Bonhoeffer (yes, again) says that we should always read scripture against ourselves...as individuals and as communities. Um, read Matthew this way. We are the tares, brothers and sisters. Matthew was serious. He was not kidding around. The gospel leads to suffering and death. It is not a place for shiny happy people. It is a place despised by the world.
It is poverty, itenerancy, preaching, teaching, prayer, love, gentleness...it is all this. No extra robe. No extra sandles. "Peace be unto this house." It is a hard life with little room for cowards. Is this the cup you wish for?
It is interesting to read Matt now that I have been given the "all clear" sign from my congregation. Dear God, save me from myself. Give me a staff. Help me preach peace. Lift me up when I stumble for I surely will.
Salvation and Discipleship
-or-
What Would Jesus Do?
Matthew 19:16-30
For Matthew, Christ is the fruition of the Law. He is the will of God incarnate. Matthew is calling his community into a radical and salvific transformation of life. It is not enough that they simply comprehend the theology that Matthew espouses. It is that membership in the community is now central to Matthew’s understanding of faith. Membership is defined by obedience to the Law who is Jesus the Christ. Not one jot or tiddle of the Law will be changed. Instead, it will be lived, it will be revealed in its fullness in the life of Christ and the lives of those obedient to him…namely the Matthean community.
Judgment or salvation depends upon the community’s ability to live into this proclamation. Anything short of this is a failure to proclaim the Gospel. It is not to be a set of theologies that give us ways of thinking profound thoughts. Instead, it is how we live. It is real. It is poor. It is love. It is gentle. It is profound denial of worldliness in the midst of the world. It is obedience, pure and simple.
Luz states the following: “Discipleship means life in Christ’s pattern (p 48 Matthew in History).” Poverty, itinerancy, Jesus’ teaching, preaching and suffering were all hallmarks of the Matthean community. This was the goal of discipleship. This is the proclamation of the Good News. “Not only what the disciples say but what they do and what they suffer – what they are – has proclamatory character (p. 49).”
This is what is salvific about the proclamation in Matthew’s gospel. It is not that we espouse a dogmatics, or participate within a liturgical or ecclesial structure. Our salvation depends solely on our ability to be Christ in the world. This is who we are. We should question any ecclesial structure that denies this truth. This is what is so deeply alien and troubling about the Gospel of Matthew.
Is the story of the rich young ruler about salvation, discipleship or both? In Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer wants to say that this is not an issue about salvation. It is about obedience alone. According to Bonhoeffer, Christ is interested in the man and not the man’s wealth. The response Jesus seeks is one of obedience. For Bonhoeffer, this is the radical truth of the Gospel: obedience to Christ. Nothing else matters (Bonhoeffer p. 71).
According to Harrington, Matthew is trying to underscore yet again the differences and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Here we have a rich young Jew who is curious about the teachings of Jesus. He is met with a radical response that challenges his assumption about the Law (Harrington p. 280). There is more to following the commandments than keeping clean. This is not a radical notion in that Jesus is presenting something new. No, it is a Jewish notion held by multiple historically Jewish communities. So, one could wonder if the young man expected this answer or hoped for something different thus his dejected posture following Christ’s pronouncement.
Neyrey wants to speak to how this created for the young man a certain social tension. In Honor and Shame, Neyrey suggests that this pronouncement both shames the young man’s current status and asks him to loose whatever positive community status he possesses. He is to give his wealth to the poor, the stranger. He will lose his own status, one of prosperity, in the process (p. 62).
In either case, neither interpreter suggests that the decision of the young man has anything to do with his salvation. By Harrington’s interpretation, Jesus is suggesting that keeping the commandments is enough to insure salvation. Salvation through the Law is a reality. The question reframed by Jesus is about discipleship. He is not concerned with salvation.
Often I have heard this passage used as an outline for a works-righteousness approach to salvation. The young man would not follow Christ, thus his salvation is lost. Is that what Matthew is saying to us? He says something else. Following Jesus has nothing to do with salvation…at least not for the young man. For the young man to give up his wealth to the poor is simply a response to Jesus’ call. It is not a salvific act. It is a Christian act. This story both underscores the Jewish-ness of the Christian community for Matthew as well as stating the difference. The difference is obedience to Christ. Where that obedience leads is what is salvific. It leads us to the judgments seat where God alone deems us worthy.
This is a hard call to the Baptist church who tries to straddle the line between charity (right Christian action) and the autonomy of the individual. The former can lead us into relationship with one another and the world. The latter can lead us into a spiritual narcissism that can deaden our faith. Perhaps, as well, the middle way of the Baptist church, though it seeks to embody the teachings of the earliest Christian communities, is also mistaken. It may be overly human. The Baptist middle path asks for God to rest in our context and not we in God’s. Matthew is stating the exact opposite. We find ourselves only in the context of the life of Christ. This “patterning after Christ” that Luz states is more radical than “How do we see God in our own cultures.” Instead, it is how we are transformed through obedience into something entirely new, something of God and not of ourselves. We are transformed into Christ. There is no other calling for Matthew. There is no other embodiment.
I have been asking myself about why I find Matthew so difficult to read. I really do not like Matthew. I find him frustrating and alien. I find that he tells a story in which I cannot locate myself. Now I see that this is exactly the problem. He is not asking me to see myself. He is not asking me to devise some polite stratagem to engage in a Matthean ethic. He wants all of me. This is alien to my experience of Church. This is alien to my experience of Christian community. In light of my recent “licensing” at North Shore, I must admit that the call that I have responded to is more difficult than I knew. It is more difficult than I can predict. Am I willing to drink of the Lord’s cup? Do I want a throne in heaven? If I do wish to follow Christ, to be a minister in his Church, then I must be willing to love, suffer and die for Christ and as Christ.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 responding to cost of discipleship part ii
“It is impossible to surrender our lives to Jesus or call him Lord of our own free will (p. 193 Bonhoeffer).”
This is where I have trouble with Brother Dietrich. This is where his understanding of all things, all salvation, faith, relationship and action happening purely through Christ becomes tedious and they lose an understanding of free will that I can grasp. If there is no ability to choose God, then what is the purpose of having free will? A doctrine of free will must allow the created to choose to follow Christ or simply recognize his relationship to Christ as the created and then follow. Either schema must insist on the volitional act of the believer. Dietrich speaks of obedience. Obedience is something we choose. It is a volitional act. Thus, to surrender all, like the rich young ruler, is a choice. It is absolutely a choice. It can be no other thing.
Bonhoeffer is placing surrender into the hands of the Spirit. By quoting Paul (I Cor. 12:3), he misappropriates the place of the Spirit and displaces the autonomy of the believer to choose surrender and Christ’s Lordship. No, we cannot serve two masters. We must choose either Christ or mammon. This is the power given to Adam and Eve in the garden.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve are warned away from the tree of knowledge. This is because God knows that they may very well choose disobedience. Why else warn your child? Yes, fear for their well being is there. Yet, the fear stems from the knowledge that the child can choose the harmful path. This is based on the child’s ability to choose wisdom, to choose obedience.
How do we then respond to God’s call? I am not suggesting that we alone possess the ability to enact our salvation. Yet, our salvation rests on our ability to choose and our desire for God. We must act on our desire. We must respond to the grace that Dietrich depends upon so much. Faith is a dialogue between Creator and created. It is wrestling with obedience. It is a series of choices to follow Christ.
How do we make those choices? We are, like Nicodemus in John’s gospel, given the truth to chew on for a while. “Man, you must be born again.” This is troublesome. It is difficult. Yet, Nicodemus sought him out for this word. Nicodemus chose. Christ responded by offering the truth. Nicodemus leaves confused, his lack of understanding getting in the way of following Christ.
At the end of the gospel, Nicodemus appears, this time as one serving Christ and his community. He has chosen. His act of obedience underscores his understanding of faith and his willingness to be transformed.
God transforms us. Nevertheless, we must allow it, paying heed to God’s leadings in our life. If grace is to be costly, it must be a choice. There must be a volitional act that brings about our salvation, our transformation and God’s visible kingdom here on earth.
The trouble here is that we also need to understand that this is not works righteousness. It is response. God acts first. We only respond. The rest is up to God. We cannot affect our own salvation. We can only assent to it. We can only open ourselves to it.
George Herbert spells it out best in the poem Love (3).
Love bade me welcome: yet my heart drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey’d Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lack’d anything.
A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, you shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?
Truth Lord, but I have marr’d them: Let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.
God indeed bids us welcome. We wrestle with our worthiness, our belief, our understanding and intellect, and our very hearts. We must will these to give way so that we may receive Christ as Lord. This is surrender.
Questions:
Are Brother Dietrich and I arguing semantics here?
How is this understanding of Bonhoeffer’s (we do nothing to afford our salvation) consistent with his doctrine of costly grace?
