and not the final realization of the Social Gospel.
Conclusion
While I value some critiques that Niebuhr brought forward, like his re-emphasis on sin and human fallenness, I wonder that he acted too prophetically and broke too radically from liberal tradition without acknowledging his debt and therefore actually left a relatively small legacy beyond his own time in comparison to his height during his life.
Part 2
This is an addition for another Dorrien class to the previous post. It should help explain the Social Gospel and Niebuhr a bit better for those of you have read neither.
...I have elected to focus on Walter Rauschenbusch's and Reinhold Niebhur's ideas of sin. I focus on sin because it was: a. one of the more positive steps I saw of Niebuhr (as I wrote earlier) and b. sin can be a starting point in theology – for we must recognize that there is something very wrong with the world in order to respond to the problem – and therefore the view of sin can govern our theology, much like the questions we ask determine the answers we discover.
Contrasting Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr's Ideas of Sin
Interestingly, both Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr reference the fall (Rauschenbusch, 39-40; Dorrien, 456), which should seem an obvious place to start; however, both also are intent with reinterpreting the fall, sin in general, and also specifically original sin (Rauschenbusch, 38-68; Dorrien, 456). However, there is little that they have in common beyond merely talking about sin and fallenness.
Rauschenbusch's definition of sin is "self-love", that is to say: "We set our desires against the rights of others, and disregard the claims of mercy, of gratitude, or of parental love" (Rauschenbusch, 46). And this sin of self-love is found in three forms: sensuousness, selfishness, and godlessness, which accordingly are sins against "our higher self, against the good of men, and against the universal good" (Rauschenbusch, 46-47). Importantly, Self-love is open and flexible to encompass all number of violations both personal and relational. Nevertheless, more important from an idea of sin as relational is the idea of identity. Sin is intrinsically linked to the kingdom of evil (Rauschenbusch, 77-94), the structure that opposes the kingdom of God in whom the Christian resides as a part of, specifically the body of Christ from which identity comes from. Thus the Christian opposes sin on two fronts, the personal and social.
Niebuhr saw sin as pride and pride, as defined by Niebuhr, is to: step beyond one's self; to assume too much about one's self; that "evil is always a good that imagines itself to be better than it is" (Dorrien, 456). Essentially pride is assuming a greater eminence of one's self than one ought – not in relation to others, but in terms of self-abilities, or lack thereof, and in relation to the infinite. In other words, pride (followed by deceit – which can be the relational aspect of sin) is decided by hierarchy, rather than through relationality. Simply put, pride is a comparison and misidentification of power and innate ability.
In my view, Niebuhr's view of sin is limiting, lacks nuance, and problematizes identity. While it is possible to extrapolate a social idea of pride, inherently the social pride would be the pride of a group of individuals and not the pride of an organism. Also, this group is given amnesty by Niebuhr when he charges that the teachings of Jesus are for "counsels of perfection, not prescriptions for social order or justice" (Dorrien, 458). Rightly understood, groups are not held to a theological understanding of right because Niebuhr claims there is none. Therefore, pride only extends to the individual and only to when the individual is not acting within a group, otherwise they would be exempt for their actions (i.e. war is not murder). Thus, Niebuhrian sin is limiting because: it only speaks to the individual; lacks depth for it only speaks of the vertical relationship between human and divine-infinite (Dorrien, 458); and resolves identity down to power and ability.
Ultimately I prefer the Rauschenbusch understanding of sin; it most clearly coincides with the identity of a Christian – within the organic body of Christ (the basileia) – and thus does not look at people as power, but rather as relational beings who embody and reflect the social Trinitarian God in both personal and social atmospheres.
The texts used are: Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity 1900-1950 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003) and Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1977).
Kingdom
This is the first of three reposts from myspace.
Part 1
This post has been percolating inside me for a long time. Again this was written for ethics class. The entire paper is a response to a civil disobedience chapter, but I've only really posted the part I've been thinking about for so long - the church, the nation state. However, at the end, because of my take on the church, I do assert my position on civil disobedience.
