So, it's been almost two months since I've blogged here. I've been busy with a research paper, and blogging for another site, and life in general. Truthfully, my oath to rein in my verbal attack urges against people of other political and religious convictions has prompted a lot of re-thinking of ideas for posts before I hit the "publish" button, too. This taking Luther's understanding of the 8th commandment seriously thing is hard work, my friends. Worthwhile, but tough.
But today, I was reflecting on the beginning of my very favorite season of the church year - Advent. It's upon us; those of us in liturgical Christian traditions begin, as of Sunday, a four-week season of prayerful waiting, watching, and reflecting upon the coming of the Messiah, which we celebrate at Christmas. Its very tone has become counter-cultural; instead of the mad rush to Christmas that we see all around us, it's quiet. Pensive. Reflective. Peaceful. Deep. It puts Christ, not consumerism, at the heart of this month. It is, in my opinion, the perfect antidote to the ever-increasing destruction of any sort of spiritual depth in the Christmas season - it's about prayer around a cross rather than presents under a tree. It's about acknowledging that we are broken people in a broken world surrounded by darkness, who are waiting to see a great light, trusting in God's promises of redemption and healing, instead of pretending that we're all just doing fine and gee, isn't Christmastime just so exciting?
So, my conservative/evangelical friends who, often, tend to see no value in, or have no experience with, the liturgical heritage of the Church universal, I invite you to consider joining the rest of us in celebrating Advent this year. Get four blue candles and a white one; always light the white one (to remind you of God's never-ceasing presence, even in our darkest times) and light one blue the first week, two the second, and so on up to Christmas eve. Maybe arrange them, like many of us do, in a nice wreath. Read some scripture together - at church, as a family at home, on your own - about the promised Messiah (Isaiah's a great place to start), then sing a song together as you light the appropriate candle(s)...I recommend "Light One Candle To Watch For Messiah," but there are lots of great options. You can look for Advent calendars, that come with daily scripture readings and candy. There are lots of ways to make Advent a part of your spiritual life...but, please, think about digging in to this rich, beautiful tradition as you look for ways to center yourself spiritually in the real "reason for the season," the coming of Jesus.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Ism Schism, or Where Is the Love?
This has been inspired somewhat, albeit not entirely, by the events of last night - our first presidential candidate debate of the general election season. My aim here is not ultimately political; as we all know by now, I'm a fairly committed Green Party voter who finds equal numbers of things abhorrent in both parties, and who is a little bitter that the political establishment is unwilling to invite Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to participate in the debates.
But no, this is not about policy or politics, but rather politesse. While the history of our society is not exactly one written with the words of respectful dissent and compromise, I can't help but feel if we have arrived at a new low in terms of our ability to remain civil in our discourse. The last three elections cycles have progressively gotten worse in terms of the vitriol being spewed not only by the official campaigns, but by the average citizen. There's no need to name specific examples; I'm willing to bet we can all list them. I'm willing to allot plenty of blame to myself; I have not been charitable in my comments, public or private, about any of the Republican candidates. I hope I have avoided being hateful, but as I think back to thinks I've said about Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann, I'm reasonably sure that I've not entirely avoided that pitfall.
So, today, I repent. For the next month, while I will not abstain from criticizing the comments or policy positions of either candidate, I pledge to do so in a way that is critical of their comments or policy positions, not of their humanity nor that of their supporters. Neither Romney nor Obama are the anti-Christ. Neither of them are likely to be the sole, single individual who drives the U.S. over the cliff; let's be honest, take the long view, and act like reasonable, rational people who recognize that our ruination as a country, if it comes, will be the responsibility of a large number of people, both Democrat and Republican, and that every single one of us as citizens of this nation ought to be allotted a degree of that responsibility due to our collective sins of a variety of sorts. Obama is not an evil, communist monster set on forcing your grandmother into euthanasia while spending every cent of your child's inheritance; Romney is not a soulless, Mr. Burns-esque type who likes watching the orphaned poor be fed into an ore smelter on closed-circuit tv from the comfort of his marble-floored bedroom. They are people who have competing ideologies about how best to govern, what makes our nation great, and how best to guide it on the path to further greatness.
And, I will publicly repent from another sin today. I have, in various ways both public and private, mercilessly attacked sisters and brothers in Christ who hold to conservative, fundamentalist/"evangelical" beliefs. I've been provoked to do so both from their assault on those of my progressive Christian convictions (and of non-Christians who hold similar values), and by my own life experiences growing up in churches, schools, and a local society dominated by this brand of Christianity. Most of those life experiences were fairly miserable, laden with guilt, and have required what I would call nothing short of de-programming in order for me to become an emotionally and spiritually healthy Christian and person.
However, if I say that I've forgiven all those who have contributed to that reality, and if I say that I am committed to living in such a way that reflects Christ's love, then I have to cede my right both to revenge and to counterattack. I do not have a good track record on this, and I will be the first to admit it. Today, I'm committing myself to change. I will continue to disagree in matters theological and exegetical with my brothers and sisters on the Christian Right, and I will continue to write and talk about those disagreements, but from here on out, I am going to work my hardest to do so in a way reflective of our shared humanity in the image of God, and of our shared called to be Christ's Body in a world often hostile to its values and message.