Well, the church voted and it was unanimous. They will support me for ordination in the ABC-USA. Huzzah! It is an interesting process. I have been the seminarian intern for one year already. I have preached from time to time. I have taught the senior high class. I have led contemplative prayer workshops. It is all good.
So, Sunday I preached the sermon you see below. After the service the voting members and other interested parties hung around to hear my testimony, to ask questions and to vote. It was something else. I really do not know what I was expecting, but I was surprised by it all.
The questions were as follows:
What is it like being a Baptist at an Episcopal seminary? Trish asked this question and a good follow-up. She surprised me with her participation in this process, but she is more shrewd than I and wanted people to be on my side from the get go. She says I know how to win people over. Who knew? I mentioned Trevor in my answer. He's Mennonite and that is as close as I got here at Seabury.
You are looking at PhD's and at non-Baptist seminaries...why? I am applying to Notre Dame and a few other places to study liturgy. The AngloBaptist tradition grows apace. Robyn asked that question. I wonder where she is thinking of doing her PhD.
Will you stay around here at North Shore after we ordain you? Tim asked this question. He is bright and fun. I like him. I will miss him because I will not be staying at North Shore.
When you have your own church will you preach the gospel or politics? This was an important one to answer. I said that there is no way for us to separate the two. Our faith should and does influence our politics. It has to or it is void. I will not proclaim a candidate from the pulpit. That is a misuse of the pulpit. Rachel Lindsey...she makes me work. I am not sure if I answered this question for her or not. I am sure that she will ask me a follow up next Sunday.
You said that there is a Mennonite professor you speak to. You know that Mennonites hold a theology of faith through regeneration and Baptists say that faith is by justification alone. How do you balance out those differences and where do you stand? I have to preach to this guy. Adino Caballero is an outstanding thinker. He works in a Teflon plant in the suburbs. Welcome to the Baptist Church, people. I will never again underestimate my congregation. If I have in the past, Lord forgive me.
This is most of the questions. Jane brought her family. She may remember more questions. I am humbled and astounded by her attendance. Susie showed up later. We all went out to brunch at Augie's. Thank you to all who were praying for me. I am now licensed to perform weddings and funerals at North Shore. I am the communion minister next Sunday. Wow. Holy mysteries, armenian generalities and calvinist particulars abound. Lord help us all.
sermon, oct 26, 2003
Okay, whose idea was it to have the seminarian preach on the day we have to talk about money? Something fishy is going on here.
Don was an acquaintance of mine back in Richmond, VA. I used to live and work at a retreat center called Richmond Hill. The retreat center runs a school to train spiritual directors. Don was one of the students. I never got to know Don very well, but I had one of the most important conversations of my life with him in the courtyard one afternoon.
I was walking outside and found Don sitting on the stoop with tears in his eyes. I had always liked Don. Seeing him crying was a surprise, so I approached him to see if he needed anything and he began to tell me of his walk with God and how he ended up where he was that day.
He had been a contractor down near Norfolk. He, his wife, and the children had a good life. The construction business was booming. Things were going really well. Then there began this nagging from the Spirit. God wanted Don to go to seminary and become a Baptist pastor. This, Don admitted, was the furthest thing from his mind. Yes, he had been active in the church. Yes, he and his wife were faithful. But why this new leading? So, he and his wife prayed about it, thought about it, worried about money, and worried about their kids. Eventually they decided that Don would apply to Virginia Union University's School of Theology. Everything was going well...or so Don thought. Then God began to call Don's wife.
I really do not remember what his wife was being called to. I just remember that Don was angry and jealous. He told me that he was learning a very hard lesson. His wife was not his and he was not his wife's. They both belong to God. God had laid claim on both of them. Don was angry and frustrated. The difficulties created put a tremendous strain on their marriage. Don had learned that his wife did not belong to him. She belonged to God and Don was very sad.
I have been thinking a lot about Don over the last several weeks. For some time leading up to my engagement with Trish and since then, my conversation with Don that afternoon has been on my mind. I am so excited about being engaged to Trish. She is my fiancée. She will be my wife. I will be her husband. Yet, she belongs to God and not to me. I belong to God and not to Trish.
This is what made me think of the story about the rich young man.
Every time I have ever read this story, I had thought about it as a story about lost salvation. The rich young man was unable to follow Christ. His salvation was lost, but that is not what the story says. His salvation is assured. He keeps the commandments. It is perfection that is the issue. To be perfect he must give all he has to the poor and follow Christ. Jesus is not interested in salvation here. He is not even interested in the man's money. By encouraging the man to do this radical and painful thing, he is asking for the man himself. Christ is not interested in his money. He is interested in him. Christ wants the rich young man. Christ wants Don. Christ wants Don's wife. Christ wants Trish and me. Christ wants you. This is not salvation. This is discipleship.
Don' sadness is the sadness of the rich young man. He has been asked to give himself away, to claim ownership of himself no longer but to realize the truth that we all belong to Christ. We do not even belong to ourselves. This is a hard word to hear. It is an isolating word. It is a word that causes us to reel in confusion and anxiety. The young man was mourning his money, but that was only the beginning. First, he was to give his money. Then he was to follow Christ. The loss of all his wealth was just the tip of the iceberg!
Can you hear it now?
If I do not have my job... If I do not have my wealth... If I do not have my family... If I do not have myself then what do I have?
I have Christ. We have Christ. We have a boundless love that holds us in an inescapable embrace.
This is how the early communities tried to live. In Acts, we are not seeing an example of socialism or communism. The community lived this way because this is a hard call and we cannot do it alone. The rich young man walked off alone. I think that this is why he had such a hard time with this. His conversation with Christ was singular. You give. You follow. The rich young man did not perceive the community that followed Christ. He did not perceive the love of the Spirit flowing through the gathered faithful that would have held him up as he tried to follow this difficult and terrifying call. All he could think of was his loss. He could not see his gain. He could not see what was before him.
This is not easy. The apostle Paul's letters were about strife in these communities. These were not perfect people. They were seeking Christ. They were trying to live into the Kingdom. It is hard work.
I used to have a job that was seasonal. Every year I would have anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks of unemployment. I would collect my unemployment check and live off my savings, but it was very little to live on. Once, I actually ran out of food and could not afford to buy groceries. People from this church stepped up and gave me food. They fed me dinner. They gave me tomatoes from their gardens and cookies from their ovens. One person even gave me steak. Yes, steak. I sat down one morning and had tomatoes, a fried egg and a really good steak. I had to laugh at the generosity. Here I was broke and here I was eating the best breakfast I had had in years, a breakfast that I could not have afforded even when I was employed.
This is what it can mean to "share everything in common." This is what it can mean "to give everything to the poor." It can mean incredible wealth. North Shore tries to live into this. We give to missions, to One Great Hour of Sharing, to the benevolence fund, to one another. We work very hard at sharing all things in common. However, before we congratulate ourselves too heartily, we need to remind ourselves of the rest of Jesus' call.
First, give it away. Then follow.
Brothers and sisters, the giving is only the first step. God demands more. In Exodus, he demands the best, the first born, the first fruits, the choicest parts. Jesus asks for all of us, once again taking the Law and deepening our understanding of it. It is not a question of following rules and guidelines. It is a question of following Christ. Are we willing to lose ourselves to Christ? Are we willing to be obedient in this way? How is God calling you? Is he calling you to something profound and difficult? How is he asking you to follow him?
You are not alone in this call. You are in the community of the faithful. You are surrounded by others wrestling with this same call. Throughout history and around the world there are people who struggle with this. Christ is in the church, asking for our lives, our souls. He desires us. He claims us as his own. His love is that great. His love is that true. He asks for us because he loves us, loves us enough to die on the cross for us.
I don't know the rest of Don's story. He told me that day that he and his wife were working hard at being family and loving one another. In that sense, we have multiple calls. But maybe here is a way to finish Don's story
Once there was a man who came to Jesus and said "Teacher, as much as I am able, I study and give to the poor. What else can I do?" Jesus turned to this man and said "Very good, my son, but if you wish to be perfect, give up your job, your wealth, your family and follow me."
The man was surprised and saddened for he was fearful, but he replied, "Yes teacher, this thing you ask, I will do."
As he was led into the community of the faithful he turned and seeing Christ, he loved him.
Do not pass go! Do not collect $200.00! Instead, go to room 209. It is the coolest thing ever. Trevor has a cool wife. And Trevor is 35 now. Hmm...why do I feel old when he is only marginally older than I?
The inexhaustible multiplicity of situations which bring people together and give them the opportunity for loving one another provides a facinating lesson in Christian truth. For the person involved, whether lover, beloved, or perhaps only a spectator, truth is manifested and illustrated, persuasively and yet without compulsion, wherever a situation is approached in a Christian way. Practiced, experienced love suddenly realizes "So that is it!" It is something marvelously simple and natural (even if it calls for heroism) because it is made for us, although on our own we would never have found it or been able to measure up to it. It is something liberating, yet it humbles and judges us as we carry it out; it refines us and burns us like fire. This is the quintessence of all reality! Not only is it the essense of Christianity with all its dogmas and institutions, it is the essence of God himself, who gave his Son for us and poured his Spirit, which is the Spirit of love, into our hearts (Von Balthazar p. 218).