The History and Nature of the Modern Nation-State
The nation-state as recognized today finds its roots in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe. William Cavanaugh, in Theopolitical Imagination, rightly asserts a view of government that is far different than the common stereotype. The centralized nation-state did not evolve out of necessity to halt the wars of religion, as if a referee between feuding Protestants and Catholics. Rather, the centralized government went beyond inept feudal lords and petty aristocracies and came into its own as an alternate power to religious rule. Nations began to retain the ultimate allegiance instead of religious affiliations; national governments became power structures in and of themselves vying for their subjects primary loyalty.
Clearly there was conflict between the religious powers and political leaders (i.e. Henry II and the Roman Catholic Church through Archbishop Thomas Becket) before the usurpation by political structures; however, governments during the post-reformation age won the battle for control. This is all to say, the governments now are far different from past forms (particularly the feudal system). Nations are in direct contrast to the body of Christ and require a loyalty (nationalism) above religious affiliation (i.e. JFK and his political maneuvering around the fear of subordinating the United States to papal authority).
Now, it is true there are similarities between the Roman government during the birth of Christianity and today. There was a total allegiance required by the emperor (to be viewed the son of a god among other thins, i.e. Julius Caesar was voted divine, thus giving his adopted heir Augustus the title son of god see the works of N.T. Wright), but for some legalized religious, like Judaism, some exemptions were made as long as the peace was kept. When Jesus claimed divine sonship, it is politically charged and in direct opposition to Roman authority (again, see the works of N.T. Wright). At the dawn of Christianity, the faith found itself in direct opposition to the greatest power in the world a centralized government that commanded supreme loyalty.
Today in America, nationalism and allegiance is assumed; to favor an organization that spans international boundaries over the powers of Washington D.C. is unpatriotic and seen by some as treason. I anticipate a critique that questions my assertion, that in fact, it is not as I say and I am at least seditious and ungrateful, if not traitorous. My response is this: America demands a patriotic allegiance that mirrors other forms of religious creeds and liturgy. Governments are power structures that demand much and in fact follow after religious belief systems, both in idea and action. For example, The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Wikipedia says this:
The Tomb Guards, the 3rd United States Infantry (The Old Guard), make personal sacrifices to have the honor of serving. They work on a team rotation of 24 hours on, 24 hours off, 24 on, 24 off, 24 on, and 96 hours off. An average guard takes 8 hours to prepare his uniform (which is solid wool--regardless of the time of year) for the next day's work. In addition to preparing the uniform, guards also complete physical training, Tomb Guard training, cut their hair before the next work day, and shave twice per day. A special Army decoration, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Guard Identification Badge is authorized for permanent award to a Tomb Guard only after a period of nine months of duty as well as a passing a detailed test of 100 questions (from a pool of more than 300).
The first thing that came to my mind was the Hebraic Nazarite vow a promise to be solely Gods for a holy purpose and included rituals and promises (i.e. no cutting of the hair). In reality, the guards of the tomb answer to a promise, a promise that the website itself calls it a creed.
For my interaction with the government, in this case civil disobedience, I think to properly understand the relationship requires a right understanding of both parties. I choose explicitly the person of Christ, his work, and the church universal (the body of Christ) over a quasi-religious nationalism. It seems that many Christians might affirm Christ first, but seem to misunderstand the implications and ethics that Christianity demands. This is not to say I do not enjoy the perks or support America at times, but first and foremost for me is the supreme commandment to love God and others, all others all troops, social classes, ethnicities. The commandment includes extremes and enemies; in point of fact, both America and Al-Qaeda.
My view of civil disobedience is seen within this context; I disobey a structure that attempts to assert unwelcome, counter-Christian control. However, this is not to say that I am necessarily an anarchist, per se. The Bible clearly teaches an obedience to law and order (Romans 13), yet at the same time also portrays the people of God as ultimately loyal to God (i.e. Daniel 6, Acts 4, etc.). With this in mind, where the government diverges from Kingdom of God (of which the Church represents currently), so to I depart from the government.
