irreverance

...birthday to you! Happy birthday to you! Happy birthday dear Altheia! Happy birthday to you!

THAT was too funny!

As I've been reading through all this (and other related posts), I hear questions regarding the Christian call to justice, and questions regarding the Christian call to be in true relationship with others different from ourselves. Now, I shall talk about my own understanding of "Christian Justice." *drags out soapbox and steps up* *ahem* First I want to begin by stating that my understanding of Christian justice is rooted in my conviction that Jesus (who was fully human and fully divine) calls us into discipleship to follow his divine way, and as such to become more fully human ourselves. As Jesus has identified with humanity, so too are we called to drop our parochial or tribal identities in favor of identifying with “being human” or the “human way of being.” This, I think, leads us down three paths, which are relative to a given situation. All of these are vital components of "justice." First, Christians are called to be peacemakers. Christian peacemaking, at least in my mind, is a pro-active attempt to stop the violence before it starts. This category includes especially the various forms of boundary-crossing dialogue, such as interfaith dialogue, cross-cultural dialogue, and so on. It also includes attempts to broaden perspectives by helping people to connect experientially by contact with those who are different. When people understand where others are coming from and can identify with them on at least some level, then they are more open to creative solutions and are more likely to shy away from violence in its various forms. This is what happens when Christian peacemaking is at its best. Second, Christians are called to be prophetic. Ultimately, the prophetic act is the proclamation that we stand under the Divine Covenant. As Christians who claim to be under the Covenant of Christ, it is our assigned task to work for the outpouring of divine justice in this world, a creaturely order that reflects the image of the God who is a union and communion of self-giving love. We do so as we give voice and empower the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed. We do so when we stand firmly against the exploitation of human beings for profit. We do so when we boldly proclaim the right of full human inclusion where there is exclusion or neglect. Third, Christians are called to be a reconciling people. Sometimes, justice actually prevails. When that happens, there are still a lot of hurt people. The struggle for justice cannot happen without people getting wounded on a variety of different levels. Often, those who have new feelings of empowerment will want to overstep their bounds and become vengeful toward those who have treated them unjustly in the past. And those who have been moved from centers of power find themselves afraid of what vengeance might mean. As soon as the battle for justice is over, a new battle almost immediately begins. But from a Christian perspective, the cause of justice is never about vengeance or dominance; it is always oriented toward a just social order that is solidified in reconciliation. Everybody makes mistakes. Those who have been agents of injustice are as much victims (if not to the same degree) of a dog-eat-dog world as those who have been oppressed. They too are products of society. They too are in need of forgiveness. They too need to experience the grace of God in their lives so that they too can know that they do not have to walk the path that they are on. The work of reconciliation resists both the counter-oppression by the previously oppressed and resists the demonization of the “other” which perpetuates the violence. It flows from the commitment to preserve the integrity and dignity of all humanity. So, in my mind, the quest for Christian justice is not just incomplete, but also questionable if it does not seek all three components. Indeed, to strive for the prophetic while neglecting the reconciling or peacemaking aspects really only serves to readjust the boundaries of the domination system. Therefore, I would propose the question: To what extent can we really say that we are "seeking justice" if we are not willing to engage in the hard work of "peacemaking" with those who are different from us, even theologically? I don't believe that entry into dialogue with the religious right is an option. Rather, I believe it is our inescapable obligation to God to promote the politics of peace with those with whom we share Table. After all, if we cannot love those with whom we share in the baptismal waters of life, how in the world are we supposed to love our enemies, those who would steal away our lives? (Yes, this too shall someday be on my podcast, but not yet.)

Hee hee. I just noticed that your signature responded to Altheia's.

Nope. Sorry. I'm up near Chicago (Spring Valley, IL, more specifically). So if you're up this way...

Mmmmmm....Guiness....

