August 2005 Archives

The following comment by Pastor John Wright on Eric Lee's blogpost gives me occasion for several thoughts about this issue of language, and whether or not the issue of what has "currency" with those who need to hear it is an issue to give us pause to consider the communication value of what we seek to "expose" or to "reveal" as the "definitions" composed ultimately by the nation state. I am in complete agreement on the importance that this happens. I find myself asking "how, then, do we speak to ONE ANOTHER about this? Are not many of these "Sojourner types" very much members of the body of Christ? They are NOT members of the "nation state", or to be implied as such. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Does this not raise a context that is different than the stance toward the nation-state, which is , to simply put it, doubtful or convinced of the inability and unwillingness of the nation state to participate in anything of ultimate value?
Eric's Tasty Morsels of Thought - Food for thought
Pastor John quotes from a James Kalb article at the New Pantagruel

In the meantime, the task of those who see liberalism�s radical defects is to understand it for what it is, resist it, keep alive what they can for better days, take advantage of the rights or favors liberalism grants, appeal to whatever resists or escapes technocratic rationalization, and make the case, in season and out, for something more worthy of humanity."

The bolded part (my bold) is one place where I can see an "opening" that seems similar to the assumption of activist progressives. "Whatever escapes technocratic rationalization" seems to identify the "justice" issues to which the ones speaking out and seeking "national recognition and mobilization" are appealing.

but the freedom that he (MLK) called for was ultimately a freedom defined by the liberal social order that he hoped -- and succeeded for some -- to move the African American Christians into.

Ultimately? The "actual result"? It seems to me that King may well have been killed becuase his "next move" was the poor people's march, and this got the attention of some of the most powerful, and they decided it was time for this thorn in the side to go. It seemed that the intent of this campaign was a more radical challenge; and because it was cut short (and not really taken up by the Civil Rights movement with any sustained energy), it was also cut short of an even deeper connection to the church.

Does one abandon the idea of a Kingdom telos by seeking a "support" or "hands-off" from the state? Does any implied "we want and expect you to support us" aimed at the state so clearly "acquiesce" and as such, "cede to a defintion provided by the state" if the telos of such a "conversation" is to seek to "pull it off" by a combination of whatever social and spiritual forces can be marshalled? King continued on in the marches and confrontations, with or without the assurance of state/nation support. He "attempted" to pose his questions and demands to the states (as in Alabama, MIssissippi, etc.) without a real confidence that they would say "Oh, OK, you're right", and also had the same attitude toward the federal government, although he seemed to "expect more" from them since they were less attched to, and thus beholden to, the "southern way of life". He marched on, even though he had no "guarantees" from the feds.

Then again, Pastor John raises this excellent question:

Why settle for Law when the Spirit can transform the hearts of people to love? Why resort to legitimate state violence -- the same violence in the Alabama National Guard that came down upon the civil right marchers, the same violence that destroyed Viet Nam? Can we really suppose that the nation-state will use its coercive violence just for causes we want, and not for those of its highest bidder or patrons?

I agree. That's certainly one of those "balancing" issues in this matter, at least for me.

I also agree here:

The conditions of "liberal dialogue" are already stacked against those who speak from within the life of the church catholic.

Quoting David Schindler

"My contention is that liberalism just so far draws us into a con game: inviting us to dialogue within the (putatively) open and pluralistic market of religions, all the while that it has already, hiddenly, filled the terms of that dialogue with a liberal theory of religion. The liberal appeal to religious pluralism hides its own "monism"; the liberal appeal to religious freedom hides its own definite truth about the nature of religion."

This speaks to the reasons why we are to let our "scepticism" flow from the standard of the church; the storied people. Against that, the above forces work against the spirit to maintain the status quo. I belive that in our case today, with the Bush administration, it is to return to a previous status quo (dismantle additional "checks and balances" and put in their place lip-service and back-room sell-offs to the highest bidders. In other words, the private market; the "market" of the elite, in which they buy their way to what they consider paradise: unfettered and unaccountable plundering, for profit.

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

The Baptist Center for Ethics is sponsoring middle Tennessee's first public screening of a new documentary describing Christian complicity in the Holocaust.

"Theologians Under Hitler," produced and directed by Methodist minister Steven Martin, will be shown at 1 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 13, at Immanuel Baptist Church, 222 Belle Meade Boulevard, in Nashville.

Very disturbing theology from a divinity student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. This makes me so angry at the Southern Baptist theological educational system, which is, by all indications from this student, a legimation of the powers that be, dressed in pious language.

SBC Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: The cause of freedom

As a Marine, I appreciate the sacrifice my brothers and sisters in arms are facing in Iraq and all over the world right now, but I am confident that they will succeed because of who they are and what they are fighting for. As a Christian, I know the sacrifices that so many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are facing all over the world, but I know they will succeed because of Who is fighting for them.