This may very well be a method of bringing the worshipers' attention toward mystery. Mystery is not something that is unfocused. It is the very presense of God. Here we have one of those wondrous Christian dialectics again. It is revealed mystery. It is both at once. It is mystery in which all truth is found. It is mystery in which we die and are born again in our baptism. It is the love of God. It is sacrificial. It is self-less. It is love of neighbor and of God in which we come to love ourselves.
Somehow our liturgies must rest in this love. Our liturgies must recognise whom it is which we invite into communion. We invite the lover and the beloved. We invite stranger and the poor. We invite the widow. We invite one another. We are invited by Christ. We invite the enemy. We are loved and we love.
This is transformation. This is painful. This is sacrifice that mirrors the crusifixion. This is baptism. This is communion. This is what is ordained by Christ. We are to do what Christ did. We are to do what he asks of us because we are made new by the cross. Thus, we must love even our enemy. Perhaps we are to most especially love our enemy.
In worship, all we are, all we do is to be enshrouded in this love, this greatest mystery. Please do not confuse this with some "Woodstock Experience." It is not a free love. It is costly. It is not free. It is not that we relish in the self. Instead we relish in God. We are revealed by one another and God. The community is the focus and not the individual. The community loves and is loved. When one among the community is weak, the community upholds. When one sins, the community redeems, renews. We are to act as Christ. Whatever we forgive on earth is forgiven in heaven.
This is our liturgy. Love is our liturgy. All our worship needs say this. All our worship must stare into the great mystery and, in awe, celebrate God's sacrifice, God's love for us.
Oh...the scripture for Sunday!
Scripture: Matt. 19:16-30 Acts. 2:42-47 Ex. 34:19-26a Ps. 100
Bob is feeling under the weather today.
We are about a week behind in our lecture.
He is not worried about this.
The worship hosted this evening was excellent. It was a levitical/tabernacle service that some students put together. For our project (my small group of three) we have been given a Passover service. I am thinking communion. I am thinking about the Great Vigil where the deeds of YHWH are extolled. It would be interesting. Fire. Bread. Wine. Lamb. It has to be a both/and service where the old and the new meet.
Or does it?
I want to know how we can bring mystery into our stewardship services. How can I talk about money and the love of Christ? I have to. Somehow there is a tie between the Three Wise Men, the Rich Young Ruler, Acts and Philippians.
We give gifts to God like the The Wise Guys.
We are asked to give to the poor like the Rich Young Guy in order to be like God.
We are asked to give to one another, the community of the faithful, to be like God.
We are asked to humble ourselves in love.
Shoot. I don't know and I need to know. I think I will not be sleeping much this week. GRE's? Sermon. Two small papers. Argh.
Now, um, if you are willing, come to worship this Sunday at 10:00 am at North Shore. I am preaching on money (a.k.a. "stewardship"). I think the sermon title may be "Throw Yourself in the Collection Plate." Ha! Anyway. For those from Seabury, it is a 20 minute sermon. Be warned. The Big Deal here is that after I preach, there is a church meeting where my ordination is the subject of the vote. I will give a very brief testimony about my journey toward ordination (Honest, Susie). If anyone in the pews wants to ask a question, they may. Then they vote. If it goes well I then will go to the regional level for two big meetings with the Higher-Ups there. This is good. The immediate good is that I will be authorized to perform communion, funerals and weddings at North Shore (only). It is an interesting process to say the least. I am nervous though. If you would pray for this heretic, I would be glad. If you can come and sit as I preach, testify and THEY vote, I would be grateful. It is a Big Deal. There is coffee afterward. Cookies, too.
The last two are still in debate. Picking scripture is hard for me. I have too much running through my head. Yay.
logos kai mysterion
These are more musings on Von Balthazar and the paschal mystery.
Once again, I am called to beat the drum of "thinking." This is hellishly complicated stuff for this brain. Von Balthazar begins his chapter with this:
The Father's Word, his eternal and sole beloved Son whom he has given to be the price of our redemption, to be our brother, has entered into the spacial and temporal multiplicity of this world. And it is through these quantitative media that the qualitiative values of life and of the spirit manifest themselves and pour forth their inner richness. The transformations of place and time which the eye, the ear and all of a person's senses and faculties follow (and to which all of them are subject), conduct them, utterly tangibly, through all the graduations of the One, into a unity whose boundless fullness never fails to astonish them.
The paschal mystery (Christ's death, resurrection and return in glory) is the center of our worship, of our belief. Can we all, meaning, can we denominations, we traditions of Christianity all agree to this? Probably not. We do not all agree that the paschal mystery is central. We may usually agree that there is such a thing as the paschal mystery, but we respond differently.
Some would say that the historical reality of these acts are not essential either. It can be understaood as mere myth to convey certain spiritual truths about God, Spirit and the created order. It can be understood, thought of, as an actual historical occurance with vast cosmic ramifications for the universe. There are a great many ways of understanding myth and mystery, of understanding story and truth. Our individual doctrines stem from our individual and communal thinking on the paschal mystery.
How then, in worship, in liturgy, can we capture something as elusive as mystery? Certainly we do it. Certainly it is reported that mystery was attended to, and did indeed herself attend. Yet, how? How is this done?
Liturgy can be a discipline for believers. Following the liturgical callendar and participating in a daily office can bring about a greater attentiveness to mystery. It can give fuel to creativity. It can give meaning to worship by centering the beilever in the everyday common prayerlife of the Church.
But then the thinking becomes circular. What church? Whose church? As a baptist, I am called to proclaim the autonomy of the congregation. I am called to stand in an ecclesial reality that allows for the individual congregation, even the individual believer, to be central. How then am I, as pastor, to proclaim mystery? What mystery? Whose mystery? How can I proclaim a paschal mystery when we do not agree what the paschal mystery is?
"Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again." Is this enough on its own? Shall I leave the believer alone in this? Can I trust the Spirit to attend?
Wisdom attend.
···Our aim in contemplation [read: worship] is not to discover some hidden divine meaning behind all individual material feature's of the Lord's life. Such complimentarity would be impossible anyway since each detail points toward God's inexhaustible infinity. As well as that, the same praying person encounters the same reality differently at different times, and the experiences of people are all different too, in spite of the fact that a particular teaching of Christ, in word or deed, has an unequivocal meaning (p. 204).
As we contemplate the mystery, as we are somehow engaged within it, as it meets us, we need to relinquish the idea that it will have a boundaried nature. We need to silence our own voices, allowing our individuality to fall into the context of the paschal mystery and not the other way around. We want so desperately to define God, the paschal mystery, Christ by our own terms. We must not. We must allow God to define us by God's terms. By God's self-revelation, so we are revealed. We are laid bare. We are made impossible and painfully vulnerable.
···[There] is an unlimited number of possible variations on the one theme, which is the self-sacrifice of divine love and our initiation into the depths of divine meaning.
···Anyone at all versed in contemplation will surely have had this experience. Every gospel scene seems new and fresh each day; it does not seem threatened by the dust, pallor and obsolescence of history. Every day the eyes of faith witness the miracle: the gospel is the only factor in history which is superior to the laws of history. "Heaven and earth will pass away; but my words will never pass away (p. 204).
Hey, so I'm a little heady. Big deal! Ha. It is to laugh. I am simply making up for years of abusing my brain with caffeine, alcohol, a little weed and great ammounts of laziness.
Here is why thinking matters for me.
This is what I am interested: ecumenism. I was speaking with some friends from Catholic Theological Union and the differences betweeen our traditions are often staggering. That is no great suprise. So, which one is right? The more conservative of either stripe would certainly say that the other is NOT the church. How is this so? It is our ideas about Christ, our thinking, that separate us. It is the dogma that we assent to that cause us to be different.
Now, are we proclaiming a different Christ? Some would say so. Are Baptists missing something having no sacrament? Maybe. But our thinking has led us this way. Our thinking about Christ and the paschal mystery has led us this way. Maybe that is the problem. It probably is. Yet, Christian have been THINKING about Christ for 2000 years. This is nothing new.
This is why thinking is so important. If there is ever going to be any reason to be "of one mind" (Phil. 2:1-13) again, we will have to reconcile our thinking. Maybe. Sometimes I am comfortable proclaiming a humble mystery and allowing for a great plurality of understandings. Then I meet conservative voices whose thinking is totally different and I realize how much thinking matters.
Of course there is so much more to faith than thinking. Of course faith is not just thinking. It is not mere assent. Yet, somehow it boils down to that (assent) when we are in dialogue with one another. It is a great struggle.