It's going to be hard, though. I know I feel something gratifying about lashing into an opponent; I think a lot of us do. We enjoy the sensation of feeling like we've destroyed the opposition and made them look like fools. But, it's time to stop. I fear if we continue down the path of indulging ourselves that sensation, we will wake up and find both a ruined nation AND a ruined Church. So, today, I want to become part of the solution, and invite you to think about how you can do the same. God help us all.
But no, this is not about policy or politics, but rather politesse. While the history of our society is not exactly one written with the words of respectful dissent and compromise, I can't help but feel if we have arrived at a new low in terms of our ability to remain civil in our discourse. The last three elections cycles have progressively gotten worse in terms of the vitriol being spewed not only by the official campaigns, but by the average citizen. There's no need to name specific examples; I'm willing to bet we can all list them. I'm willing to allot plenty of blame to myself; I have not been charitable in my comments, public or private, about any of the Republican candidates. I hope I have avoided being hateful, but as I think back to thinks I've said about Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann, I'm reasonably sure that I've not entirely avoided that pitfall.
So, today, I repent. For the next month, while I will not abstain from criticizing the comments or policy positions of either candidate, I pledge to do so in a way that is critical of their comments or policy positions, not of their humanity nor that of their supporters. Neither Romney nor Obama are the anti-Christ. Neither of them are likely to be the sole, single individual who drives the U.S. over the cliff; let's be honest, take the long view, and act like reasonable, rational people who recognize that our ruination as a country, if it comes, will be the responsibility of a large number of people, both Democrat and Republican, and that every single one of us as citizens of this nation ought to be allotted a degree of that responsibility due to our collective sins of a variety of sorts. Obama is not an evil, communist monster set on forcing your grandmother into euthanasia while spending every cent of your child's inheritance; Romney is not a soulless, Mr. Burns-esque type who likes watching the orphaned poor be fed into an ore smelter on closed-circuit tv from the comfort of his marble-floored bedroom. They are people who have competing ideologies about how best to govern, what makes our nation great, and how best to guide it on the path to further greatness.
And, I will publicly repent from another sin today. I have, in various ways both public and private, mercilessly attacked sisters and brothers in Christ who hold to conservative, fundamentalist/"evangelical" beliefs. I've been provoked to do so both from their assault on those of my progressive Christian convictions (and of non-Christians who hold similar values), and by my own life experiences growing up in churches, schools, and a local society dominated by this brand of Christianity. Most of those life experiences were fairly miserable, laden with guilt, and have required what I would call nothing short of de-programming in order for me to become an emotionally and spiritually healthy Christian and person.
However, if I say that I've forgiven all those who have contributed to that reality, and if I say that I am committed to living in such a way that reflects Christ's love, then I have to cede my right both to revenge and to counterattack. I do not have a good track record on this, and I will be the first to admit it. Today, I'm committing myself to change. I will continue to disagree in matters theological and exegetical with my brothers and sisters on the Christian Right, and I will continue to write and talk about those disagreements, but from here on out, I am going to work my hardest to do so in a way reflective of our shared humanity in the image of God, and of our shared called to be Christ's Body in a world often hostile to its values and message.
It's going to be hard, though. I know I feel something gratifying about lashing into an opponent; I think a lot of us do. We enjoy the sensation of feeling like we've destroyed the opposition and made them look like fools. But, it's time to stop. I fear if we continue down the path of indulging ourselves that sensation, we will wake up and find both a ruined nation AND a ruined Church. So, today, I want to become part of the solution, and invite you to think about how you can do the same. God help us all.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Least of These
I was walking home from the L the other night, and I started to think about Matthew 25. Yes, this is why I'm doing a doctorate in New Testament. Anyways, I started to think about the climax of the chapter, and really of the whole gospel (apart from the Passion narrative), in 25:31-46 - the division sheep and the goats.
I started thinking about what it says - "whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done also to me," Jesus tells us. By the same token, those divided out as "goats" in the text have the tables turned - because they didn't clothe, feed, visit, etc. the "least of these," they're disowned by Jesus.
I wondered to myself - what if we took seriously the notion that some things that we DO choose to do might put us in the "goat" category? After all, here the goats are defined by what they have not done. What about the things we do?
When we disown our child because of who he or she is, have we done that to Jesus? If we use a racial slur, have we just said that about Jesus? If we beat a homeless man to death for the thrill of it, was it Jesus that we were kicking in the alley? If we sell drugs on a street corner, are we pushing dope to Jesus? If we bomb helpless civilians, have we just obliterated Jesus and his neighborhood? If we deny poor people access to healthcare, are we forcing Jesus to decide between groceries or prescription drugs?
Food for thought.
I started thinking about what it says - "whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done also to me," Jesus tells us. By the same token, those divided out as "goats" in the text have the tables turned - because they didn't clothe, feed, visit, etc. the "least of these," they're disowned by Jesus.
I wondered to myself - what if we took seriously the notion that some things that we DO choose to do might put us in the "goat" category? After all, here the goats are defined by what they have not done. What about the things we do?
When we disown our child because of who he or she is, have we done that to Jesus? If we use a racial slur, have we just said that about Jesus? If we beat a homeless man to death for the thrill of it, was it Jesus that we were kicking in the alley? If we sell drugs on a street corner, are we pushing dope to Jesus? If we bomb helpless civilians, have we just obliterated Jesus and his neighborhood? If we deny poor people access to healthcare, are we forcing Jesus to decide between groceries or prescription drugs?
Food for thought.
Jesus: Not the Universe's Most Eligible Bachelor?