A couple of years ago on another forum, we were talking about hell. I said that I believed that hell was not so much a literal place for the execution of God's tangible, expressed anger, but a metaphor for God's justice-oriented love. Then someone asked me the following question and I gave the following response. I hope it helps. *************** Quote: XA would it be possible to draw out what you mean by "metaphoric" as opposed to tangible, expressed anger? First of all, I want to talk about metaphorical language. Human beings must understand God through their own lens of the human condition. Therefore, certain language that is “supra” human (with regards to what is considered to be “virtuous”) becomes the norm for God. Some examples: Humans experience love, so God is Absolute Love. Human beings are finite, so God is infinite. Human beings have a certain about of potential in their lives, so God is omnipotent. Metaphorical language helps us to identify with God. Hence, some people are possessive over certain descriptors. Many say they cannot worship a God who is not a “He.” Others say they cannot worship a God who is not a “She.” From what I’ve encountered, the reason for such terms is not a desire to keep other people from connecting with God, but rather a desire to keep people from taking away from them how they identify with God. (So, in that sense, it is an interpretive grid through which we understand and relate to God.) Metaphorical language also allows us to speak about our understanding of who (or what) God is, and how God relates to our world. By using language that refers to human emotion, we are saying that God is not “disconnected” from what happens in our world. We are saying that God does “care,” or that God has an “interest” in human/creaturely affairs. By saying that God is emotively involved in our world, is to say that God is relational (as opposed to aloof). To say that humanity is meant to be created in the image of God is to say that truth (the measuring stick for that which is just) is relational to the activity of God. To say that we encounter God in the person and work of Jesus Christ is to say that justice /the way of God is encountered through compassionate relationships (as opposed to dogmatics) that mirror those found in his life. Those relationships that do not measure up to what we se in Jesus of Nazareth are then identified as “unjust,” or “sin.” (So, in that sense, it is a projective vision of what our world can or should be like.) This brings us to the “anger” of God. Let me first state that I do not ascribe to an understanding of the atonement that says that Jesus Christ’s life-blood was drained by God in order to sat the vengeful thirst of an angry God. I believe that such an assertion flies in the face of orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea (perhaps another topic). I want to look at the anger of God another way, using human relationships as our lens to articulate that which is ultimately impossible to articulate. Some time back, I watched a news blurb about the escalating problem in the Palestine. As the newscaster talked, the accompanying footage was that of a five-year old little girl learning how to use a gas mask. I felt sick in my soul. It was a reminder for me that “justice” always has a name, and that name is the name of all those individuals who suffer the whims of the powerful in their own persons. How does a parent respond to those who would mercilessly slaughter his or her child? Does not that child’s name become the name of justice? Also, I used to work at a rescue mission as a secretary. This made me one of the first contacts for those who came in off of the street. My office became almost an impromptu pastoral care office for those who knew no hope. If Jesus had his way, these people would not have been robbed of their lives, their “kingdoms” if you will, and been cast out into the cold to die by a “Christian” society that has more money than it knows what to do with (other than build bombs, but that too is perhaps another topic). [Yes, I know, Jesus said that the poor will be with us always, and that does relieve some of my frustrations.] Jesus worked with the poor. Jesus identified with the poor. Jesus did not cast them out to be devoured by the darkness. When I think back to my time there and those people, those individuals too remind me that “justice” has a name, and it is the names of all those who have been labeled as “expendable” in one way or another in any society. And so, I believe that God gets “angry.” But maybe I am only projecting. Maybe this is the way that I make sense of my world and try to figure out “right” from “wrong”. Such things I cannot say for sure. How many people have claimed to know the will and mind of God and then brought new definition to the word “heinous”? I can’t say for sure how much of my language about God is actually about God or to what extent I use my language to conform God to my own image. In humility, I must always be willing to say “I might be wrong.” But I still feel that I must express what seems to be to me. And so I speak of a loving God who is sometimes angry. But I don’t know that I want to go into a loving/angry dichotomy for God either. Too often that has led to manipulation through guilt. Although feelings of guilt can be healthy, I do not believe that attempts to bring about guilt-ridden “repentance/conformity” is healthy. (Quite the contrary, I would argue that it is “sin,” but that may be for another topic too.) When I hear people say God becomes “sad,” I like that terminology. It reeks of “degree” in a positive way. To me it says that God had expectations or standards of behavior, but humanity dropped the ball. But at the same time, I also don’t want to abandon the extreme emotion of anger for God because I want to say that some things are downright atrocious and evil. In those cases, for example in the case of an entire region being ethnically cleansed, to say that God is “sad” simply doesn’t hack it for me. So, according to my understanding, God is a God of Love, but that love can be the foundation of both divine sadness and anger, as well as divine joy and delight. But suffice it to say that for me, to say that the God who is Love sometimes becomes angry is to say that divine justice always has a proper name. But maybe that’s just me.