So where do we go from here?
Note: My hands still smell of rosewater. In class this morning at CTU I presided over the liturgy. We reaffirmed our baptism. It was lovely. I will miss mystery when I hang solely with we Baptists.
My internet connection at home is down. Some of youse guys know that. So, this is adieu for the weekend. Play well. Pray loads. Eat something not recommended by your physician.
I think popular music in this country is one of the few things in the 20th century that has made giant strides in reverse.
- - Bing Crosby
Theirs' (the Beatles') is a happy, cocky, belligerently resourceless brand of harmonic primitivism . . . In the Liverpudlian repertoire, the indulged amateurishness of the musical material, though closely rivaled by the indifference of the performing style, is actually surpassed only by the ineptitude of the studio production method. "Strawberry Fields" suggests a chance encounter at a mountain wedding between Claudio Monteverdi and a jug band.
- - Glenn Gould
Perhaps not popular ststements, but funny as heck. God bless the Beatles and Bing.
Is this a play-on-words? Peter is at once the rock on which the foundation of the church is laid and a stumbling block for the early community and Christ himself. Both Harrington (p. 249) and Plumptre (p. 99) want to say that this is an intentional play-on-words by Matthew to underscore the naming of Simon who is Peter. Simon is the "rock" (petros/petra) whether or not he is the foundation of the Church (ekklesia) or a stumbling block (skandolon) before Christ. Peter is human.
Matthew may simply be stressing an allegiance to Peter, the supposed founder of the community. Alternatively, this paralleling can also be expanded in such a way to underscore the mystery of the Church. How is the Church at once human and at once a gift of grace and thus divine? Peter may be a metaphor for the Church through these passages. Certainly some Christian traditions have utilized this passage to support such an understanding.
How is ignorance of Christ possible? How is revelation at work in this interchange between Peter and Christ? First, we think Peter understands the mission of Christ. Then he does not and Christ rebukes him.
There are, in this story from Matthew, two understandings of what it means to be messiah. There is a human (fleshly) understanding and a divine understanding. If Plumptre is correct in his thoughts, then Jesus too is tempted to follow the more traditional notion (p.101). Jesus struggles here. He is tempted as he was in the wilderness. Peter is wise only once, and that is when the wisdom is from the Father in the proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus too must proclaim the Father and the cross. In his praise and rebuking of Peter, he does this. This is as much a reminder to himself as it is a rebuke for Peter. Is this a turning point in Jesus' ministry?
Following Plumptre's thinking, we can see shadings of Gethsemane in this. This a bitter cup for Jesus. The good news is difficult to understand. What is Matthew telling us by underscoring this dynamic of difficulty and misunderstanding? What is Matthew asking us to understand or agree with? Is he simply saying that this is a difficult call? Is he underscoring the difficulty in transforming the traditional definition of messiah to his Jewish community? It is perhaps all this and more. Behind the text, one can almost hear "See, people, even Peter had trouble with this. Jesus himself did not fully understand what his Father was asking of him. If you struggle, you are in good company, but hear the truth from the Father through the Son."
Matthew wanted his community to understand messiah-ship as Jesus defined it and to understand this as being a furthering of the divine covenant. If Matthew's community was a Jewish community, then the centrality of a new understanding of messiah-ship could have been a confusing aspect of Christian thought. Certainly, the non-Christian Jews of the time would have disagreed with Matthew. This story is a narrative proof of the divine nature of this new understanding. It comes from the Father and not from humanity. The response is theological and pastoral. Yes, brothers and sisters, this is new. This may be difficult, but it is who we are and it is gift from God.
Harrington (p. 251) and Plumptre (p. 100) both suggest that this is the case. Matthew used "ekklesia" and not "synagogue" in this passage. It is the first time the word "ekklesia" appears to name the community in Matthew's gospel. It is possible that Matthew was trying to distinguish one (the Christian community) from the other (the Jewish community) by introducing this new language in the midst of this story where a new understanding of messiah is given. A gulf was growing between Jew and Christian and Matthew had chosen his community.
An interesting preaching point may be to see how we too are like Peter. We are both one who proclaims truth. "You are the Christ" And we can be a stumbling block before that same Christ, before the church's proclamation. We can scandalize (an interesting cognate if not an exact translation) the church. In fact, we more than likely will. We will deny Christ three times. We will be asked to feed his lambs. We are to proclaim an incomprehensible message.
Works Sited:
Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew vol. 1, Sacra Pagina Series. Harrington, Daniel J. ed. The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, USA 1991
Plumbtre, E.H. The Gospel According to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke vol. 1, A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Ellicott, Charles John ed. Cassell and Company Ltd. London, England 1897
Thursday, October 16, 2003 greetings and all that jazz
My connection to the internet at home has been down. So, if you really want to know more of what I am thinking these days, I posted some things below. I think I got all the dates right. Here are the post titles and links.
And there you go. I was emailing with the editor of American Baptist Quarterly. He will do a little light editing and then send me his draft. I'll double check it and then we will go to the publishing stage. This is quite fun. If anyone is interested in reading the article before it goes to print let me know. I'll post it here (I think) once it goes to print.
Teaching about Christ begins in silence. 'Be still, for that is the absolute', writes Kierkegaard. That has nothing to do with the silence of the mystics, who in their dumbness chatter away secretly in their souls by themselves. The silence of the Church is silence before the Word. In so far as the Church proclaims the Word, it falls down silently in truth before the inexpressible: 'In silence I worship the unutterable' (Cyril of Alexandria). The spoken Word is the inexpressible; this unutterable is the Word. 'It must become spoken, it is the great battle cry' (Luther). Although it is cried out by the Church in the world, it remains the inexpressible. To speak of Christ means to keep silent to keep silent about Christ means to speak. When the Church speaks rightly out of a proper silence, the Christ is proclaimed. - p 27 Christ the Center
I have been thinking and writing about thinking of late. This has been a good thing for me to do. Some read my posts and wonder what I am up to. I am one of those people who likes to follow a thought as far as I am able to push its bounds a bit. It is good to do so within some kind of community (online or in a class?). I am grateful for the feedback.
So, where does my faith lie if not in this thinking? Well, the above quote from Bonhoeffer helps flesh that out a little. Bonhoeffer has less love for the mystics than I do. The mystics do what Bonhoeffer desires to do. Some, the "professional" mystics of his time and of the Reformation, may have been the chatterboxes that Brother Dietrich fretted about. That makes some sense to me. I am not sure what he is about exactly, but I wonder that little bit of trivia.
So, silence, stillness, mystery, sign and symbol...this is where my faith lies...at the foot of the cross.
To be perfect is not to be flawless; it is rather to take Jesus' way, the way of ripe or full-grown kingdom now at hand... - James McClendon
I am still going to push this thinking thing. Be warned. There will be more to follow. Help me work this stuff out. What does it mean to think about faith? What does reason or logic have to do with being Christian? We may, as Baptists, want to look for "religion-less Christianity," but is that to be a "thoughtless Christianity?" What about an "Idea-less Christianity?" How does thinking and Christian community unite? How do they go their separate ways? How do assent and humility relate to one another?
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Oh...and I am famous...
Dear Tripp,
Deborah Vanbroekhoven sent me an electronic version of your brief paper on
"Baptismal Rites of Colonial Era Baptist Churches in America." I would like
to include this paper in an upcoming issue of the American Baptist Quarterly
on Worship and Practice Among Colonial Era Baptists. I did not recieve any
information with the article regarding its purpose and whether it was
intended for publication, so I want to clear this with you first. Neither
did I receive an address of any sort, so I am having to use investigative
skills in hope of reaching you with this message.
If the article should included, would you please supply a photo (which can
be returned; if electronic I will send specifications) and about 3 or 4
lines of introduction and a means for corresponding with you?
Sincerely,
Robert E. Johnson,Editor
American Baptist Quarterly
741 North 31st Street
Kansas City, KS 66102-3964
Having been raised in Virginia where the Southern Baptist Convention politics make the front page news of local newspapers, I tend to be hypersensitive to issues of Biblical interpretation. Issues of fundamentalism and relativistic interpretations often occupy my mind. This is why Bonhoeffer’s understanding of scripture and the person of Christ are so intriguing.
Bonhoeffer wants to take a different track to understanding Jesus the Christ, and, per usual, it is tied to his hermeneutic of scripture. We are to understand the person of Christ and not the phenomenon of Christ. Christ is a “who” and not a “how.” This interpretation surely can be found in Sanctum Communio. This is the “I – Thou” relationship he relies on entirely in building his ontological anthropology. We are in relationship with Christ. Christ is not an object to be studied. Faith is not an intellectual construct of proofs. Faith is not something to which we assent. It is unavoidable on some level because we are Christ. Once we faithfully proclaim the paschal mystery, we can understand the truth of humanity.