The Kingdom of God has broken (Christs work), is breaking (the Church as the body of Christ), and will continue to break into this world (both ecclesially and eschatologically), culminating in the redemption of creation and the establishment of complete, divine rule. To merely object to evils vocally is impotent and does little to further the Kingdom; to speak against torture (an un-love of others) require speech and action to announce Christ and his Kingdom, though Christs ethic, to the world. Thus, the church protests compromising governments (i.e. acts of injustice) and reaps the consequences, to the point of dying like a lamb.
To state my view plainly: I resist through direct disobedience. I resist nonviolently. Fighting fire with fire is unacceptable; reacting to violence with violence is not love. Also, I resist communally. I do not resist through a national response, but through a church response (see William Cavanaughs Torture and Eucharist). I, myself individually, do not resist, but it is the body of Christ that together resists.
An explanatory note: the top portion of the post about Kingdom ethics might've been too academic in the vocabulary or lecture oriented for some to read. I got to talking with a friend of mine and conversationally lined it all out. So hopefully this will bring some more clarity for those who care to know.
Part 2
Me: im telling you, the modern nation state usurps the church (not necessarily moralistic "christianity," but i mean the body of Christ, the church - kingdom ethics)
Him: maybe you should speak plain English
Me: im speaking plenty good english. here, read this and then well go from there. (as a side note, these two questions and my answers are from a recent exam for my Hebrews through Revelation class. They seemed a good enough place to start.)
1. What is the thematic center of James? Show how James pursues the themes in the letter. Explain the significance of these themes in light of the life setting of the readers and his teaching regarding trials in 1:1-25.
The thematic center asserted in the notes is as follows: be a doer of the Word this is the true religion of a mature, wise, obedient brother. Most explicitly stated, the thematic core centers on taming the tongue, assisting the orphans and widows, and remaining pure. (Other key themes are: testing of faith; wisdom/maturity; character of God; and poverty/wealth.)
The book of James is written to the diaspora (the scattered). While it might seem common to people today for the church to spread out, the mentality of today is 2,000 years separated and lacks an Old Testament focus. It seems that the audience was frightened and confused over the scattering, and in light of the Old Testament, they had a genuine concern. The Old Testament stressed that the identity of the people of God (in this case Israel) is entirely wrapped up in the land; to disobey resulted in removal from the land while obedience was rewarded with blessing towards a fruitful land. A scattering of the church and suffering trials, viewed from the Old Testament lens, is negative and implies punishment from disobedience. The author of James writes to correct the presupposition; under the new covenant, the follower is not identified through geography, but through ethic.
The writer uses three subjects to display the new ethic: control of the tongue; caring for the orphans and widows; and keeping oneself pure. While suffering the trials and scattering (these tests of faith), Christians can grow into maturity by responding wellstaying pure. Retaining purity is continuing to be a vibrant image of God to the world and the church. This purity can find two specific applications: controlling the deceitful tongue and caring for the needy of the needy (the orphans and widows). To follow this ethic is to stay a doer of the Word (true religion) and where life is found. No longer does life retain a component of geography, but rather, life is an ethic.
2. What is the central message of Revelation? Support this by interacting with its five major themes.
The book of Revelations central message is: encouragement and exhortation to the seven churches to hope and worship in the present based on a vision of the future that displays the glories of Gods character, His judgment and victory over evil, and the culmination of his eternal Kingdom, rooted in the work of the Lamb who was slain and is exalted both now and forever. The five major themes are: redemption; Gods wrath and judgment; Gods sovereignty; worship; and the culmination of Gods kingdom.
The seven churches either are suffering for Christ or have lost their way. For those who suffer, the Kingdom hope is a terrific thing and for those who have fallen, the book serves as a warning to return. One day soon, God will come back in a powerful and wrathful way. Christ, who is in control, will establish, in finality, the Kingdom.