Trek, I went through my own fundamentalist phase so I know how hard it is to come out of it. When the meaning of it all becomes incomprehensible, I tend to suggest that people try to engae their faith more experientially. I think it helps to reawaken our sense of intimacy with the God who is "as close to us as breathing, yet distant as the farthest star." It helps to rekindle our sense of trust. As we become more trusting, we are more able to "let go" and just be aware of the reality of the grace-filled relationship that we enjoy with the divine. My suggestion then is to find a way to non-cognitively connect spiritually. I like to metitate with music and candles, or to go to a labyrinth, or to just lay down and let it all go and just "be". You will have to find what works best for you. Sometimes its important to let the thinking go and just swim in experience. If that doesn't work, then go straight to the icecream. Personal suggestion: Klondike bars. I like the chocolate ones. They are divine.

Of significant note, when Machen wrote his text on the fundamentals of Christianity (upon which fundamentalism is based), they were... the authority of the Scripture, the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, Jesus’ atonement for sin, the bodily resurrection, (as nearly noted in the B-Net book) When in seminary, a church historian of the 1920s debates defined fundamentalism as "militantly anti-modern American evanglicalism." The question for me is, if fundamentalism was socio-religious reaction against the shift into modernity, is there an socio-religious equivalent for the shift to postmodernity? Or, to put it another way, is there a "militantly anti-postmodern American Christian" theological movement?

That's quite a task. Looks like you've done a great job with all this. However, I suspect that there may be another way to approach the question of Christian unity. Katheryn Tanner (Postmodern Cultures) has suggested that it is not common belief that unifies, but common symbols. Common symbols allow people with diverse beliefs to gather while filling the symbols with their own meaning/beliefs. Therefore, it could be argued that a "core belief" of Christianity can't be found because it doesn't actually exist. Rather, what unites all Christians if the person of Jesus Christ, who is filled with many meanings. And his centrality is reinforced by our primary liturgical acts of baptism and the Lord's supper, and our most ecumenical document the Nicene creed. We are Christians because we are somehow trying to re-orient our lives around the person and work of the one after whom we are named. What that "means" for us is worked out through community argumentation. Therefore, "Christian community" is necessarily a community bound by a common practice of argumentation revolving around a common symbol, the meaning of which is to be determined in every age and in every base and/or wider community.

Phanta: I too am sorry to hear about your cat died. Sometimes pets are more like "family" than "pets." As an aside, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on death. I agree. Since I score as an INFP (and apparently an extreme one at that) in the Myers-Briggs, I think I'll just sit around and soak up the vibes from all this thinking. Which reminds me of David Tracy (who I believe is a process theologian) talks about "di-polar theism."

Btw, it's interesting because in many respects the form of Christianity that DiZerega presents is basically what I was taught in seminary. What I would like to do some time is to get together a group of Neo-Pagans and Christians to do a face-to-face book study together. That should be a great book to get people together to say, "Well, that's not where I'm coming from as a Christian/Pagan. So, here's my slant on life...." Part of the fun would be people trying to articulate their unique perspective. Maybe a future endeavor.

CunningLily: In that case you might be interested in Gus DiZerega's Pagans and Christians. Admittedly, the way that he depicts Christianity is not my general conception, but it is a popular one. I too am very interested in Pagan-Christian dialogue. Thanks for the book titles.

I really enjoyed this book, but I don't know how much time I would have for discussing it more in-depth. If you don't mind me disappearing for extended periods of time, I wouldn't mind trying this.

Actually, I like Armchair Mystic by Mark Thibodeaux. (Obviously, I didn't coin the term.) Any contemplative stuff is good in general for that. The "apophatic" tradition has already been noted. A great text for that is The Cloud of Unknowing. It's from the 14th century I believe. Also, check out Thomas Keeting. I agree. But I also think that "theology" is pretty much any thinking about God. It is the task of making sense of God and the world we live in. I think that there are two different ways to "know" God (which are not exclusive of one another). There is "comprehension," which is being able to offer up an articulation of experience. The focus is on formula and language. The emphasis is on coherence and shared understanding. Another way to "know" something is through "apprehension." This is more like "depth resonance." This is more about a state of being in experiential relationship with that is beyond words and conceptual descriptors. So, when I talk about "God as mystery," I am talking more from the perspective of knowlege based on "apprehension" than "comprehension." But, if for a more "comprehension" approach, I would offer the following: God is the... Life-Giving Source of Creativity Unifying Way of Interconnectedness Abysmally Absolute Other Perhaps language that is meaningful for one person won't be meaningful for another. Personally, I prefer a fluid understanding of God that preserves God's freedom from the confines of my own mind. Yes, the above "formula" is rife with contradiction and paradox. But, the very fact that it doesn't "have a single meaning" is one of the reasons that it is "meaningful" for me.