This is not a fundamentalist approach to scriptural interpretation. This is not a relativist approach to scriptural interpretation. It is a doctrinal approach to scriptural interpretation. The canon of Scripture is not something that appears out of nowhere, from some mystical revelation. It is a doctrinal statement resulting from years of theological debate and prayer and discernment of the Spirit. It is what the Church wants to say about Christ. It is revealed through the Spirit, the life of Christ Jesus and the life of the Church.
If this is a given for Bonhoeffer, then where I want to push him is his understanding that faith is not intellectual assent to theological notions. Faith is most certainly intellectual assent to theological notions. Bonhoeffer himself is arguing a theological schema with proofs and philosophical templates. He is engaging in a way of thinking about Christ. In this way, faith is nothing but an intellectual assent to an idea.
Matthew’s Gospel proclaims a certain understanding of Christ. “Who do you say that I am?” “You are the messiah.” This is a revealed word. This is from God and not from any understanding of Peter’s. Yet, Peter had to agree to this. He had to assent to follow. His agreement was based on a specific understanding of Messiah that Jesus eventually corrects. Thus, comprehension, understanding and eventual agreement (“Will you feed my lambs?”) play a central role in Peter’s faith and his understanding of the life of Jesus the Christ.
Bonhoeffer himself is arguing from within certain intellectual notions. His thesis works from the assumption that Christianity is right, that it is true, that it provides the most accurate anthropological model. He admits to this. He says repeatedly in Sanctorum Communio and in Christ the Center that this understanding of Christ can only happen for those within the faith, within the community. He makes his argument having already assented.
How does one find oneself within the community? How does conversion happen? It happens through intellectual assent to the propositions of Christianity. Someone has an experience of something mystical or suffers through a crisis and is looking for an explanation. Christianity provides an explanation that makes sense to them. They agree to the premises and join the community. From there, Bonhoeffer’s argument is fine. I agree with him that belief is shaped that way. But even this is assent.
There is a lot running in my head of late. Some has nothing to do with this quasi-theological musing I've been in. Tonight (Oct. 13) I will stand before the church council, share my story, answer questions and hopefully receive their endorsement for ordination. If they approve, I will go before an all-church vote on the 26th of this month when I preach. There too I will share my story and answer questions. The questions, I am told, tend to be very general. "Do you feel called to the pulpit or the classroom?" "How has music shaped your journey?" "How does Trish feel about your pursuing ordination?"
My answers need to be honest but not too revealing. There is a weird sort of politics involved at this point. The tough questions will come with my regional interviews and exams. That is where the heavier doctrinal/polity questions come to the fore. Yay.
Pray for me, please. Pray for Trish. Pray for right discernment.
In related news, I am going to apply for a couple of PhD programs here in the city...and beyond. There is a financial reality at work that makes applying for next year a little more sensible. We shall see. Notre Dame is the number one choice. It is also the most competitive. We'll see. I need to talk with my advisor and see what she thinks. I wonder if she would write a letter of recommendation for me. ND is her alma mater, after all. I need to get on that if it is going to happen this year. It does not have to happen this year, but it would be good.
Yeesh. I'm sorry. I think I'm a little stressed. Maybe PhD? Ordination? Current school work and that whole wedding thang. We are looking at September. The timing is right. Thinking VA makes the most sense for family. Hey, go to google and look for Smith Mountain Lake and the Peaks of Otter. They are two tourism sites that should keep most people occupied if you want to make a protracted visit. The area around Roanoke/Lynchburg/Bedford is beautiful. So, all y'all come now. Bring a basket for the picnic.
Aigh!
Sigh.
Remind me to talk about the church start in the South Loop next time.
imminence and transcendence...blogging from bob's class again...
We are trying to get at this in our worship. Can this be created or is it simply a gift from God? How do we, through symbol/story/mystery et. al., get at this without being corny or stale or cheesy? It is an issue of taste on some level. Yet, I am certain that there are things that do this and there are things that do not. Hmmm...
Can the gathered community on its own do this? How do we understand community? I think this old conversation also plays into it. Community for Christians is supposed to be a vulnerable community. It is about relinquishing power. The wealth and worldly power we posess gets in the way of our worship. We much somehow get past this to worship. We must get past this to have humility in Christ. We must some how perceive how small we are before the greatness of God...
Damaris asked some direct questions that I want to respond to. Let's see how this goes.
"So I have a question for you: why is framing the question in this way important to you? Is it important for your faith? For explaining how/what you believe to your friends? or something else I am completely missing?
It is important to me because it is a way to get at faith through some type of Idealism. Yes, it may be a bastardized idealism, but I wanted to play around in it. It is important to my faith because what we think about faith is deeply important. How we interpret scripture and formulate our theologies demand thinking and some stream of logic. So, somehow I have to be able to discuss belief. I have to discuss mystery. So, I believe, I have to play around in these polarized notions of assent and unbelief.
I don't think that you are missing anything, Damaris. I realize very much that there is something fundamentally "illogical" about faith. The demand for proof that all of us probably ask from time to time is a human question. It may not be a divine one, but not being divine I get to ask human questions. Bully for me. And sad for me. I am like Peter. I can say "You are the Messiah." Then in the next moment I can try and tell Christ what Messiah means...and get it wrong. "Get thee behind me, seminarian!" I realize that revelation is from God...well, it is according to Matthew's Jesus (Matt 16:13-20 and Matt 21-23). And all I can do is bend myself to it. Yet, I have to agree to it on some level. I have to agree with Matthew that Jesus was whom he described. I have to agree with Jesus what it means to be Messiah. I have to agree that Peter had it wrong some of the time.
Is it fully or solely intellectual? Nah. Not really. Our emotions are involved in our compusion to respond. Yet, I think that our assent is as integral to our action or our very being...it precedes any understanding of anthropology and action. Or is this a Chicken and Egg argument? I dunno.
Or am I assenting to the notion that I cannot get at it intelectually?
AKMA asked me a question. Oh no. He's the prof, folks. Be ye warned.
Tripp, are you sure that you have these binaries rights? Are you sure that you want to try to get at faith by way of binary alternatives at all? It might be more complicated than that.
I think that the binaries are useful, really. I am clear on the simplicity thang, but I do want to push the poles, or is it just a dialectic? I am unsure. We can take Cliff's gramatical opposites (belief and unbelief for example). Then we have to ask what is unbelief. Is it absense of belief? Is it disagreement? I am not sure what Cliff would say (Speak up, brother!). I am not sure that I have the binaries right, but I think that faith and belief are not as simple as all that. Non faith is not the opposite, it is the absense. That is what I am saying. Somehow we have to engage. Somehow we have to accept or agree.
If assent were unimportant, then why have theology or interpretation? Why have a Creed? I honestly do not see the difference. You can assent to something you do not understand. It may be unwise, or it may simply be humility. It is not necessarily a bad thing to assent to what we do not understand (thermodynamics for example). But assent we must.
Whew.
in other news
We got our butts whooped in football yesterday. My body is mad at me.
Gonna watch some football today. That will be good.
And that is all. Anyone up for grilled cheese and tomato soup?
Torrance is professor emeritus of systematic theology at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He is, most likely, much brighter than I am. His little book, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace has been a good read. He is accusing much of main-line Protestantisn of practicing a unitarianism (as opposed to a Trinitarianism) form of worship where the focus is the self. Any understanding of the Trinity, the relationship within it and our relationship to it has been lost by a focus on the believer.
His thoughts are good. Hey, the guy uses Bonhoeffer, how could I argue all that much? Like Bonhoeffer, he wants us to rethink our anthropology. If all has been created by God, our reconciliation through the atoning grace and forgiveness of Christ...it is all God's action and not our own. First God forgives. Then we respond by repentance. Our worship should the be focused on God's grace first...perhaps solely. And all of this, like forgiveness, can happen only through Christ. The priest is the priest only through Christ...because Christ was first priest. Christ prays for us. To perform the eucharist is to perform a Christ-act.
from Torrence:
Q: What is prayer?
A. It is and offering up of our desires iunto God for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.
This is Bohoeffer at work. Our "dogmatic starting point in theology should be: Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? - 'Who do men say that I am?' - Who is the Holy Spirit? (p. 69 Torrance)" Our concern for self-identity must be based in this. We are to be God focused, not self-focused. We are to find ourselves within worship by presenting ourselves through Christ i the Spirit to God.
Christ's worship is our worship - through a wonderful exchange. The Christian Gospel is a gospel of reconciliation, a concept enshrined at the heart of all worship. God in his grace in reconciling us to himself, lifts us up into a life of wonderful communion by effecting a wonderful exchange. So the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." How has he done it? "Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with the sinfulness of men so that we might be made one with the goodness of God himself."