Bold shows blasphemy number 1. Jesus is not FIGHTING in the way or manner or reason you do.

These are worthy causes, worth fighting and dying for, and I can testify that there are many Marines who are standing for freedom on both fronts �- for political freedom on earth and spiritual freedom in the Kingdom of God.

The ability to say these two things in a comparative/equal way is blasphemy number 2. And so "freedom" number one is the one where we operate under the asumptions of an entirely different kingdom?

The Southern Baptist seminaries have become apostate in their misison if this is anything of the sort that students are capable of believing when they graduate, or also their churches, for failing them in their formation in the ways of Christ. They have replaced the way of Jesus with "the American way".

James KA Smith and Steve Bush carry on quite an exchange , and I find quite a bit of hefty theological stuff here, and so off we go (with a few sometimes pithy remarks of mine interspersed, just to let you know how I'm responding to this (in case your're intrerested)

Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: What is Constantinianism?

Hmmm...I'm wondering if your original post, Steve, might have been an oblique response to some of my comments re: Wallis. In any case, I think your account of Constantinianism is a bit thin. Let me briefly try to expand on this

The conversation at Generous Orthodoxy Thinktank is great. Steve Bush and James KA Smith are among others discussing "What is Constantinianism?". Eleswhere on that same Thinktank, there is a post about Wallis' NYTimes editorial where Kevin Hector wonders if Wallis is as "statist" as he has been accused of being. James KA Smith says he is, Eric agrees, and DLW argues for the value of a "moderating" influence upon the radicalism of some of the "Red States" types ("moderation" is my probably way over-simplifying description, but I just wanted to give a real quick overview. the comments themselves are worth the read.

Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank

I like this paragraph from the "What is Constantinianism?" post:

It often goes unnoticed that Hauerwas and Willimon allow, "The confessing church can participate in secular movements against war, against hunger, and against other forms of inhumanity" (Resident Aliens, 47). Their concern, which I would echo, is, "Unless the church and Christians are trained first to understand their community’s language, they will lack resources to notice times when the language of the state is not their own" (Hauerwas Reader, 102-106). But efforts to disciple ourselves to understand our own ecclesial language do not preclude involvement in societal issues.

I provide some more quotes along the same line (at least I see a conneciton) in this post from Hauerwas' Performing the Faith.

former recognize the existence of "unwitting witnesses" to the Gospel. That is, while someone may think that his or her actions fit into, say, a secular-humanist narrative, it may be the case that his or her self-interpretation is not definitive--it may be the case, in other words, that Christians ("witting" witnesses) understand this person better than he or she does, precisely because we recognize the way that he or she fits into the story of God's redemptive love for the world. Or, to take up Jamie Smith's image, we might meet people on the road to Geneva who think that they're on a different road...but that doesn't change the fact that what they're doing "points" in Geneva's direction.

Yes, the "unwitting" , pure in heart pagan (who can only be a "pagan" because of inauthentic Christians and the attitudes of some Christians, and thus is actually only a pagan in "profession", but is actually involved in a dialectic with the author of truth who is God, unbeknownst to them; how would a person who's every example of God is that of people and groups who seem to the "pagan" to be a part of the world's system that is offers no distinctive difference. Why would they NOT reject the "God" of that society? They are the ones in need of the church that is BEING the church, and faitfully living out of that story of God's people.

More below

Here: Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: What is Constantinianism? Steve Bush starts an exchange on:

What is Constantinianism?

JKA Smith offers some thoughts, and many join in. This conversation is dealing with a lot of stuff that is important to me. I have found myself being a little concerned about this very question (ie What is Constantinianism? and What is not?) This conversation has helped me in what has been an anxious journey for me, I have found it difficult to articulate my concerns about how this is "applied" and/or "aimed" at particular Christians (such as Wallis), who have themselves been instrumental, for many folks, in helping them to recognize or even know what Constantinianism is. The way in which we "witness" to the state is obviously at issue here. Bonhoefer spoke/wrote of the "void" into which the world is in constant danger of slipping.

(I had been in the past few months referring to this "void" as "chaos", which explains why I was having trouble finding it in searches. The section in the below Continue Reading includes some of this that I found in Hauerwas' Performing the Faith)

This is a part of a sermon that is on ethicsdaily.com, and describes Clarence Jordan, a man whose work was introduced to me and our youth group by our Youth Minister at the First Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky, in the summer of 1974. Soon after that, he took some of us down to Koinonia Farm. Jordan's "Cotton Patch" translations set the gospels in the South, where Jerusalem was Atlanta, Rome was Washington , DC, and the trek to the temple in Jesus' youth where he stayed behind and worried his parents, was the Southern Baptist Convention. Jordan and Koinonia were often recipients of nightime visits by the KKK, who didn't think tooo highly of a Christian community where people of different races worked together.