...or am I dreaming?

Some thoughts on prayer: This is always an interesting topic. Personally, It seems that one's understanding of prayer is often related to one's understanding of the God-world relationship. I generally consider myself to be a bit of an armchair mystic. Part of that for me means that I like to talk about God as "mystery." Our God-concepts simply will never do God justice. Since I don't know that I'm willing to articulate God in theistic or a-theistic categories and would rather allow God to remain as "Mystery," I'm not willing to leave intercessory prayer behind. Quite the contrary, I think we are becoming more and more aware of the interconnectedness throughout the universe. Chaos theory and quantum physics (and I admit limited understanding here) show us that we participate in and affect the universe in ways that we cannot see or understand because the universe by nature is participatory. I think we can understand prayer differently if we start with a focus on God-world relationship and then shift to a human-world relationship (and the following assumes that to be fully human is to be fully divine). Humanity has been called by God to be "stewards" of the earth. In a nutshell, I like to talk about the call to become other-centered, justice-oriented, self-giving creatures. From a modernist perspective, humans are called to work toward such things in their tangible daily lives. Hence, the push for such things as social justice. However, what if we look at the call to be fully human as a call to be wholistic humans who help to form this world not only on a physical level but also on a spiritual level? What if we are called to participate in the co-creative activity as spiritual beings to the same extent as we are as physical beings? Meditative prayer seems to assume that the task at hand is to be spiritually transformed in order to bring about the physical transformation of this world as we become change agents. But what if prayer is also about being physically transformed (for example, taking time out of our schedules to devote to the service of others who are not nearby) in order to bring about transformation through spiritual connectedness in this world (such as healings)? Then we move into intercessory prayer. Does this mean that I expect prayer to change the world in an instant? Maybe, maybe not. But for me, to engage in intercessory prayer is about participation in the greater scheme of things in a way that I recognize that I cannot comprehend. I do believe that we can make a difference in the world in this way. Perhaps the universe is even geared in favor of it. But, who's to say for sure. Well, that's my 2 cents for now.

Don't know whether I've posted this here before. It's from a fictional account of a fictional desert mother, Amma Ananda... ***** "Amma Ananda," asked a disciple, "of all the words of Jesus, which do you think the church today would find most frightening?" Amma replied, "His words in Nazareth, 'I have come to set the prisoners free.'" "Prisoners?" asked the disciple. "Yes," she answered, "true disciples of Jesus must not be prisoners of fear, guilt or shame. Nor should they be held bound by church laws that are made greater than, or even equal in value to, the commands of Christ." ~~Edward Hayes, The Ladder, 34.

Darby: Happy Anniversary!!!

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "perennial philosophy"? And welcome back!

It's close, but not exact. This came from a friend of mine's sermon last Sunday: I was floored when he said that.

I think that the term "Traditional Christianity" is the code word for "moderates." On B-Net, that's the term they use. Maybe that's the name of the rabbit hole, at least today.

The order in which the texts were written, both OT and NT, depend on the scholar giving the listing. Moreover, there is a dominant literary theory that says that the texts have been identifiably edited, which means that portions of the texts are more recent than others. While I can't offer a source for chronological authorship, I can offer a cool overview text. I wuld suggest the Cambridge Companion to the Bible. It's pricy, but good. (Maybe cheaper on overstock.com or ebay.com?)

That's a pretty good idea. Except, I would suggest not calling it a "moderat Xy" board. Rather, try "Reconciling Christianity," with an emphasis on people trying to reconcile not only con and lib approaches, but con and lib people as well. it could become a place for those who want to dialogue and learn from each other. Personally, I would suggest it be separate from TCPC. If not, it could easilly be seen as an extension of the progressive agenda. A separate identity may be necessary to pick up those disgruntled with both cons and libs.

For those who have never encountered the spoof site, Landover Baptist Church, I offer this link to you now. Way too funny.