- p.89, Torrance
Like Bonhoeffer, Torrance wants to give "primacy to the question of who over how. More important than understainding the mode of his presense is the awareness of who this Christ is who is present. What has he done once and for all? (p. 91 Torrance)" This gets the focus off the worshiper and onto the worshipped. Where he perhaps could follow Bonhoeffer a little further is to be certain that the focus upon the worshipped is not an objectifying focus. God is not a thing. The Church, through the Spirit, is one with Christ in praise of God. The love is all encompassing. The love is who we worship and who we are and is the Spirt through which all we are exists.
This is not an identification in the sense of being Southern or Democrat. It is an anthropology of God's created humanity. It is who we are. We are the people in praise of God, redeemed through God's love, made whole through the reconciling act of Christ.
Torrance brings the parable of the prodigal son into focus with how he views his Trinitarian theology. The prodigal returns home after squandering his riches. He is willing to do anything to reclaim his Father's love. In stead there is nothing for him to do. His father meets him on the road celebrating his son's return. Forgiveness is granted. It is the son's willingness to change his behavior, to wise up, that follows...his decision to be transformed by his father's love.
Torrance wants to place forgiveness before repentance. The temptation here is to make the grace cheap or easy. Yes, God's transformative grace is poured out into the whole universe. But to participate within that grace we must repent. Only then can God's transforming love work in our lives. There must be some decision to follow Christ.
The rich young ruler is a great example. He is face to face with Christ. Love is offered. Transformation is assured if only he will let go of all his wealth. It is not necessarily that wealth is a bad thing. It is that the young man had made an idol of it. He would rather remain wealthy than receive God's grace and the freedom it assures. He walks away. We hear nothing from him again.
The spiritual, Witness, has the following line:
Nicodemus was a man who desired to know how a man can be born when he's old. Christ told Nicodemus, as a friend, "Man, you must be born again. Marvel not, man. If you want to be wise, repent, believe and be baptised."
Is forgiveness assumed or does it happen after repentance, belief and baptism? That is a popular theology. Yet, what Torrance suggests is something different. Forgiveness is assured. All we need do is participate in that grace. What that looks like is found in the spiritual.
Repentance. Give up your riches, rich young man.
Belief. The truth of Christ is revealed to the repentant.
Baptism. Welcome to the community that participates in the eternal life of Christ.
This brings up some questions about the chronology of initiatory rites in Christian community. Chatechesis, baptism, communion then mystagogy is a fairly typical traditional ordering. Yet, the chronolgy expressed through Jesus' interaction with his followers suggests baptism was the last thing to happen. Fellowship with Christ and the community, if that is an aspect of the eucharistic feast, happens before baptism. First, we must develop a relationship with Christ. This happens through the human act of fellowship, dining, supping, conversation...all leading to conversion.
I have been playing with some html code. It's fun.
Here are some more thoughts I have been playing around in. I have been reading some of what H. Richard Niebur has to say about faith (from Radical Monothiesm and Western Culture) and some stuff on Matthew's Gospel in James McClendon's Ethics.
Niebur wants to say that one cannot assent to faith. That should make most in this conversation happy. Faith is not intellectual, thus assent is not how one approaches faith. You cannot rely on an intellectual notion. You cannot be in relationship with an intellectual notion. You can either agree or disagree with such a notion: assent. So, you cannot assent to faith.
Then it occurred to me what my trouble is. I am equating faith with religious structure, dogma or creeds. For some, this is a reasonable connection. For some, this is not. I am not entirely certain where I stand in this. If I am to say that the Godhead is Trinitarian and not Unitarian, for example, then I assent to a theological schema. Or do I accept in faith, relying upon a dogmatic assumption? This is where I get lost in the shuffle of the cards and where I perceive these polarities that AKMA cautions me about.
What can interpretation reveal for us but theology? Is theology faith? Maybe. I am not yet clear that it is. I like much orthodox theology. I am in agreement with much of it. I assent to much. Yet, is that faith? If I cannot agree with faith, then what is it that I agree to? Is there a thing such as a "faith claim" that needs proving and agreement?
My question: if Neibur is correct that faith, since it connotes a reliance upon something (God? The success upon a Packers' victory?) then religion (a system of beliefs/mores/ethics/rules/practices) connotes assent because it is a set of conceived and reasoned notions....Are religion and faith the same? Can we quantify or qualify God? We try to most certainly, but we do not agree on the quantities or qualities (see: the church year, denominationalism, heterodoxy, celibacy of the priesthood, infalibility of the Pope, anabaptism, pedobaptism, sacrament, ordinance, ordaination of women, homosexuality, sex in general, gender roles, abortion...yada, yada, yada) of God nor community identity, practice or purpose. We assent to certain interpretations of these. We identify ourselves through allegiances that are centered upon ideas.
Perhaps my notions and (so-called) thinking are more descriptive than dogmatic. Yet this is what we are given to work with. Our schisims are due to assent or dissent to notions, to ideas, to thoughts and actions. We call it "faith" and "truth" but I am not certain that this is a good approach for us.
The Gospel of Matthew has much to suggest or perhaps describe about God if you agree with his communities assumptions about their experience of Jesus. This is what is going to be so difficult about AKMA's class for me. I am sticking it out. I will play in the waters and see what develops. That is the best I have.
Pax!
reading today
McClendon, James Ethics Torrance, James B. Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace von Balthazar, Hans Urs Prayer Niebur, Richard H. Radical Monotheism and Western Culture Bohoeffer, Dietrich Christ the Center Luz, Ulrich The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew
Andrew: quick reposte - What you said about God's action simply is a non-deist idea that God acts. It may be well founded in a family of thought (incarnation et al) but nevertheless it is an idea. Sometimes I really do think that we have nothing but ideas to hang our faith. We assent. That is all. There is nothing provable about Christianity. We do not know if God does anything.
I was chatting with a friend about this mess and she posited some good questions. If I could remember them all I would share them. Sadly, all you get is my pitiful recollection.
I am trying to see how faith in Christ or anything else for that matter (that the Cubs will see the World Series from their own dugout) is anything more than intellectual assent. I am not certain that it is. I am not certain that it is anything more than opinion.
Thomas Merton goes to great lengths to get at this. He has a whole list in New Seeds of Contemplation if feeling and intuition etc as things that faith is not.
First of all, faith is not an emotion, not a feeling. It is not a blind subconsciouos urge toward something vaguely supernatural. It is not simply an elemental need in one's spirit. It is not a feeling that God exists. It is not a conviction that one is somehow justified for no special reason except that one happens to feel that way. It is not something interior and subjective, with no reference to any external motive...
and here is where he and I disagree...
But it is also not an opinion. It is not a conviction based on rational analysis. It is not the fruit of scientific analysis.
Sad really. But again, he is right. It is not that. Yet it is that. It is not a formulated opinion. Yes it is assent. "Faith is not expected to give complete satisfaction to the intellect." Thanks, Tom. No kidding.
Yet, somehow, according to loads of people, there is a logical line of thinking, a Christian rationale that leads to faith. It leads to conviction. It leads to living ones life in a certain manner. Yet all of this is nothing but an outline of agreement.
A creed, again, is someting we agree to. "I believe in one God..." Why? Somehow you were convinced. If there is no feeling. If there is no proof, then there is only agreement to mystery. And this is foolishness. This is why there are 22,000 denominations. This is why the ECUSA is fighting right now. This is why Arianism. Bodies congregate around agreed upon ideas.
How is this faith a good thing? How does this work in any other way than it is? How can we be anything but divided in spite of Paul's desire "be of one mind" (sorry Megan)? This is what I mean.
We have faith in an idea. We may proclaim it reality, but it is mere idea...no?
This is Christianity with no ontology. Huzzah.
The opposite of faith is certainty.
The opposite of belief is knowledge.
If you were around last year as I wrestled through systematics class, then you will recall a lot of struggle and such on this end. If you were not, then watch and bemoan my life...or at least my thinking.
I am taking an biblical interpretation class with AKMA (ah...Matthew). It is going to be a challenge for many reasons. AKMA is smarter than the average bear, so he asks a lot. Jeff is friggin' brilliant as well. I am keeping up. That should not be a problem. I am just discovering that I simply do not interpret scripture when I read it. I know, it is an unavoidable reality. I do nothing but interpret scripture when I read it. My stance make no sense.
What I am trying to get at is this...When I read scripture it usually comes up empty for me except as some rulebook. That is, of course, fundamentalist to the core. That's trouble. But I really don't take it there. What I do is something a little different. The scriptures are descriptive of Christ and the Church. They provide suggestions to what Christians are to look like and how we are to live into a claimed identity. This I realize, is an interpretation. There is, however, little ontology here. I am not entirely sure I think Bonhoeffer is right in his thinking that way. We cannot speak of anthropology and faith.