Through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the Kingdom is first introduced and now people may find themselves in the Book of Life. The sacrifice on the cross enables Christ to do the work that none can do (i.e. the only one who can open the scroll). God pours his wrath on the world, God demonstrates control and Christ returns to his bride the church, rescuing the church from the ultimate judgment, hell [(whatever the judgment really is - i've since changed some feelings on this)]. The first work and continued work of Christ, find a proper response displayed in Revelation - worship. Heaven and the new Earth is full of worship. God has ended the reign of sin and Satan, redeeming creation and establishing the Kingdom. This hope of the winner, a hope of a glorious end, is a remarkable breathe of fresh air. The troubles of today will fall by the wayside in comparison to the future. With this in mind, either come back to God who is in control of it all, or for the faithful, stay the course for the future for the troubles of today are temporary.
Me: first, did it make sense? as in, did you understand it?
Him: i got 1, that one i understand. i'm sketchier on 2
Me: alright, well simply enough, 1 is social, christianity - true christianity is social. we are gracious to others, ALL others, the worst of the worst both in action and word
Him: right, thats what i got from it
Me: the second, revelation is in a word: hope, we have this hope that in the end, God will finish bringing the kingdom. notice i said finish. the kingdom first, officially broke into this world through Jesus and his death
Him: right
Me: if you read luke/acts (it should be read as one really, it even says so) the kingdom of god is everywhere. jesus constantly says "the kingdom of heaven is like..." you see, many of the jews were looking for an earthly reign like king david had, the return to the monarchy, the kicking out of the romans, but jesus came and died
Him: right
Me: he sacrificed to bring about the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God - which looks totally different than any human structure. you die to live, gracious to your enemy, etc. and then, stay with me a sec, the book of acts is narrative story. now as a genre narrative is not particularly normative (the way we ought to respond to situations). just because a guy put out a fleece, doesn't mean it is something we should do, or was even right for him, however, the book of acts seems entirely normative and is a continuation of luke, luke has tons of jesus saying "the kingdom of heaven is like" and then acts is an inclusio, an inclusio is kinda like bookends, but more specific, 'cause the phrase is the same on both sides. the author repeats (which is significant) and in this case, at the beginning and end, luke tells us that this is the kingdom of God entering into the world. the kingdom of God is not geographic - its the people of God (in this case, the church) and the church belongs to a different kingdom than rome - it believes in someone other than the emperor (see that blog post i did). through this belief and allegiance the church takes on a totally different ethic. one that does not assert imaginary national boundaries. the church is international, the church doesn't kill
Him: right
Me: the church is God's kingdom into this world, the church is a glimpse into the kingdom to come. the kingdom is not fully here in the church--there is still sin and God hasn't fully asserted s/he rule on creation. thats what revelation is all about. there will be an end where the kingdom will come in its fullest, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done" is a pray that is both in the now and for the future. Thus this is named kingdom ethics (or kingdom theology or hope theology) make sense? its a total paradigm shift, i know
Him: ok
Me: thats the skeleton, theres so much more to it, but thats the essentials
Me: so then, christianity - the church's purpose is to further the kingdom. how do you do that by killing? how does that represent God? things like that
Him: well, if Bush really were such a good Christian as he's touted himself to be, he would have made an announcement that says, "we forgive you, and we will not respond in kind" immediately after 9/11/2k1
Me: which is why im not for nationalism, it sets you up to do things contrary. this is why im in favor of a church response and talking about that, this is why im a pacifist (along with a few other reasons). a church response to 9/11 instead of a united states of america revenge response
Him: yeah
Me: as a christian, i don't think i can respond christianly within the government, or even sometimes as an American. i don't like killing other Christians. i don't like killing those whom are my enemies. i am called to sacrifice instead of making them die so i can have my sense of freedom. i am called to sacrifice to death out of love which is totally contrary to the modern nation state who defends itself instead of leaving that to God.