From a sermon on EthicsDaily.com entitled The Confessing Movement
Ryon L Price
21 August 2005
Mtt. 16:13-20

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

What does “kingdom” mean? Simply put it is where the king reigns. Clarence Jordan, in the Cotton Patch Gospels, his down on the farm, colloquial translation of the gospel texts, called it, “the God movement” (The Cotton Patch Gospels, xiv). For Jordan the kingdom was where God is moving in the hearts and lives of people living in community with one another.

In 1942, after graduating from seminary with a PhD in New Testament Greek in addition to his agricultural science undergraduate degree, Clarence and his wife Florence along with another couple moved to Americus, Georgia seeking to live in radical Christian community with one another. There they founded Koinonia Farms. Intent upon embodying the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, they committed themselves to the radical qualities of koinonia – meaning fellowship. On Koinonia Farms Clarence and the other members of the fellowship practiced equality for all peoples, the rejection of violence, and the sharing of all possessions. In short, they were seeking to live as the book of Acts tells us the first generation of Christians lived – in radical fidelity to the making of the kingdom of God among them.

For Clarence Jordan and that brave band of saints, the gospel was not something merely to be passively received. To confess Christ was to become a part of the making of the new community. It meant to bring the kingdom come. The church was not a place where like-minded people come merely to eat casseroles and reminisce about the old days. Instead, what gathers and binds the people of God is their common future. Their common destiny to be made new in the resurrection of Christ. Death has been defeated and all its power robbed. Our future is peaceable life with one another and God forever and eternity.

Eric posted thislate Monday night, and I read it after Eric mentioned in some correspondence. Not much I can add except my yielding to the truth of it.

Eric's Tasty Morsels of Thought - This is probably me

Thanks to Jonathan for the link to this video from a Hauerwas speech and question/answer session at Baylor

The Phaith of St. Phransus: "Kindness Killed the Texan" A.K.A . "Which One Would Get a Butt Whuppin' If They Fought"

Watch Hauerwas here(Real Audio). The last 15 minutes from about 123:23 is the "In the Cracks" section where Hauerwas talks about some of the things the Church can do to be an example of a people formed by God. I especially liked the part on how the church can show what true friendship is to a world of lonely isolated individuals. I might add that this is sorely lacking in many churches , even for those who actually seek it out and seek deep relatedness within.

Yesterday I did an interlibrary loan form from my parent's public library to the Vanderbilt Divinity School Library to check out a copy of Gerhard Lohfink's Does God Need the Church?: Toward a Theology of the People of God on the recommendation of William Cavanuagh in his presentation to the Ecclesia conference (which I heard via an mp3 via Charlie Pardue)

Last night after I read Pastor John's article in Conflicting Allegiances: The Church Based University in a Liberal Democratic Society (which Pastor John edited along with Michael Budde), I expressed some sense of wanting more "description" of what was said about the church polity into which the ecclesial-based university can form its students. That was the final sentence of the article.

That's NOT meant as a critique, since the article dealt with its appointed topic. That's also not what I meant to convey at all by what I wrote about that last night. Nobody indicated as such to me last night, but I kept fumbling around with it, and worried it might be construed as an accusation or something. Actually, it's the deepest kind of complimetn that I wanted the article to continue, since it led me right into the conclusion that Pastor John intended to identify as the hoped for end.

But I was expressing a longing for the narrative of that ecclesial vision for formation. I mentioned last night how I am in what seems like a perpetual state of expectation that I can find that community in which such things happen, and such relationships are expected. I wrote about how The Church of the Saviour , via Elizabeth O'Connor's books, provided the best stuff I have ever read that dealt in depth with the journey of a community in being church.

I have often found the same longing at the end of a particularly good Hauerwas article (which is many of them). I wish I could hear more of the fleshing out and examples of the kind of narrative of which he speaks, and the ways in which his church experiences have formed him. Many of these authors write and theologize very well, but I also want it continue on and do some of that narration for me. Perhaps, as was the case with Elizabeth O'Connor, that is to be left with someone gifted in that particular way of writing. Maybe these authors find this to be a writing challenge by which they feel humbled. I can relate to that. It is a seemingly improbable job to capture the stuff of community life in writing, at least in a way that does it much justice.

On this new ">blog companion (ThinkTank) to the generousorthodoxy.net website, I found this , which will definitely interest me, since I am a "Southern Baptist refugee" (which usually these days means either another kind of Baptist, like CBF or the ABC, or else something entirely different--- like, another denomination)

Some have asked for a copy of my comparison research on the Baptist Press and Associated Baptist Press, so I've uploaded it to the weblog here.