Christianity is a choice. It is not a "greater reality." You can only enter into that thinking (new creation et. al.) if you claim the faith. It is a choice and only a choice. Ontological thinking, though wonderful and mysterious, may very well be false since it can only be understood through intellectual assent. All you can do is agree with Bonhoeffer. You cannot prove Bonhoeffer in a lab. All you can do is agree with Matthew. You cannot prove Matthew. Every opinion is thus valid. Every opinion is thus invalid. It is all a matter of where you are willing to hang you hat.
The same can be said of Matthew or any one of us. Our experiences are founded on intellectual assent. That is what we got. And that is what we choose to live into with greater or lesser fervor depending upon the individual will and individual relationships with others in the midst of community. All I can do is agree with others that Matthew is not making it all up or that some bishop 1400 years ago did not make it up. That is all I have. That is all I can prove. There is a document. Its in a book. Otherwise the rest is simply something I agree to. I can claim no more. That is all a creed is. It is conformed agreement to thoughts had by other people.
Does it shape us? Yes, to the degree we agree with it or are willing to follow its code. This does not speak about its correctness or its truth. Nothing ontological can be proven to be true. It is a mode of thought and that is all. Whatever we say, however we love, whatever we do will always simply be a reflection of what we have agreed to. We cannot look for correctness. I am willing to concede, and must always be willing to concede in this framework, that I too am wrong. There may very well be correctness, there may very well be truth.
But unless I am convinced, I cannot enter into it.
...has it not become terrifyingly clear again and again, in everything that we have said here to one another, that we are no longer obedient to the Bible? We are more fond of our own thoughts than the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously, we no longer read it against ourselves, but for ourselves.
- No Rusty Swords p. 185, last paragraph
I have to say that Dietrich is on us all the time for setting ourselves above the authority of God revealed in scripture. It is a good challenge. Laurel Schneider has us reading all of Galatians aloud in class today. It is a good thing.
more books
Goethe's Foust Parts I & II Latham, A.G. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: St. Matthew Carr, A. Ed. Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition Harrison, Paul M. Hymns for Worship 1947 from the Council of North American Student Christian Movements History of Christian Doctrine vols. I & II Sheldon, Henry C.
Trisha Leigh may never let me in the house again. But they were $1.00 a piece! How could I pass that up? Man!
Who Am I? (June 1944 - Bonhoeffer...written in prison.)
Who am I? They often tell me I would step from my prison cell poised, cheerful and sturdy, like a nobleman from his country estate. Who am I? They often tell me I would speak with my guards freely pleasantly and firmly, as if I had it to command. Who am I? I have also been told that I suffer the days of misfortune with serenity, smiles and pride, as someone accustomed to victory.
Am I really what others say about me? Or am I only what I know of myself? Restless, yearning and sick, like a bird in its cage, struggling for the breath of life, as though someone were choking my throat; hungering for colors, for flowers, for the song of birds, thirsting for kind words and human closeness, shaking with anger at capricious tyranny and the pettiest slurs, bedeviled by anxiety, awaiting great events that might never occur, fearfully powerless and worried for friends far away, weary and empty in prayer, in thinking, in doing, weak, and ready to take leave of it all.
Who am I? This man or that other? Am I then this man today and tomorrow another? Am I both all at once? An imposter to others, but to me little more than a whining, despicable weakling? Does what is in me compare to a vanquished army, that flees in disorder before a battle already won?
Who am I? They mock me these lonely questions of mine. Whoever I am, you know me, O God. You know I am yours.
The readings for this week don't come from any specific source. We were given selections from No Rusty Swords, Witness to Christ and A Testament to Freedom that illuminate the thinking he was doing during his time at Union and immediately following...roughly 1929-1930. It is not a theologically difficult set of readings, but it is interesting to see the development of his ideas and what America was like for him.
***
What is perhaps most interesting about the readings given to us is Bonhoeffer's free and open use of Barth's theological ideas. We discussed in class how this was perhaps a politically difficult thing for him to do in his dissertation since his reading committee was not fond of Barth's ideas. Given that possibility, it was interesting to see him use Barth in each work. Barth became a litmus test of sorts for Bonhoeffer. He was very disappointed in his fellow students in America since they were unable to grasp what Barth was saying. Simply, Barth is the foundation of Bonhoeffer's theology. In Revelation in Terms of the Act and The Church as a Unity of Act and Being from Witness to Christ Bonhoeffer visits again the idea that the only person able to understand revealed truth is the person living within that truth. This idea has been challenging our class a great deal because it sounds like some vacuous platitude (You can't get it unless you get it.). The central idea that Bonhoeffer is wrestling with is God's freedom and not our comprehension of revelation. God initiates belief. It is a gift from God. It is not something that we can grasp through some act of intellect. It is, once again, a subjugation of the individual will to God's will. And even this is not something we do on our own. It is God's action through grace and the Church. God's revelation has an a temporal nature. It is ongoing and being revealed in history. It is not an evolution. It is not Idealism nor is it Rationalism. Simply revelation is Christ. All that we do is "act-reference to Christ." God is not an object, a thing to be grasped. We stand in relationship to God's revelation which is Christ, which is the Church. Revelation is reality. It is not morality. It is not politics. It is reality. All of creation is made new. We are made new. The change in reality is only perceivable by virtue of faith. Finally Bonhoeffer gets to say it clearly, we are justified by faith. This is Barth's core idea. In The Question of the Jews Bonhoeffer speaks to how this justification may look lived out in community and in relation to the state. He wants to hold the state accountable to the Gospel as the church and the state are not separate. As the state continues to persecute, to injure, the church must stand in opposition because it can only speak God's revelation. It can only speak from the love of Christ. To ignore the plight of the Jews in Germany and beyond would be to deny the revelation of God, to not act as Christ. It is not a question of ethical response, but a response of being Church. Finally, and what is perhaps most entertaining, is Bonhoeffer's impression of American Christianity. Simply, he found it baffling. He was able to see the benefits of the social gospel. Yet he was utterly baffled by the lack of any dogmatic theology and not just a little disappointed in his fellow students' inability to grasp what Barth was speaking about. In Bonhoeffer's estimation, the seminarians did not even have the theological/dogmatic foundation to engage with Barth's theology. He summed it up most clearly when he spoke of preaching. In Germany, preaching is dogmatic. It is theological. In America it is personal. Religion is a personal experience and relevant to everyday life. Christian identity cannot be assumed in America.
If the first sermon of the German student serve for him to hand on his dogmatics as quickly as possible, they serve for the American student to display before the congregation the whole of his religious experience.
Bonhoeffer reviews American Protestantism and the above quote is quite telling. American Protestantism is not Protestantism per se. Nor is it Reformed. It is a peculiar animal shaped by utopian ideals of governance and Methodism. This was troublesome to Bonhoeffer, perhaps causing more confusion than illuminating greater theological truths.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003 thinkings and cerebral rumblings
I have a project for my class at Northern. I have to keep a journal. No big deal...except that it is not to be a journal of feelings and insights gleaned from our readings. No, it is to be interaction and challenge. It is to provoke thinking all on its own. I like this journal. I am a couple weeks behind at this point. Not too bad, really, but I need to get cracking. So, not surprisingly I am going to start a blog or something that will post online. Cliff's new host may be a good place to start. I'll look there.
In the mean time, here are a few quotes from something I had to read from my class at Catholic Theological Union.
As Paul understood it, the problem was not God's anger toward us but our anger toward God. It was we who had become hostile, helpless, and impotent, and this vicious cycle alienated us from God and from one another. In the cross of Jesus, God acted to break the barriers of separation, to reconcile humankind, and to release us from the paralyzing hostility that bound us in a condition of "flesh," "law," and "sin."
Worship does not celebrate our ingenuity, still less our wisdom or virtue. It is a ritual reaction to God's supreme folly. For in Jesus, God is revealed as the One whose powerlessness subverts all human notions of salvation. The Cross reveals a God who acts in an un-God-like way through a broken body, the loss of a human life, and the painful collapse of a mission. This is the liturgy, one that smells of death and failure, torn hearts and wasted dreams, foolish wisdom and wise folly. To this liturgy all subsequent Christian worship attempts to react, however feebly.
A sacrament, a liturgy, is but a small rough-hewn sign that the whole cosmos, with all its dizzying madness and unexpected grandeur, belongs to God.
The world is charged with the grandeur of God. It will flame out, like shining from shook foil; It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil Crushed .... Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil; And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell . . . . And for all this, nature is never spent; There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; . . . Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and With ah! bright wings.
What prevents most people from developing a liturgical spirituality is thus not inattention to worship but inattention to human life in all its complex subtlety and convoluted texture.
There is nothing sanitized about the words we use to praise God; they are the same worn, time-tattered words we use to make love, console the dying, confess our guilt, and scold our children. There is no shame in calling God a seducer (Jer. 20:7); nor is there need for alarm in comparing him to a drunken warrior sotted with wine (Ps. 78:65). Ours is an impure language, earthy and spiced, and ours is an "impure" God whose holiness is manifest in an imperfect creation.