Pardon the title, but I couldn't help myself.
The past few days have thrust a wee bit of controversy into the midst of the Christian community...and with that, a chance to learn a little bit! The controversy: a 4th century fragment of a papyrus manuscript that apparently makes reference to "Jesus' wife." For the whole story, check here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/september-web-only/jesus-said-to-them-my-wife.html
So, before we get all hot and bothered here, let's establish WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW rather than jumping to conclusions and wanting to damn all modern scholars and their satan-inspired ways, ok? What is said, and thus what we know:
-The fragment appears to be authentic to the 4th century rather than some sort of modern forgery inspired by The Da Vinci Code.
-The fragment is Egyptian and in Coptic; this suggests, but far from proves, that this text fragment could be connected to the very sizable Gnostic community in Egypt during the Early Church era.
-The document is a fragment - 33 words on 14 incomplete lines. It's not conclusive of much of anything, other than that at least some early Christians thought that Jesus was married. That doesn't mean Jesus was married. It doesn't mean that this idea was mainstream. It does, however, mean that at least some people thought this.
This is along the same lines of the "Jesus' tomb" discovery from a few years back; see http://abcnews.go.com/International/jesus-tomb-controversy-rages-archeologists-explore-2000-year/story?id=16111993 if you need a refresher. That is, it's a tempest in a teapot; people sensationalize the news because they know it will get a rise out of some people. Hardcore atheists will get all excited because it makes Christianity and the Bible look "less true," and hardcore conservative Christians will get huffy about it and start decrying the worthlessness of modern scholarship that would even consider something like this manuscript.
So, here's where we have a teaching moment. An important one. The circle-the-wagons approach to defend against "secular" modern scholarship and its "anti-God" agenda misses one really rather key point - most of what we know about our scriptures have come down to us through the witness of a variety of manuscripts, many of them fragmentary. There is no copy of the whole Bible dating back to when we think much of it was written. For the sake of ease, we'll focus on the New Testament. Our best guess is that the earliest of the New Testament's books, some of Paul's letters, were being written in the 50s AD; we figure that the youngest books (some of the general epistles and Revelation) probably came around at the end of the First century or early in the Second. Our oldest COMPLETE COPIES of any of these are older - we don't have a complete New Testament manuscript that is older than the Fourth century (Codex Sinaiticus). And...that one is missing some familiar verses, and contains the Epistle of Barnabas and sections of the Shepherd of Hermas, two popular early Christian writings that were ultimately not included in the official canon. Prior to the discovery of Sinaiticus and some other very old, complete manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus being the other HUGE one), our go-to text was a document known as the Textus Receptus, which Erasmus compiled in the late 15th and early 16th century based off the best Greek manuscripts of his time. Before that, we didn't do much with the Greek and Hebrew, really, since the Catholic Church maintained that the ONLY valid biblical witness was the Latin Vulgate, which was a late 4th century translation into Latin from the Greek and Hebrew mostly by St. Jerome, and which included the Old Testament Apocrypha.
In order to arrive at an idea about what the oldest, most original texts of the New Testament originally said, we have to take a look at the large amount of fragmentary manuscript evidence - we've got pieces from everything in the New Testament. From there, we have to compare all of them and make educated decisions about what makes the most sense as being the original text. This is a difficult, arduous process that a biblical scholar can devote an entire career to helping do. What we've arrived at through modern scholarship is a better, more faithful text. This where I have to disagree with my KJV-only sisters and brothers - the King James is based, for the New Testament, off the Textus Receptus...which, contrary to what many KJV-only folks maintain, is not some sort of magical whole Bible from way-back-when. It was a compilation, too, but one done before scholars had access to any of these wonderful, really old (and thus closer to the original) manuscripts and fragments. If your choice is a translation based off of compilations, would you rather have the compilation that reflects the oldest (and thus most original) documents, or the one put together by a scholar who lived hundreds of years before any of those manuscripts were even discovered?
So, back to our new fragment - what do we do with it? It's not from any canonical book of the Bible, or even from another known early Christian writing, so ultimately it's a historical curiosity and piece of evidence proving that at least some people in the early Church thought Jesus was married. It's not going in the Bible. It's not changing anything in the scriptures. It's a historical artifact; no more, no less.
None of this is meant to challenge anyone's faith. At the end of the day, reading the Bible requires a certain amount of trust, no matter who you are or which translation you're using - trust that God has, does, and will continue to speak through a document in which flawed human beings have been entrusted with its penning, preservation, and presentation. Trust God. Trust that God speaks through the scriptures...but don't turn them into an idol. Don't say things about them that they themselves don't say. Be wise and discerning. Listen for God's voice in them. Think about them; study them; meditate on them. But please, please, PLEASE - don't use them for what they're not, belittle the faithful women and men who engage in scholarly study of them, or craft a faith for yourself which is so fragile that a piece of papyrus from the 4th century becomes the most threatening thing in the world.
The past few days have thrust a wee bit of controversy into the midst of the Christian community...and with that, a chance to learn a little bit! The controversy: a 4th century fragment of a papyrus manuscript that apparently makes reference to "Jesus' wife." For the whole story, check here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/september-web-only/jesus-said-to-them-my-wife.html
So, before we get all hot and bothered here, let's establish WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW rather than jumping to conclusions and wanting to damn all modern scholars and their satan-inspired ways, ok? What is said, and thus what we know:
-The fragment appears to be authentic to the 4th century rather than some sort of modern forgery inspired by The Da Vinci Code.