This purpose as stated seeks an identity that is a needed foundation for a resisting and faithful church. The comments are also encouraging. I'll be interested to see what arises from this. I'm heading out for the morning, but I certainly want to keep a watch here.

Harbinger: generousorthodoxy.net

The purpose of the site and the weblog is to help foster a progressive or postconservative evangelical identity. I believe that many, many people identify as evangelicals but do not identify with the theological and/or political conservatism that dominates media representations of U.S. evangelicalism. Here's some evidence of that. And yet there is no real sense of connectedness or cohesiveness among that group. I hope that that will change over the upcoming decades. I for one am desperate for a greater sense of connectedness with likeminded people, and I believe many others are too.

A passage from Chapter 2 of Call to Commitment, on "the integrity of Church membership"

The Church of the Saviour is an attempt to recover in one local expression of the Church Universal something of the vitality and life, vigor and power of the early Christian community. It was founded on the conviction that the greatest contribution the church can make in any time is in being the church-" a community of reconciled and reconciling persons," a community of the Holy Spirit, a people in which Christ dwells, a people who have a newness of life and who are transmitters of this newness.

We understand the Christian Church as the gathering of those who are committed to Christ and to one another in the living of a common life. We am to be pioneers, missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and prophets-represematives of the new humanity. The proclamation of the gospel is not alone for a little official group of people which is called clergy. It is for ail who have met the Pioneer and Perfecter of our faith, who know that Christ is on the march. The world may be fearful and anxious and weary, but we am not weighted by that world. We are following One who has unfathomable resources and One who makes them available to us and who says, "You must set new norms for life so that people can see what life can be. This is your task. Your primary vocation is to enter into covenant relationships with others who have also met this Christ -- to be that new society into which others can be drawn."

Call to Commitment, Elizabeth O'Connor, 1963 p.23

Something that just occurred to me , as I finished my reading of Pastor John Wright's article in Conflicting Allegiances (and I don't mean this as a criticism, but rather as a concern that we don't seem to spend near as much time mapping the terrain of what we would consider a faithful rendition, existence, and impact as church, as we do exploring what is NOT faithful and what is not quite right). I say this about all of us; myself included. I've blogged a blog-ful of rants about "what those idiots are doing" and by comparison, very little to stand in contrast and alternative to that which I deplore. Anmd here I can say that not only do most of us do that, but it also is the pervading theme of those I have been defending like Sojourners, as well as those who I have been warning about (the Religious Right and the mix of nationalism with an "Americanized" morality). It seems that we are not alone in history in this predicament.

It is still another testimony to how right The Church of the Saviour does it that their story is a story of faithful response to call, and telling their story of how things happen as they continue to listen and search together about the shape their calling will take, and what new work is to be done by what new leaders. The narrative that comes from their quarters is dominated by the works happening in their ministries, in their neighborhoods. They are all about describing and embodying the alternative reality they have realized.

I continue to be thoroughly interested in learning more about the ways in which we have been led astray, but I find myself longing for more from those who have opened my eyes to something more I had not noticed ; a way in which I myself had been seduced into a way of relating to the world which is "in and of the world"; lacking in the transformative and the redeeming work of God in and amongst the people of God, the church. I nboticed this as I finished up Pastor John's article, and realized how it seems to be so with basically all the authors that I am into now. Hauerwas, etc. I find myself needful of a much longer conclusion which begins to describe and suggest the alternatives, and then stops short. I know, the articles and books have only claimed to identify the ways in which we fail to be church. They may even spend a larger amount of time in describing the reasons why the church differs, but lack examples of such.

Maybe all such promises made by books can only fall just short, which itself is the impetus for us to seek it out in the flesh instead of continuing to think about it in an academic kid of way. Perhaps (and I hope it is so, and believe it could be so) these authors have that "imbedded-ment" in a people in their lives that for them needs no narrative in their work. Maybe it is out of the lack of such an embodiment and the resulting lack of significant close spiritual relationships outside my immediate family , of the face to face variety, that I find myself longing for stories and descriptions of living, breathing communities that make this Kingdom of God thing seem so much more real and "concrete"; "in the flesh" and incarnate enough to reach out and touch.

I am thankful for the ones who have endured in thier efforts to preach a church as THE intended context for us to flourish as God intends for us, and to be that "haven" and "oasis" of a humanity that has found its purpose. I complain tonight precisely becuase the way the "holes" were described was convincing me that I wanted to hear a detailed description of what such a "witness to God the Father's peaceable kingdom that has drawn near to us in Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit" looks like.