And then we moved to Constantinianism for a bit. See here: Constantinianism
Me: so basically, the church isn't the end all that it once was, so its said we're operating in a post-christian society
Him: huh
Me: but even when the church was "the end all" it was the church as a structure, who knows how much of it was the body of Christ. it was the church that educated. this galileo crap is just nonsense. galileo didn't get it for exploring the heavens. he just said the church was wrong about the sun standing still - called 'em liars and that'll do you in. anyways, the point is you had to go through the church to do anything. so the important thing is, that when the church ruled as it did, it wasn't always sincere 'cause it wasn't always Christian (see here - the medicis who bought their way into the papacy)
Him: crusades, for example :(
Me: so the combination of unorthodox power, not christian orthodox power that is (see here God's kingdom - power through sacrifice), with the government of the time was a bad bad thing. so in a sense, we're finally just actually speaking the truth as to who the church really is - who the body of christ really is - followers of Jesus. and so now, in feeling the separation, im going with the church. so this looks similar to the early church, where they were a minority and allegiance to christ over the emperor. son of god was a loaded term. so now if you went back and read of my post, i think it'd make more sense, since i think i've basically just outlined it again
Me: so yeah, thats why i won't run for office, thats why i don't vote. i choose not to vote to say who i find allegiance in. i don't run from society though, i engage, i value engagement, but at the same time i want to make distinctions - i don't and won't follow the state's version of liturgy. its a shame that the church is visibly represented by colorado springs and the 700 club
Him: or dan brown's book
Me: thank god for people like the ones involved in "invisible children." they're totally putting a new light on the church, i saw it even here in Portland
Him: yeah and people are buying into it too >:o
Me: this lady who was totally into it, hell she was organizing all the showings and then the sleep in, said that this newer version, younger version of the church was impressive. i just wish it wasn't us only writing letters to the president and congress, but the church moving to something. and it is, through missions agencies, but still we should be louder in our own way.
Me: anyways, thats my rant.
Part 1
This post has been percolating inside me for a long time. Again this was written for ethics class. The entire paper is a response to a civil disobedience chapter, but I've only really posted the part I've been thinking about for so long - the church, the nation state. However, at the end, because of my take on the church, I do assert my position on civil disobedience.
The History and Nature of the Modern Nation-State
The nation-state as recognized today finds its roots in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe. William Cavanaugh, in Theopolitical Imagination, rightly asserts a view of government that is far different than the common stereotype. The centralized nation-state did not evolve out of necessity to halt the wars of religion, as if a referee between feuding Protestants and Catholics. Rather, the centralized government went beyond inept feudal lords and petty aristocracies and came into its own as an alternate power to religious rule. Nations began to retain the ultimate allegiance instead of religious affiliations; national governments became power structures in and of themselves vying for their subjects primary loyalty.
Clearly there was conflict between the religious powers and political leaders (i.e. Henry II and the Roman Catholic Church through Archbishop Thomas Becket) before the usurpation by political structures; however, governments during the post-reformation age won the battle for control. This is all to say, the governments now are far different from past forms (particularly the feudal system). Nations are in direct contrast to the body of Christ and require a loyalty (nationalism) above religious affiliation (i.e. JFK and his political maneuvering around the fear of subordinating the United States to papal authority).
Now, it is true there are similarities between the Roman government during the birth of Christianity and today. There was a total allegiance required by the emperor (to be viewed the son of a god among other thins, i.e. Julius Caesar was voted divine, thus giving his adopted heir Augustus the title son of god see the works of N.T. Wright), but for some legalized religious, like Judaism, some exemptions were made as long as the peace was kept. When Jesus claimed divine sonship, it is politically charged and in direct opposition to Roman authority (again, see the works of N.T. Wright). At the dawn of Christianity, the faith found itself in direct opposition to the greatest power in the world a centralized government that commanded supreme loyalty.