-The fragment is Egyptian and in Coptic; this suggests, but far from proves, that this text fragment could be connected to the very sizable Gnostic community in Egypt during the Early Church era.
-The document is a fragment - 33 words on 14 incomplete lines. It's not conclusive of much of anything, other than that at least some early Christians thought that Jesus was married. That doesn't mean Jesus was married. It doesn't mean that this idea was mainstream. It does, however, mean that at least some people thought this.
This is along the same lines of the "Jesus' tomb" discovery from a few years back; see http://abcnews.go.com/International/jesus-tomb-controversy-rages-archeologists-explore-2000-year/story?id=16111993 if you need a refresher. That is, it's a tempest in a teapot; people sensationalize the news because they know it will get a rise out of some people. Hardcore atheists will get all excited because it makes Christianity and the Bible look "less true," and hardcore conservative Christians will get huffy about it and start decrying the worthlessness of modern scholarship that would even consider something like this manuscript.
So, here's where we have a teaching moment. An important one. The circle-the-wagons approach to defend against "secular" modern scholarship and its "anti-God" agenda misses one really rather key point - most of what we know about our scriptures have come down to us through the witness of a variety of manuscripts, many of them fragmentary. There is no copy of the whole Bible dating back to when we think much of it was written. For the sake of ease, we'll focus on the New Testament. Our best guess is that the earliest of the New Testament's books, some of Paul's letters, were being written in the 50s AD; we figure that the youngest books (some of the general epistles and Revelation) probably came around at the end of the First century or early in the Second. Our oldest COMPLETE COPIES of any of these are older - we don't have a complete New Testament manuscript that is older than the Fourth century (Codex Sinaiticus). And...that one is missing some familiar verses, and contains the Epistle of Barnabas and sections of the Shepherd of Hermas, two popular early Christian writings that were ultimately not included in the official canon. Prior to the discovery of Sinaiticus and some other very old, complete manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus being the other HUGE one), our go-to text was a document known as the Textus Receptus, which Erasmus compiled in the late 15th and early 16th century based off the best Greek manuscripts of his time. Before that, we didn't do much with the Greek and Hebrew, really, since the Catholic Church maintained that the ONLY valid biblical witness was the Latin Vulgate, which was a late 4th century translation into Latin from the Greek and Hebrew mostly by St. Jerome, and which included the Old Testament Apocrypha.
In order to arrive at an idea about what the oldest, most original texts of the New Testament originally said, we have to take a look at the large amount of fragmentary manuscript evidence - we've got pieces from everything in the New Testament. From there, we have to compare all of them and make educated decisions about what makes the most sense as being the original text. This is a difficult, arduous process that a biblical scholar can devote an entire career to helping do. What we've arrived at through modern scholarship is a better, more faithful text. This where I have to disagree with my KJV-only sisters and brothers - the King James is based, for the New Testament, off the Textus Receptus...which, contrary to what many KJV-only folks maintain, is not some sort of magical whole Bible from way-back-when. It was a compilation, too, but one done before scholars had access to any of these wonderful, really old (and thus closer to the original) manuscripts and fragments. If your choice is a translation based off of compilations, would you rather have the compilation that reflects the oldest (and thus most original) documents, or the one put together by a scholar who lived hundreds of years before any of those manuscripts were even discovered?
So, back to our new fragment - what do we do with it? It's not from any canonical book of the Bible, or even from another known early Christian writing, so ultimately it's a historical curiosity and piece of evidence proving that at least some people in the early Church thought Jesus was married. It's not going in the Bible. It's not changing anything in the scriptures. It's a historical artifact; no more, no less.
None of this is meant to challenge anyone's faith. At the end of the day, reading the Bible requires a certain amount of trust, no matter who you are or which translation you're using - trust that God has, does, and will continue to speak through a document in which flawed human beings have been entrusted with its penning, preservation, and presentation. Trust God. Trust that God speaks through the scriptures...but don't turn them into an idol. Don't say things about them that they themselves don't say. Be wise and discerning. Listen for God's voice in them. Think about them; study them; meditate on them. But please, please, PLEASE - don't use them for what they're not, belittle the faithful women and men who engage in scholarly study of them, or craft a faith for yourself which is so fragile that a piece of papyrus from the 4th century becomes the most threatening thing in the world.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Red Fish-Blue Fish, or, Why "Conservative," "Moderate," and "Liberal" are the worst labels for Christians EVER
So, I was talking with Colleen a few nights ago, and the subject of the categorization of "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" Christians came up. We were trying to figure out which particular camp we belonged to, and I found myself struggling a little bit with trying to nail that down.
The subject's stayed on my mind since then, and as I was trying to go to bed last night, I realized why it perturbed me so much. It's because that sort of labeling for Christians makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. AT ALL.
Bear with me here. First off, we need to unpack just what each word means. This is what Mr. Webster's dictionary has to tell us...the definitions shared are the ones most relevant.
CONSERVATIVE: 3. "Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions; traditional"
MODERATE: 3. "Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme." Also, 1. "Avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; observing reasonable limits; calm or temperate."
LIBERAL: This is the place where definitional realities get messy. The most relevant are 4. "Not literal or strict; loose" and 5. "Broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."