The following section is from John Wright's chapter in Conflicting Allegiances, a book edited by Pastor JOhn Wright and Michael Budde, which includes articles by both men, as well as John Milbank and William Cavanaugh, to name a couple of names recognizable to me. The following quote is large, but gives a very clear picture of the sociological strategy of the modern liberal state we have in America. It was made all thchecked out from NetFlix: Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause. In it he was talking in one context about how modern civilized countries don't have to use force anymore to maintain the status quo. they can use persuasion in the form of adveritsing to placate and pacify people with consumerism to keep them from caring about real human issues. Now that is an insight from a man who has, of yet, not said much at all about religion (he is Jewish -- not that this is why I think he doesn't talk about religion), but here has identiifed what I think is true for the majority of religious communities and churches in America today. They operate with the agenda of producing "succesful" citizens of the empire, which uses the modern coercive forces of media to shape. It was Chomsky calls "Manufactured Consent"; the strategy of keeping us occupied with things like consumerism and fear to keep the status quo in place, so that the means of continuation of the benefactors of society as we know it will continue to live the lives to which they have been accustomed.

What insights such as this article of John Wright and others who self-identify with the Radical Orthodoxy camp is something which Tony Campolo had made me aware of when I first began listening and reading what he had to say. Campolo is a Sociological with a passion for the role of the church as a change agent and a reflection of the Kingdom of God. He brought me to understand the motivations of those who "manufacture" the things for which we are intended to give full pursuit. This idea, deeply tied to our capitalist. materialistic society, strategizes constanbtly as to the latest , most effcient means of recycling the lates trends and translating this into means of profit. What Pastor John has written here is to show how the church, and specifically the church-related university has fallen into line to become successful producers of the right "product" to keep things going. What we are intended to do about this is to recognize the way we are being played, and band together in this scoiety called church to affirm what we know to be true: that God is in control of history, and there is a Kingdom that is active reality and ultimate end. In that light, the operations of that which seeks to control outside of this reality is the illusion, and the imposter.

More in just a bit. I weant to finsih this chapter "How Many Masters?"

By creating the realm of the private, autonomous individual and then placing religion within this realm, liberal theory separates Christianity from the communal base that renders it viable across time. Such a cultural landscape opens the possibility of the emergence and growth of new religious groups under individual entrepreneurial leadership. As the group grows, however, it must achieve broader social legitimacy if this growth is to cotinue-legitimacy that only the culture can give. A community can achieve this legitimacy by assuming a mediating function in which its members, especially those marginal to the society at large, are mainstreamed into the norms, practices, and institutions of the liberal democratic society. In this way the religious organizations place the individual's religious commitments within a framework conducive to the liberal society. Religion emerges as a market choice for the private, autonomous individual, a product distinct in some way from its religious institution/provider within a competitive religious free-marketplace.The religious institution that serves the society by supporting society's ends can enhance its product, and thus its market share, through the added social-economic benefits provided by societal upward mobility that participation in the religious institution cam bring." In the liberal democratic setting of the U.S., therefore, a church-related university existed as a voluntary association, a mediating organization or civil society social networks that exist "'outside' the scope of the state." '

Jonathan blogs about a disconnect in the Church; that somehow, something very obvious and ummistakably importanta nd central has been "overlooked" (my quotes). The disconnect that Jonathan speaks of points to this substitution of "other issues" for ones obviously much more central to the Biblical faith, and to the Biblical narative.

The Phaith of St.Phransus: THERE'S A DISCONNECT IN OUR CHURCH

it became very apparent to me just how disconnected our doctrine and theology is. We argue over the issue of homosexuality because we read that the Bible says that it is wrong. But for the 4-5 times that it condemns homosexuality, how many more times does it condemn the affluent and powerful overlooking the needs of the poor and helpless? THERE'S NO COMPARISON

Nashville's Two Rivers Baptist Church (of which our next door neighbors who had the gigantic Bush Cheney sign last fall are members) just hosted "Justice Sunday II" , and it sounded the RR's favorite talking points. Unfortunately, these are not the Bible's "talking points"; not the center of the theme.

This Nashvile event put on display for the umpteenth time the Bibkcial cluelessness of the Nationalistic American Christian agenda. As I read on in Bonhoefer's bio, I see so many behaviors and styles this holds in common with the "German Christians" who enthusiasticaly aligned themselves with the Nazi regime. It constitiuted the majority of the churchgoers in Germany in the 30's. Again, this is not to equate America with Nazi Germany, but to point out how strong the urge for a previously marginalized people to be easily snared into an agenda that promises better days, and restoration of "strength and prosperity". Their major strategy was in whippin gup the Bolsevik threat. When the International community protested against offensive advances by Hitler, the Nazi's whipped up the progaganda against the international community (again, some similar tendencies), and tirelessly drove home the insitence that these "advances" were "pre-emption" against the inevitable invasion of their way of life (again, sounds familiar....seems somebody has said "They hate our way of life")