Today in America, nationalism and allegiance is assumed; to favor an organization that spans international boundaries over the powers of Washington D.C. is unpatriotic and seen by some as treason. I anticipate a critique that questions my assertion, that in fact, it is not as I say and I am at least seditious and ungrateful, if not traitorous. My response is this: America demands a patriotic allegiance that mirrors other forms of religious creeds and liturgy. Governments are power structures that demand much and in fact follow after religious belief systems, both in idea and action. For example, The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Wikipedia says this:
The Tomb Guards, the 3rd United States Infantry (The Old Guard), make personal sacrifices to have the honor of serving. They work on a team rotation of 24 hours on, 24 hours off, 24 on, 24 off, 24 on, and 96 hours off. An average guard takes 8 hours to prepare his uniform (which is solid wool--regardless of the time of year) for the next day's work. In addition to preparing the uniform, guards also complete physical training, Tomb Guard training, cut their hair before the next work day, and shave twice per day. A special Army decoration, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Guard Identification Badge is authorized for permanent award to a Tomb Guard only after a period of nine months of duty as well as a passing a detailed test of 100 questions (from a pool of more than 300).
The first thing that came to my mind was the Hebraic Nazarite vow a promise to be solely Gods for a holy purpose and included rituals and promises (i.e. no cutting of the hair). In reality, the guards of the tomb answer to a promise, a promise that the website itself calls it a creed.
For my interaction with the government, in this case civil disobedience, I think to properly understand the relationship requires a right understanding of both parties. I choose explicitly the person of Christ, his work, and the church universal (the body of Christ) over a quasi-religious nationalism. It seems that many Christians might affirm Christ first, but seem to misunderstand the implications and ethics that Christianity demands. This is not to say I do not enjoy the perks or support America at times, but first and foremost for me is the supreme commandment to love God and others, all others all troops, social classes, ethnicities. The commandment includes extremes and enemies; in point of fact, both America and Al-Qaeda.
My view of civil disobedience is seen within this context; I disobey a structure that attempts to assert unwelcome, counter-Christian control. However, this is not to say that I am necessarily an anarchist, per se. The Bible clearly teaches an obedience to law and order (Romans 13), yet at the same time also portrays the people of God as ultimately loyal to God (i.e. Daniel 6, Acts 4, etc.). With this in mind, where the government diverges from Kingdom of God (of which the Church represents currently), so to I depart from the government.
The Kingdom of God has broken (Christs work), is breaking (the Church as the body of Christ), and will continue to break into this world (both ecclesially and eschatologically), culminating in the redemption of creation and the establishment of complete, divine rule. To merely object to evils vocally is impotent and does little to further the Kingdom; to speak against torture (an un-love of others) require speech and action to announce Christ and his Kingdom, though Christs ethic, to the world. Thus, the church protests compromising governments (i.e. acts of injustice) and reaps the consequences, to the point of dying like a lamb.
To state my view plainly: I resist through direct disobedience. I resist nonviolently. Fighting fire with fire is unacceptable; reacting to violence with violence is not love. Also, I resist communally. I do not resist through a national response, but through a church response (see William Cavanaughs Torture and Eucharist). I, myself individually, do not resist, but it is the body of Christ that together resists.
An explanatory note: the top portion of the post about Kingdom ethics might've been too academic in the vocabulary or lecture oriented for some to read. I got to talking with a friend of mine and conversationally lined it all out. So hopefully this will bring some more clarity for those who care to know.
Part 2
Me: im telling you, the modern nation state usurps the church (not necessarily moralistic "christianity," but i mean the body of Christ, the church - kingdom ethics)
Him: maybe you should speak plain English
Me: im speaking plenty good english. here, read this and then well go from there. (as a side note, these two questions and my answers are from a recent exam for my Hebrews through Revelation class. They seemed a good enough place to start.)
1. What is the thematic center of James? Show how James pursues the themes in the letter. Explain the significance of these themes in light of the life setting of the readers and his teaching regarding trials in 1:1-25.
The thematic center asserted in the notes is as follows: be a doer of the Word this is the true religion of a mature, wise, obedient brother. Most explicitly stated, the thematic core centers on taming the tongue, assisting the orphans and widows, and remaining pure. (Other key themes are: testing of faith; wisdom/maturity; character of God; and poverty/wealth.)