(Thank you, http://www.merriam-webster.com)
So, there's what the dictionary says. The connotation that each word carries in describing the Church...sometimes a little different. And usually totally depends on how you self-identify. For example, someone who identifies as a "conservative Christian" probably would define "moderate Christians" as "middle-of-the-roaders; lukewarm (and about to be spit out by Jesus); wishy-washy; afraid to take bold stands," and would probably define a "liberal Christian" as "an oxymoron; not real Christians; deceived by Satan and followers of false doctrine." Pardon me if I'm making assumptions or putting words into others' mouths, but as someone who grew up a self-identified "conservative Christian," this is the framework within which I thought.
Similarly, a "moderate Christian" would probably define the others as being extremists, and a "liberal Christian" would have a similar view on "moderates" as "conservatives" profess, and then would view "conservatives" as the ones distorting the Christian message.
OK, so are you with me so far? Good. Now that we have a feel for what the words mean, here's why I think it's bogus to try and cram people into these so-called camps.
FIRST REASON: You need a framework for the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. Specifically, are you talking about doctrine, or social views, or worship practices, or what? Your average evangelical church probably holds to doctrine that would be, by some, considered "traditional" (more on that in a minute), and probably holds conservative social views, but has extremely "LIBERAL" worship practices that are non-liturgical and not in conversation with the long-held traditions of Christian worship. On the flipside, your average Episcopal church in the Northeast probably has rather more "liberal" theology and social views, but is quite "CONSERVATIVE" in its worship life in comparison to, say, an Assemblies of God church in the South. Without a defined framework, these definitions end up with the same issue as a physics problem that doesn't have a set frame - it's impossible to find an adequate solution. Is Trinity Church in Boston "liberal" or "conservative?" It all depends on what aspect of their life as a faith community you're looking at.
SECOND REASON: Many people who see their theology as "traditional" don't have much of a sense of the depth or breadth of what has been put forward as orthodox theology in the course of Christianity. Most who identify as "conservative Christians" probably mean that their doctrine is soundly biblical, and that of "moderates" and "liberals" is less so (if at all). I have a few issues with this. One, the "traditional doctrine" espoused by a lot of these groups is explicitly Protestant, so the Catholic and Orthodox churches are totally left out in the cold...and quite frankly, if anyone can claim to have old, traditional Christian doctrine, it's the Orthodox. Two, the "traditional doctrine" usually referenced also excludes almost all historically mainstream Protestant doctrine, as well as most of the Radical Reformation (e.g. Mennonites). Three, the "traditional doctrine" typically referenced is a North American amalgamation of Baptist and Congregationalist theology from English groups, which were themselves mixtures of Radical Protestant, Reformed, and Anglican influences. Insisting on this as "traditional" or "biblical" at the expense of about 90% of the rest of Christianity is really rather narrow. By the same token, "conservative" factions within Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, etc. do the same thing, just with different "traditional" theology.
That creates this issue - who, then, gets to define what is or is not "traditional, biblical doctrine?" A Missouri Synod Lutheran would argue that orthodox Lutheranism counts, but that Southern Baptists are heretics; a Southern Baptist, meanwhile, would take a look at orthodox Lutheranism and have just about the same reaction. And then what do you do with those of us who are confessional Lutherans (and thus adherents of some pretty "traditional" doctrine, but also believe in the importance of non-traditional ways of doing biblical study and criticism, have more progressive social beliefs, etc?) on this spectrum? Does my having "conservative" AND "liberal" convictions mean that I come out in the middle as a "moderate?"
THIRD REASON: This is maybe more of an expansion of Reason Two, but regardless, I also find it problematic in this whole definitional boondoggle that we forget the breadth of beliefs that are, in fact, classified as "traditional." There's been a lot of talk about Rob Bell and universalism over the past few years; how many people have mentioned that Christian universalism has been around at least since Origen in the 3rd century, and that a very good biblical case can be made for it? Whether or not that case is the proper interpretation is another question, but it's within the range of at-least-defensible biblical interpretations. Either way, it's been around WAY long enough to be "traditional," and has always been present in the Church. Call it heterodoxy or heresy, but it's not some new, modern phenomenon. My point here, though - does that make Origen a "liberal," even though he was about as serious a "conservative" as possible on lots of other issues? Do we even think those terms have value in describing a Church Father?
FOURTH REASON: We muddy these waters even further when we move past orthodoxy and on to orthopraxy - "right actions" instead of "right beliefs." Is someone like Rick Warren, who has a "conservative" theology around salvation, the nature of the Bible, and certain issues, truly a "conservative" since he also pushes pretty heavily for ecological and economic justice, both of which are pretty "liberal" values? Does that mean he balances out to being a "moderate?" Is a hardcore Southern Baptist in Alabama who composts and voted for Obama (this presumably suggests their ethnicity...) a "conservative," a "moderate," or a "liberal?" Or, what about a theologically "liberal" UCC-er who drives an SUV, disowns their gay child, and voted for Rick Perry? What are they on this spectrum?
I think all of this is my way of saying that this categorical mania is a uniquely North American craziness. We just HAVE to put ourselves into broadly over-defined categories that mean absolutely nothing, don't we? Let's please stop doing it in the Church. I may disagree, rather heartily, with some of my Southern Baptist friends from my hometown, but at the end of the day, we are all in the same camp - the Body of Christ. Let's stop finding ways to use our ignorance to accentuate our differences, and let's start actually working together as that one Body to do God's work in this world.
The subject's stayed on my mind since then, and as I was trying to go to bed last night, I realized why it perturbed me so much. It's because that sort of labeling for Christians makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. AT ALL.