Why can the "American Christians" (who also heretically mix nationalism and American "neocon dreams" as portents of a "coming of age of Pax Americana" as the Bush administration insiders envision) so easily and unquesitoningly twist their Bibles into line? I know that it's an age-old problem, but as technological "prowess" rises, the capabilities for horrendous destruction also rise, especially in the hands of an American regime who exhibit no better morality; who extol a "morality" which considers only itself and their perceived mandate to "protect our way of life". What they've eneded up doing is business "faster than usual" and talking their way through justifying to the American people why they are the best ones for the job of protecting us. They actually are rapidly accelerating the processes that have backed us into a cold war more menacing than the one with Russia and "communism". Now it's a "War on Terror" that is coming at us out of seething anger for a century of capitalistic and opportunitic plunder of Muslim sacred places and their "way of life" as it is invaded by our "way of life". For as much as the Christian Right extols the "virtue of America" and our "Christian Nation" against a sea of Eastern terrorists, our living examples of occupation, oil deals, and military bases to protect those interests have reaped a spiraling resentment over generations. I don't attempt to justify any reaction of violence; but Americans fail to see how the Muslim world has reasons to resent our infringment. Reasons are not justifications, anymore than 9/11 should lead to any "ease of retaliation" on our part. But it certainly did. And this is what Karl Rove actually called an "opportunity" to exert our power (iow, he implies that we have "ample justification to use our power to set things aright. That's just plain scary. And demonic, by the way.)

None of this seems to be in the content of conversation in Christian churches whose Scriptures unmistakably (seemingly) emphasize that God's people care about such things. That God's people raise a bit of a stink about people who claim to be Christians unleashing such horror on places like Iraq. Instead, we find conversations about what vacations we're taking or about to take (which are fine, if they are but one topic of "small talk" among much more weighty life considerations). I find myself aghast at how in social contexts filled with people who have been church people all their lives, that Biblical/theological issues are rare conversation themes. In fact, they are vastly outnumbered to the extent that they are rarities. And this includes Sunday mornings, when one steps outside the "curriculum" to what people immediately turn to after the "meeting" is over.

This is more of that "disconnect" that is puzzling to me as well, Jonathan. Thanks for posting on that.

Often during Seminary, I heard people quote Augustine's City of God. Never once was it required reading. When I read the following "Back Cover" synopsis on this abridged version I picked up a couple of weeks ago (unaware of its being abridged, not noticing that it says so on the front cover), I anticipate seeing if I can pick up the larger complete work at the library, or perhaps order a hardback copy from Amaazon ( I saw such a hardback copy at Borders a couple of days ago)

The back cover:

No book except the Bible itself had a greater influence on the Middle Ages than City of God. Since medieval Europe was the cradle of today's Western civilization, this work by consequence is vital for an understanding of our world and how it came into being.

St. Augustine is often regarded as the most influential Christian thinker after St. Paul, and this book is his masterpiece, a vast synthesis of religious and secular knowledge. It began as a reply to the charge that Christian otherworldliness was causing the decline of the Roman Empire. Augustine produced a wealth of evidence to prove that paganism bore within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Then he proceeded to his larger theme, a cosmic interpretation of history in terms of the struggle between good and evil: the City of God in conflict with the Earthly City or the City of the Devil. This, the first serious attempt at a philosophy of history, was to have incalculable influence in forming the Western mind on the relations of church and state, and on the Christian's place in the temporal order.The original City of God contained twenty two books and fills three regular sized volumes. This edition has been skillfully abridged for the intelligent general reader by Vernon J. Bourke, author of Augustine's Quest of Wisdom.

The heart of this monumental work is now available to a much wider audience.

(I wonder if Augustine would have a reaction to the phrase "skillfully abridged by the intelligent general reader"? It seems to border on a concept of "natural theology" ; an interesting question, it seems)

I have been reading with interest the reviews of a Complete, Hardback edition on Amazon here

After my last post in which I dove headlong in to a heart felt rant of disgust over the Busdh administration, I have been thinking a lot lately about this work of Augustine's which I am about to start reading. Maybe I will get a flavor for it by starting with this abrdged version (but the cover kind of scares me when it says it is "Abridged for the Modern Reader". What the hell is that about? That almost gives me pause, kind of like "The Bible: Abridged for the American Patriot", or "The Bible: Chicken Soup For the American Soul"

I think, though, that it is a time for a study like this to take hold in today's "Confessing Churches". I also wonder, as I wrote that last line, what today's conversation would be in working such a confession. There would be a mighty debate over the issue of language. But it seems to me that a statement of and by the American church as to its stance of loyalty to an American empire (ie. the repudiation of any talk of "loyalty" to the extent that it conflicts with a call to the gospel which transcends national boundaries, and knows no specific "American ethic or ethos")

The article here is a scathing crtique of the lack of response by the church to this enormously unfaithful regime. I believe it to be unfaithful on many levels. First, it operates as an enemy to what I believe to be the Kingdom of God, and against what I believe are the response to which we as church are called. Second, and far below on the scale of importance, is the mockery it has made of even the most common assumptions of what America is supposed to mean. MLK said so many times. "Be true to what you say on paper" (the constitution) he said. The Bush administration is all about appearances, while they work in the darkness of back room meetings and Rove-inpired whispering campaigns and media "suggestions" passed on unedited by Rupert Murdoch to his "minions" below on the News Cahnnel, and circulated amongst the mainstream media's pundits and "counterpoint/crossfire/hardball" matches to obscure their lack of forthrightness.
Here, read this, and then, surprise, surprise, "I got more to say!"