The book of James is written to the diaspora (the scattered). While it might seem common to people today for the church to spread out, the mentality of today is 2,000 years separated and lacks an Old Testament focus. It seems that the audience was frightened and confused over the scattering, and in light of the Old Testament, they had a genuine concern. The Old Testament stressed that the identity of the people of God (in this case Israel) is entirely wrapped up in the land; to disobey resulted in removal from the land while obedience was rewarded with blessing towards a fruitful land. A scattering of the church and suffering trials, viewed from the Old Testament lens, is negative and implies punishment from disobedience. The author of James writes to correct the presupposition; under the new covenant, the follower is not identified through geography, but through ethic.
The writer uses three subjects to display the new ethic: control of the tongue; caring for the orphans and widows; and keeping oneself pure. While suffering the trials and scattering (these tests of faith), Christians can grow into maturity by responding wellstaying pure. Retaining purity is continuing to be a vibrant image of God to the world and the church. This purity can find two specific applications: controlling the deceitful tongue and caring for the needy of the needy (the orphans and widows). To follow this ethic is to stay a doer of the Word (true religion) and where life is found. No longer does life retain a component of geography, but rather, life is an ethic.
2. What is the central message of Revelation? Support this by interacting with its five major themes.
The book of Revelations central message is: encouragement and exhortation to the seven churches to hope and worship in the present based on a vision of the future that displays the glories of Gods character, His judgment and victory over evil, and the culmination of his eternal Kingdom, rooted in the work of the Lamb who was slain and is exalted both now and forever. The five major themes are: redemption; Gods wrath and judgment; Gods sovereignty; worship; and the culmination of Gods kingdom.
The seven churches either are suffering for Christ or have lost their way. For those who suffer, the Kingdom hope is a terrific thing and for those who have fallen, the book serves as a warning to return. One day soon, God will come back in a powerful and wrathful way. Christ, who is in control, will establish, in finality, the Kingdom.
Through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the Kingdom is first introduced and now people may find themselves in the Book of Life. The sacrifice on the cross enables Christ to do the work that none can do (i.e. the only one who can open the scroll). God pours his wrath on the world, God demonstrates control and Christ returns to his bride the church, rescuing the church from the ultimate judgment, hell [(whatever the judgment really is - i've since changed some feelings on this)]. The first work and continued work of Christ, find a proper response displayed in Revelation - worship. Heaven and the new Earth is full of worship. God has ended the reign of sin and Satan, redeeming creation and establishing the Kingdom. This hope of the winner, a hope of a glorious end, is a remarkable breathe of fresh air. The troubles of today will fall by the wayside in comparison to the future. With this in mind, either come back to God who is in control of it all, or for the faithful, stay the course for the future for the troubles of today are temporary.
Me: first, did it make sense? as in, did you understand it?