Bear with me here. First off, we need to unpack just what each word means. This is what Mr. Webster's dictionary has to tell us...the definitions shared are the ones most relevant.
CONSERVATIVE: 3. "Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions; traditional"
MODERATE: 3. "Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme." Also, 1. "Avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; observing reasonable limits; calm or temperate."
LIBERAL: This is the place where definitional realities get messy. The most relevant are 4. "Not literal or strict; loose" and 5. "Broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."
(Thank you, http://www.merriam-webster.com)
So, there's what the dictionary says. The connotation that each word carries in describing the Church...sometimes a little different. And usually totally depends on how you self-identify. For example, someone who identifies as a "conservative Christian" probably would define "moderate Christians" as "middle-of-the-roaders; lukewarm (and about to be spit out by Jesus); wishy-washy; afraid to take bold stands," and would probably define a "liberal Christian" as "an oxymoron; not real Christians; deceived by Satan and followers of false doctrine." Pardon me if I'm making assumptions or putting words into others' mouths, but as someone who grew up a self-identified "conservative Christian," this is the framework within which I thought.
Similarly, a "moderate Christian" would probably define the others as being extremists, and a "liberal Christian" would have a similar view on "moderates" as "conservatives" profess, and then would view "conservatives" as the ones distorting the Christian message.
OK, so are you with me so far? Good. Now that we have a feel for what the words mean, here's why I think it's bogus to try and cram people into these so-called camps.
FIRST REASON: You need a framework for the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. Specifically, are you talking about doctrine, or social views, or worship practices, or what? Your average evangelical church probably holds to doctrine that would be, by some, considered "traditional" (more on that in a minute), and probably holds conservative social views, but has extremely "LIBERAL" worship practices that are non-liturgical and not in conversation with the long-held traditions of Christian worship. On the flipside, your average Episcopal church in the Northeast probably has rather more "liberal" theology and social views, but is quite "CONSERVATIVE" in its worship life in comparison to, say, an Assemblies of God church in the South. Without a defined framework, these definitions end up with the same issue as a physics problem that doesn't have a set frame - it's impossible to find an adequate solution. Is Trinity Church in Boston "liberal" or "conservative?" It all depends on what aspect of their life as a faith community you're looking at.
SECOND REASON: Many people who see their theology as "traditional" don't have much of a sense of the depth or breadth of what has been put forward as orthodox theology in the course of Christianity. Most who identify as "conservative Christians" probably mean that their doctrine is soundly biblical, and that of "moderates" and "liberals" is less so (if at all). I have a few issues with this. One, the "traditional doctrine" espoused by a lot of these groups is explicitly Protestant, so the Catholic and Orthodox churches are totally left out in the cold...and quite frankly, if anyone can claim to have old, traditional Christian doctrine, it's the Orthodox. Two, the "traditional doctrine" usually referenced also excludes almost all historically mainstream Protestant doctrine, as well as most of the Radical Reformation (e.g. Mennonites). Three, the "traditional doctrine" typically referenced is a North American amalgamation of Baptist and Congregationalist theology from English groups, which were themselves mixtures of Radical Protestant, Reformed, and Anglican influences. Insisting on this as "traditional" or "biblical" at the expense of about 90% of the rest of Christianity is really rather narrow. By the same token, "conservative" factions within Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, etc. do the same thing, just with different "traditional" theology.
That creates this issue - who, then, gets to define what is or is not "traditional, biblical doctrine?" A Missouri Synod Lutheran would argue that orthodox Lutheranism counts, but that Southern Baptists are heretics; a Southern Baptist, meanwhile, would take a look at orthodox Lutheranism and have just about the same reaction. And then what do you do with those of us who are confessional Lutherans (and thus adherents of some pretty "traditional" doctrine, but also believe in the importance of non-traditional ways of doing biblical study and criticism, have more progressive social beliefs, etc?) on this spectrum? Does my having "conservative" AND "liberal" convictions mean that I come out in the middle as a "moderate?"
THIRD REASON: This is maybe more of an expansion of Reason Two, but regardless, I also find it problematic in this whole definitional boondoggle that we forget the breadth of beliefs that are, in fact, classified as "traditional." There's been a lot of talk about Rob Bell and universalism over the past few years; how many people have mentioned that Christian universalism has been around at least since Origen in the 3rd century, and that a very good biblical case can be made for it? Whether or not that case is the proper interpretation is another question, but it's within the range of at-least-defensible biblical interpretations. Either way, it's been around WAY long enough to be "traditional," and has always been present in the Church. Call it heterodoxy or heresy, but it's not some new, modern phenomenon. My point here, though - does that make Origen a "liberal," even though he was about as serious a "conservative" as possible on lots of other issues? Do we even think those terms have value in describing a Church Father?
FOURTH REASON: We muddy these waters even further when we move past orthodoxy and on to orthopraxy - "right actions" instead of "right beliefs." Is someone like Rick Warren, who has a "conservative" theology around salvation, the nature of the Bible, and certain issues, truly a "conservative" since he also pushes pretty heavily for ecological and economic justice, both of which are pretty "liberal" values? Does that mean he balances out to being a "moderate?" Is a hardcore Southern Baptist in Alabama who composts and voted for Obama (this presumably suggests their ethnicity...) a "conservative," a "moderate," or a "liberal?" Or, what about a theologically "liberal" UCC-er who drives an SUV, disowns their gay child, and voted for Rick Perry? What are they on this spectrum?