Pax Americana and Christian Values

America is ruled by a secular right-wing political and economic ideology. It was not elected by the people, and it has never enjoyed majority support from the people. It is, however, supported by a significant majority of Christians.

The secular ruling ideology is convinced that Jesus Christ was wrong when he said you can't serve both God and money. With the support of most Christians, it practices the secular economic values of the Russian-born atheist Ayn Rand-the gospel of greed.

Our government nurtures the interests of business corporations. But it turns a blind eye and deaf ear toward the needs and interests of ordinary people. The secular corporate media helps facilitate this.

We now have the most corrupt, dishonest, and mean-spirited government in our history. Its performance in people programs is the worst in the industrial world. The world's richest country is at or near the bottom in things like: minimum wage, vacation time, paternity leave, poverty rate, illiteracy rate, crime rate, prison rate, access to healthcare, access to legal services, access to decent housing, access to public transportation, and access to higher education.

Now here is something that just burns me that the church has so blindly and cluelessly missed:

The secular ruling ideology is convinced that Jesus Christ was wrong when he said you can't serve both God and money. With the support of most Christians, it practices the secular economic values of the Russian-born atheist Ayn Rand-the gospel of greed.

"Love of Money is the root of all kinds of evil". When I often quote that with the "love of" left off, many are quick to correct me, as if by saying this they can excuse themselves, since of course, they don't "love" money. But this is the practical God and therefore false idol of the Bush administration. Special interests , dominated by oil and energy, are rampantly dominating the "decisions" and the "sense of justice" of this administration.

Notice how there is virtually NO talk of energy conversation in the midst of the oil price crisis with which we are now faced? It seems to me that this dwarfs the size of the "crisis" in the 70's. I don't know what the figures are that adjust the size of this crisis compared to the 70's for inflation, but I remember a constant hammering home of conserving tips, and a revolution of "fuel efficient cars" (ie Hondas, Chevettes, VW Rabbits, etc., which really seemed to usher in the invasion of the US car market with foreign made cars). There seems to be an ideological reaction to such talk in today's climate. And that, to me, is just plain irresponsible. And these idiots in charge don't give a shit. (Think I'm pissed?) When I see the gas prices surpass 2.70 (and almost 3 for premium!), and hear nothing from our trusty leaders, I see their hubris. To start being "energy conscious" would unduly "harm our economy" (which would echo their reasoning for rejecting envirionmental agreements being signed by nearly every other "civilized" country).

It's not that I don't think there are not bigger fish to fry than to grant these idiots and blasphemers mcu of anytime on the stage of "concern" in my larger world. It is obvious that our political system is , and has been for some time, "out to lunch" in terms of approaching anything resembling a "servant of the people" status. After reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, I think it's pretty much been that way in America since 1492 or so. More in a bit. Gotta catch my breath and breathe in some perspective in light of the only real Kingdom, the Kingdom of God.

It has been recognized by many progressives with ecclesiological emphasis/dependence that it has been a failing of most activist Christians that they are lacking in the formative structures. They join en masse the "Progressve" movements and blog and watch the pundits, but live as proper citizens of the empire, and are thus totally unthreatening.

One of the first people who talked about this was Jim Wallis. The first I heard of this , before that, was The Church of the Saviour, and was the theme of Elizabeth O'Connnor's second "history book" of the Church of the Saviour entitled Journey Inward, Journey Outward. The call of God comes to his people gathered. The call comes from God from within the fray; at the "edges" , where the Kingdom is deeply emmeshed in the activity of the world, and dipping into the resources which God is preparing in the church. So the people "cross back and forth" over that edge, and time is valuable on both sides. Not to set up a dualism, but to affirm the balance of formation and leaven; of action based in contemplation and prayer.