Liturgies that fail to make us more profoundly and compassionately human may be elegant exercises in ritual aesthetics, but they can hardly be called Christian.
Father Mitchell, O.S.B., is a monk of St. Meinrad Archabbey. He teaches, writes, and lectures widely on liturgy and sacraments. SPIRITUALITY TODAY March 1982, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 5-17.
p. 28 of Prayer Von Balthazar drwas the distinction between Protestants and Catholics at scripture. There is a loss on both sides where Protestants lose the grace of the sacraments and Catholics lose the grace of the revealed word is scripture. Instead they hold onto (posess) grace in the sacraments.
How does this play out in ecuemnical dialogue? One of the preimanent challenges facing teh Universal Church is this vast difference in piety. Von Balthazar passes it off very casually in his book. This has more to do with the focus of the book than it is a criticism against Von Balthazar. But it is an important distinction he raises because it limits his thinking on contemplation to the Roman Catholic tradition. I am certain that he would disagree, but I wish to press this.
Are we to hear all of the Gospel or merely parts of the Gospel? If one believes that the Gospel is revealed in the liturgy and the sacraments, and perhaps most importantly so in these rites.
Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross" (20), but especially under the eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes (21). He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20) . - Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy #7
Certainly where Von Balthazar has strength in his argument is that the Word spoken (sung and preached?) is a sacrament of sorts. It is Christ who does these things. It is merely the issue of focus that he discusses. Yet these foci are deeply divisive. Believes lay so much of their piety into these distinctions, that the other pole becomes a place where Christ is absent. Somehow we must begin to see how Christ is "just as present" in the hearing of the Word as he is present in the receiving of the bread and wine, the veneration of an icon or the protesting of an execution. And we need to learn how to claim the whole of it and not merely a certain number of its constituent parts.
Does Bonhoeffer play into this at all?
p.33 of Prayer
All our petty excuses - we simply can't do that kind of listening; we have no interest in it; we are not suited to it on account of of our particular character, talents, occupation, or the multiplicity of our activities; our religious interests tend in a different direction; repeated attempts have failed to produce any results - all of these little objections, hoever correct they may be in their limited way, do not affect the great fundamental fact that God, in giving us faith, has given us the ability to hear.
Personality Theory and Pastoral Care? Freedom of the believer...what anthropology does Von Balthazar posess that would suggest any of this?
You would think that this would never happen, but here you go...
ATLANTA -- When Dusty Baker took over the Chicago Cubs last November, he asked, "Why not us?" Why not, indeed.
The Cubs took a huge, historic step by beating the Atlanta Braves, 5-1, Sunday night in Game 5 of the National League Division Series. The Cubs will go fishing -- one of Baker's favorite hobbies -- and advance to the NL Championship Series against the Florida Marlins.
For the first time in 95 years, the Cubs won a postseason series. It just seems longer.
Give Kerry Wood the game ball. And get him his own glove, too. Wood used Mark Prior's glove on Sunday night because he made a mistake any 20-something-year-old would. Not that Wood needed any extra oomph on his fastball. The Major League strikeout leader fanned seven, and it was just a question of whether the Braves would go down swinging or looking.
"I did not put my glove in my bag when we left [Chicago]," Wood said, "so I had to find a glove, so I tried to find one with a lot of strikes in it."
That's about the only mistake Kid K made.
"If there's an MVP in the series, it should be Wood," Baker said. "He was under control, he was composed. You could see his maturity as a person and as a pitcher and he's going to go a long, long way in his life and future."
The winner in Game 1 with an 11-strikeout effort, Wood held the Braves to one run -- and it was questionable -- on five hits over eight innings. His 18 total Ks are the second-highest in Division Series history, trailing Kevin Brown, who struck out 21 in 1998 for San Diego.
"I felt more comfortable today for some reason," Wood said, comparing Game 5 to the series opener. "I'm not sure exactly why. I was a little more nervous in the first game coming out of the bullpen.
"Today was very different for some reason," he said. "It was kind of freaking me out a little bit. I wasn't really nervous. I was just really prepared to go out and pitch my game."
Wood is 5-0 in his last six starts, and has given up six runs in 44 1/3 innings. Nice time to peak.
Atlanta, which reached the postseason for a 12th consecutive year, goes home. The Cubs, by comparison, are in the playoffs for only the 14th time in franchise history.
"Their pitching was awfully strong," Atlanta manager Bobby Cox said. "We failed to beat the two big guys one game out of three. That's what it would've taken."
Chicago had not won a postseason series since the 1908 World Series. Maybe that's why planeloads of Cub fans flew to Atlanta for Sunday's game, overloading the record-setting crowd of 54,357 with bright blue and chants of "Let's go Cubs."
"The atmosphere was unbelievable," Cubs closer Joe Borowski said. "It was almost like we were playing a home game."
The Cubs players celebrated with them, running onto the field and spraying champagne at their faithful, who won't mind flying home smelling of stale bubbly.
"I told Dusty, I used to be home by this time," said Aramis Ramirez, who hit a two-run homer for the Cubs. "This is unbelievable."
This was the third time the Cubs have played a decisive playoff game -- although one could argue they're all decisive. Chicago lost in the seventh game of the 1945 World Series, which was their last trip to the championship round, and also in Game 5 of the 1984 NLCS.
Baker and the Cubs aren't finished.
"I'm looking forward to going back to the World Series," said Baker, who led the Giants there last year.
Alex Gonzalez added a solo homer to Ramirez's blast to lift the Cubs, who will open the best-of-seven NLCS Tuesday at Wrigley Field. The Wild Card Marlins have had their bags packed and ready to go since beating Baker's former team, the San Francisco Giants, on Saturday.
The Cubs offense got off to a quick start against Mike Hampton, who was pitching on short rest. Kenny Lofton doubled to lead off the game, advanced on a wild pitch and scored on Moises Alou's single to left.
Gonzalez, who did not start in Game 2 against Hampton, primarily because he was 1-for-7 against the lefty, led off the second inning with his first playoff homer to go ahead, 2-0.
Ramirez made it 4-0 in the sixth, launching his first playoff homer over the center field wall to score Alou who had reached on an infield single that hopped over Hampton on the mound.
It got weird in the sixth. Atlanta had runners at first and second and none out. Gary Sheffield lofted the ball to shallow center and Lofton made a sliding catch -- or at least thought he did. Left field umpire Dale Scott ruled Lofton didn't make the play, and a run scored on the fielder's choice.
The Cubs smartly stepped on second to force the other runner. Both sides argued, which allowed more time to show the replay of Lofton's catch that wasn't.
"I caught the ball, so it wasn't on me," Lofton said. "I threw the ball into second base and looked around and the umpire said 'No catch.'"
Pinch-hitter Tom Goodwin added a RBI double with two out in the ninth, and then the party really got started in Wrigleyville.
Chicago has played well on the road all season because, as reliever Mike Remlinger says, they get to sleep late in the morning. Can't dawdle too long Monday. The Cubs have another round to go.
"We'll celebrate on the way back to Chicago," Borowski said. "[Monday] it's back to reality and back to work."
Carrie Muskat is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to approval by Major League Baseball or its clubs.
Dinner last night with Sally and Randal. Fun. I like them. They are hosting a fundraiser at thier house on the 7th of November. I will throw an invite out to the Chicago area folk as soon as I know more. Sally and I (read: Middle Eastern Bakery and CostCo) will be catering. I am looking forward to it.
Another cool Saturday happening was flag football practice at Seabury. Trish and I spent Friday night at Jeff and Catherine's place after Susie's birthday celebration. We got up, had some coffee and then ran around a couple of hours with the kids at Seabury. I like playing flag football. Little guys (is 5'11" 185 little?) like me can finally get involved. Flag football strategy depends upong speed and quickness and not brute force. So, I do well. It is fun. I am just very, very sore. I am out of shape. Who was there? Luke, Frank, Susie, Jeff, Micah and myriad others...it was good.
In other cool news. The Bears won. That is good. Let's hope that the Cubs can beat the Braves in Hotlanta. That would make for a good Sunday.
church
The service was good. Today, for many Protestant denominations, is World Communion Sunday. Everybody does their Jesus stuff. I realize that it seems silly to those who are used to communion every Sunday, but for us it is a big deal. All three congregations at our church get together. So we worship in English, Spanish and Japanese. It is a chaotic mess. The music is thrown together. The drama is unrehearsed due to last minute planing. It is crazy nuts. Yet, people get a lot out of it. And I think that is the most important thing...I think. Ask me again tomorrow and I will be able to give you a better answer.
hanging out
Trading Spaces 100K Episode is on tonight. Mmm. I love that show. It may be that several people are gonna be hanging out at my place tonight. I love that.
You would think that this would never happen, but here you go...