I think all of this is my way of saying that this categorical mania is a uniquely North American craziness. We just HAVE to put ourselves into broadly over-defined categories that mean absolutely nothing, don't we? Let's please stop doing it in the Church. I may disagree, rather heartily, with some of my Southern Baptist friends from my hometown, but at the end of the day, we are all in the same camp - the Body of Christ. Let's stop finding ways to use our ignorance to accentuate our differences, and let's start actually working together as that one Body to do God's work in this world.
Friday, August 31, 2012
And now for something completely different: Spicy Shrimp Orzo
So, my last post was about as heavy on the serious sociopolitical reflection as they come. Today, how about something a little lighter to take into the holiday weekend, even if life itself continues to feel every bit as heavy if you've been reading the news?
As we all know, I love very few things more than playing around in the kitchen; lest we forget, it was a closer call than one might imagine between seminary and culinary school. I love cooking. No, it's more like: I LOVE COOKING. All caps. Super love it. I can't imagine being unhappy in my kitchen; it's my refuge from a crazy world. I've come to love it even more since I started gardening; now, I feel connected to my food from ground up, quite literally. It's how we're SUPPOSED to be eating, dear people - close to the ground, close to home where possible, actively co-creating with God in our gardens and in our kitchens. It sounds odd, but sometimes, I like to think of the thud-thud-thud of my chef knife against my bamboo cutting board as I mince garlic and onion as a hymn....sing to the Lord a new song. Minus the loud boiling test-tubes.
So, in my kitchen-play/kitchen-prayer (food as spiritual discipline, anyone?), I've been making this recipe lately. It's been partially in response to Colleen's mom sending me home with a generously-filled bag of salsa peppers (a hybrid similar to a Fresno pepper in color, size, and heat) that needed to be used, partially in response to my tomatoes going bonanza, and partially because everything in it is just pretty damn tasty. So, here's how to whip up some Spicy Shrimp Orzo - a little heat, a little creamy, and surprisingly full of things that are good for you!
You'll Need:
1/4 standard size box of Barilla orzo (it's the little pasta shaped like grains of rice)
2 Tbs goat cheese
1/2 small-to-medium red onion, finely chopped
1 clove of garlic, minced
1 salsa pepper (or Fresno, or jalapeño), seeded and finely chopped
2 small tomatoes (or 1 medium-to-large tomato), diced
8-10 medium-to-large shrimp, peeled and deveined
1/2 shot of brandy
olive oil
salt and pepper
Get the pasta water boiling; be sure to salt it once it's boiling! As the water heats, drizzle olive oil into a saute pan (a nice, big one; you'll be putting everything in it) over medium-high heat; add the chopped onion and peppers and let saute for 4-5 minutes before adding the garlic and tomato. As the vegetables saute together, add the orzo to the water. After adding the orzo, put the brandy in the saute pan and let it reduce (cooks off the alcohol and enriches the flavor). Add the shrimp, stirring regularly to ensure they cook regularly. Once the orzo is done, drain it, then add it to the saute pan, lower the heat to low, and then add the goat cheese. Stir until all the goat cheese has melted.
Buon appetito!
As we all know, I love very few things more than playing around in the kitchen; lest we forget, it was a closer call than one might imagine between seminary and culinary school. I love cooking. No, it's more like: I LOVE COOKING. All caps. Super love it. I can't imagine being unhappy in my kitchen; it's my refuge from a crazy world. I've come to love it even more since I started gardening; now, I feel connected to my food from ground up, quite literally. It's how we're SUPPOSED to be eating, dear people - close to the ground, close to home where possible, actively co-creating with God in our gardens and in our kitchens. It sounds odd, but sometimes, I like to think of the thud-thud-thud of my chef knife against my bamboo cutting board as I mince garlic and onion as a hymn....sing to the Lord a new song. Minus the loud boiling test-tubes.
So, in my kitchen-play/kitchen-prayer (food as spiritual discipline, anyone?), I've been making this recipe lately. It's been partially in response to Colleen's mom sending me home with a generously-filled bag of salsa peppers (a hybrid similar to a Fresno pepper in color, size, and heat) that needed to be used, partially in response to my tomatoes going bonanza, and partially because everything in it is just pretty damn tasty. So, here's how to whip up some Spicy Shrimp Orzo - a little heat, a little creamy, and surprisingly full of things that are good for you!
You'll Need:
1/4 standard size box of Barilla orzo (it's the little pasta shaped like grains of rice)
2 Tbs goat cheese
1/2 small-to-medium red onion, finely chopped
1 clove of garlic, minced
1 salsa pepper (or Fresno, or jalapeño), seeded and finely chopped
2 small tomatoes (or 1 medium-to-large tomato), diced
8-10 medium-to-large shrimp, peeled and deveined
1/2 shot of brandy
olive oil
salt and pepper
Get the pasta water boiling; be sure to salt it once it's boiling! As the water heats, drizzle olive oil into a saute pan (a nice, big one; you'll be putting everything in it) over medium-high heat; add the chopped onion and peppers and let saute for 4-5 minutes before adding the garlic and tomato. As the vegetables saute together, add the orzo to the water. After adding the orzo, put the brandy in the saute pan and let it reduce (cooks off the alcohol and enriches the flavor). Add the shrimp, stirring regularly to ensure they cook regularly. Once the orzo is done, drain it, then add it to the saute pan, lower the heat to low, and then add the goat cheese. Stir until all the goat cheese has melted.