Him: i got 1, that one i understand. i'm sketchier on 2
Me: alright, well simply enough, 1 is social, christianity - true christianity is social. we are gracious to others, ALL others, the worst of the worst both in action and word
Him: right, thats what i got from it
Me: the second, revelation is in a word: hope, we have this hope that in the end, God will finish bringing the kingdom. notice i said finish. the kingdom first, officially broke into this world through Jesus and his death
Him: right
Me: if you read luke/acts (it should be read as one really, it even says so) the kingdom of god is everywhere. jesus constantly says "the kingdom of heaven is like..." you see, many of the jews were looking for an earthly reign like king david had, the return to the monarchy, the kicking out of the romans, but jesus came and died
Him: right
Me: he sacrificed to bring about the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God - which looks totally different than any human structure. you die to live, gracious to your enemy, etc. and then, stay with me a sec, the book of acts is narrative story. now as a genre narrative is not particularly normative (the way we ought to respond to situations). just because a guy put out a fleece, doesn't mean it is something we should do, or was even right for him, however, the book of acts seems entirely normative and is a continuation of luke, luke has tons of jesus saying "the kingdom of heaven is like" and then acts is an inclusio, an inclusio is kinda like bookends, but more specific, 'cause the phrase is the same on both sides. the author repeats (which is significant) and in this case, at the beginning and end, luke tells us that this is the kingdom of God entering into the world. the kingdom of God is not geographic - its the people of God (in this case, the church) and the church belongs to a different kingdom than rome - it believes in someone other than the emperor (see that blog post i did). through this belief and allegiance the church takes on a totally different ethic. one that does not assert imaginary national boundaries. the church is international, the church doesn't kill
Him: right
Me: the church is God's kingdom into this world, the church is a glimpse into the kingdom to come. the kingdom is not fully here in the church--there is still sin and God hasn't fully asserted s/he rule on creation. thats what revelation is all about. there will be an end where the kingdom will come in its fullest, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done" is a pray that is both in the now and for the future. Thus this is named kingdom ethics (or kingdom theology or hope theology) make sense? its a total paradigm shift, i know
Him: ok
Me: thats the skeleton, theres so much more to it, but thats the essentials
Me: so then, christianity - the church's purpose is to further the kingdom. how do you do that by killing? how does that represent God? things like that
Him: well, if Bush really were such a good Christian as he's touted himself to be, he would have made an announcement that says, "we forgive you, and we will not respond in kind" immediately after 9/11/2k1
Me: which is why im not for nationalism, it sets you up to do things contrary. this is why im in favor of a church response and talking about that, this is why im a pacifist (along with a few other reasons). a church response to 9/11 instead of a united states of america revenge response
Him: yeah
Me: as a christian, i don't think i can respond christianly within the government, or even sometimes as an American. i don't like killing other Christians. i don't like killing those whom are my enemies. i am called to sacrifice instead of making them die so i can have my sense of freedom. i am called to sacrifice to death out of love which is totally contrary to the modern nation state who defends itself instead of leaving that to God.
And then we moved to Constantinianism for a bit. See here: Constantinianism
Me: so basically, the church isn't the end all that it once was, so its said we're operating in a post-christian society
Him: huh
Me: but even when the church was "the end all" it was the church as a structure, who knows how much of it was the body of Christ. it was the church that educated. this galileo crap is just nonsense. galileo didn't get it for exploring the heavens. he just said the church was wrong about the sun standing still - called 'em liars and that'll do you in. anyways, the point is you had to go through the church to do anything. so the important thing is, that when the church ruled as it did, it wasn't always sincere 'cause it wasn't always Christian (see here - the medicis who bought their way into the papacy)
Him: crusades, for example :(
Me: so the combination of unorthodox power, not christian orthodox power that is (see here God's kingdom - power through sacrifice), with the government of the time was a bad bad thing. so in a sense, we're finally just actually speaking the truth as to who the church really is - who the body of christ really is - followers of Jesus. and so now, in feeling the separation, im going with the church. so this looks similar to the early church, where they were a minority and allegiance to christ over the emperor. son of god was a loaded term. so now if you went back and read of my post, i think it'd make more sense, since i think i've basically just outlined it again
Me: so yeah, thats why i won't run for office, thats why i don't vote. i choose not to vote to say who i find allegiance in. i don't run from society though, i engage, i value engagement, but at the same time i want to make distinctions - i don't and won't follow the state's version of liturgy. its a shame that the church is visibly represented by colorado springs and the 700 club
Him: or dan brown's book
Me: thank god for people like the ones involved in "invisible children." they're totally putting a new light on the church, i saw it even here in Portland
Him: yeah and people are buying into it too >:o
Me: this lady who was totally into it, hell she was organizing all the showings and then the sleep in, said that this newer version, younger version of the church was impressive. i just wish it wasn't us only writing letters to the president and congress, but the church moving to something. and it is, through missions agencies, but still we should be louder in our own way.
Me: anyways, thats my rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)