Buon appetito!
Friday, August 24, 2012
An Open Letter to the People of the U.S.
My fellow Americans,
Please stop this. I opened up the Tribune app on my iPad this morning (coffee and the morning paper for the 21st century), and the top two stories greeting me - a shooting outside the Empire State Building which killed two and wounded ten more, and NINETEEN shootings in my beloved Chicago overnight. Please. Let's stop killing each other.
And, for the love of God, let's start having a mature conversation about this. Conservatives, nobody wants to take away your all of your guns. There is not going to be a civil war if Obama is re-elected. That big panic in 2008, when many of you went on a gun-and-ammo buying spree before Obama's inauguration? You can still buy all of those things. OK, yes, some of us would like to see military-grade assault weapons taken off the market, but let's all be honest - you don't need those to go hunting, or really do much of anything other than go into movie theatres and shoot scores of people. That's why they're assault weapons - they're designed for that. Creeping tyranny will not take over because you do not have enough AR-15s in your woodshed to arm a platoon of counter-insurgents. Conspiracy theories look just as bad on reasonable people who lean right-of-center as they do on oddball left-wingers who think that Wall Street and the military are colluding to take over the country and set up death camps in the desert for all the liberals, atheists, people of color, and homosexuals. Start acting reasonable, stop believing everything that big money NRA lobbyists throw out at you, and let's have a conversation about how, perhaps, we DO need reasonable gun control policies so that law-abiding citizens like you can own guns without having to fear for your lives in public when somebody packing more heat comes along.
Liberals, stop acting like every conservative and/or gun owner is some sort of Wild West caricature who wants to walk around with "a big iron on his hip" to be more macho. OK, there are probably a few of those types out there, but not many. Let's agree to make the reasonable assumption that 95%+ of gun owners are hunters and people who enjoy target shooting and, ok, yes, probably do feel safer with a gun in their home, but also have no intention of using it. Let's also acknowledge that the 95%+ of those people are not the inbred hillbilly redneck stereotypes that many liberals like to perpetuate, and that many of them are reasonable, educated people who happen to like hunting deer, shooting clay pigeons, and keeping their guns securely locked up in a secure location. A person who owns a gun is not some sort of primitive, lesser person who doesn't know better; a person who owns a gun is a person who owns a gun, probably for a very legitimate reason, and is probably smart enough to handle that with appropriate responsibility.
And, all of us - let's stop talking only about gun control as the solution. I absolutely, 100% agree that we will be safer as a nation if we ban sales of assault weapons, if we require all firearms to come issued with an ID number (like cars) to facilitate ease of tracking the source of illicit firearm sales, if we close gun show sale loopholes that make it easy for people to buy mass numbers of firearms and then sell them on the black market to people who would NOT otherwise legally be able to purchase a weapon (a common practice in Illinois, and probably plenty of other states), and if we come up with reasonable restrictions on where and how one can carry a gun in public - contrary to conservative belief, conceal/carry laws are NOT proven to improve public safety. After all, all three states which have seen mass shootings this summer have them. However, we can have a conversation about this, and we as a nation can reach sensible compromise positions that will promote our general welfare - I believe this. I'm willing to talk.
But, we also need to do some soul-searching and have a conversation about why we're in this mess to start with...and it's not only because guns are easily accessible. While easy access to guns is a fueling factor for gun violence, people don't just shoot other people simply because they have a gun and can use it. We need to start talking about why our inner city communities have become jobless hellholes full of drugs, gangs, and guns and devoid of opportunities for employment and any real sense of hope. Why aren't we having that conversation? Why, as a city here in Chicago, are we willing to bend over backwards to create white-collar jobs in the Loop for Motorola and Boeing, but seem utterly incapable of creating community-based jobs initiatives in places like Englewood and Garfield Park? Why are we willing to be complicit in the transformation of Detroit into a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which a person a day is shot to death on average, and where pizza deliveries after dark require an armed guard in the car, if the pizza place is even willing to DO deliveries after dark anymore? We seem to be alright with letting go of all our manufacturing jobs while blaming our unions for daring to ask that employees get fair wages and a good standard of living; have we not sowed the wind and started to reap the whirlwind by stripping places like Detroit and Gary of jobs that allow people some sense of upward mobility, or at the very least decent standards of living? By killing our working middle class, we're killing all of the rest of us...sometimes far too literally.
And, why is it so thoroughly difficult to obtain mental health care? Why do we create a culture that views mental illness with suspicion, as if it's not disease but is something that should just be toughed through? Would you just try to "tough it out" against cancer? No? Then why on earth should people have to "tough it out" against bipolar disorder or schizophrenia? Why do we treat mental illness as if it's not illness, but personal choice? Why do we not have nearly enough programs for people who suffer from mental disorders, or who need support in recovery from addiction? Why do we in the Church do an especially bad job of this? We condemn millions of people to lives of misery and instability, and then seem shocked when a very few them lash out violently against a world that offers them no support or love.
Please, let's have a conversation as a nation about this. Let's stop judging each other, let's stop distorting each other's words, and let's stop jumping to irrational conclusions and resorting to jingoism and mockery. Let's have a legitimate national discourse on why we lead the developed world in violence, and for the love of God, let's please find a way to stop this. Please, let's stop killing each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)