Wallis wrote of this in Revive Us Again, as well as many individual articles and speeches since. While I can understand and to some extent even share some concerns of other Christians regarding the language used by many progressives, I think we need to place a premium on the "faithful activists" who respond and sacrifice for the sake of their calling, and support those who are DOING the work. The formation of our language is an ongoing process. I myself have seen pass 27 years since I started Seminary, unaware of these finer distinctions identified by those in and into "Radical Orthodoxy". I believe I owe it to those who were much like me over those years, unaware of the "issues" that have been identified by RO, to be thankful that those who idnetify themselves so intimately with the "Progressives" and the Christian "Chicago"/Social Gospel style/emphasis are so formed that they are able to hear the fine theological distinctives being affirmed by RO. Although language is certainly an important and often "unconscious" shaper of Christian response, those who participate in acts of mercy emanating from "social progressive" communities are , in my estimation, ahead in the game of any who are not so engaged.

This critique of critique, coming out of some of my concerns about the judgmental tendencies I have noticed in James KA Smith's problems with Jim Wallis and Sojourners, is most painfully real in its confrontation with my own lack of involvement outside my narrow little sphere of family (although, like many, I often feel overwhelmed enough with feeling I am adequately caring for my own, in our own little household). I recognize that I need the church; a church to be there for me to give me the resources to extend beyond the one family to the larger family of God.

I feel a bit paralyzed in my awareness that I cannot do this part from the church. I have a sense that I am not totally "out of the church" to the extent that I do not , at present, have a church community, since I believe in some sense in the partial value of the community I have amongst my online friends, but also that this is not sufficient.
My online experience is a kind of "hint" that such personal sharing of stories is available and possible; and that I can expect to find such.

Aaron blogs on institution as redeemable. I agree with this recognition of the value of "structures" as constituted by the continued "operation" of church, as a responsive, community-building apparatus (an apparatus of very highly connected human and divine quality)

aaron klinefelter

I believe in change... transformation... metamorphosis. I believe God is in this messy business of change... who else could make dry bones live? But change - deep long lasting change - may start by a risk, a crisis, a radical step out of the ordinary. But it is not sustained by living in a constant state of temporariness. Change - real life transformation of individuals, neighborhoods, and communities - is really only possible if we surround ourselves and embed ourselves in way of being that externally represents the internal way we want to be. By engaging in personal and communal rituals that become holy habits we become the people we say we want to be.

And this brings me to institution. I believe we must not abhor this idea of institution if we are to be a sustainable community of faith. We need common practices that are formed through long-term repetition. In other words, I think "insitution" is a word worth redeeming.

This should keep me occupied until 2006 (considering I also have the Bonhoeffer Bio ....only p. 322 of 941 pages of bio, and 1048 pages including notes and index, and the two Hauerwas books I got two weeks ago). I feel like I've gone back to Seminary.

This from the National Council of Churches Website caused me to think about this in this way: Call upon the government, but maybe first, act as church. DO what you are calling upon the government to do. In other words, BE the church, and then perhaps the government will see or act out of a sense of obgligation, or with some sense of "this is what the people want, and so we'll help". Acting out of pressure to act is actually what we should expect, but failing that, we act nevertheless.

Did anybody question that church agencies should act in response to the Tsunami? No. We just went and did it, and people sent money to help with this. So, my question is, how "tragic" does the event need to be before the church acts together as a force to respond? Of course, the answer is, we act on everything. It's basically the calling of the church. We are to be at the diosposal of the ongoing activity of the Kingdom of God, and we are to proclaim that our purpose is to respond to this. To accomplish this, God gives gifts to the people, and calls them together in a divine collaboration. Our community is all about shaping us into this group of responders. Our community is all about shaping us to discern the truth, and that this requires a difference from the ways of the world. The way of violence, the way of wealth-seeking, and the ways of "the market" that we are taught is the "way things are". God has other ideas about the purpose of the creation, of history.

National Council of Churches USA -- Home Page

People of faith are praying for Darfur — and calling upon the U.S. government to act

I am in no position to say whether or not the majority of "Progressives" are faithful in acts of mer5cy themselves. To those who are, I support any alliance that helps form and support this collaboration of God's people. To the ones who do not, I can see where the term "Constantinian" can apply even tho those who use the term and know what it means, and yet the sum total of their activity is in an advocacy that cheers on the work without actually doing much themselves.

I was just reading in Bonhoeffer's biography, during the time when the Confessing Church was making its separation real, Bonhoefer was fully engaged in talks with the German church government, which had become appointments of the Reich, and thus an arm of the state; true "statists" IOW. So what kind of "getting hands dirty" might this entail; this talking to state servants , albeit those in the garb of the church? Is this "getting into bed" with those who have clearly themselves gotten into bed with the state? This adds yet another layer to the question of what the church has a call to appropriately address and confront the state, and through what means.

It's not that Bonhoefer himself is to be the ultimate authority on this matter, but I picked up the story of Bonhoefer and his approach to the relationship of the church to society during such a time as his, in order to see what kind and manner of development ensued from that time when the flavor of Christianity in that country was so nationalistic. That Bonhoeffer has become such a figure after World War II in theological circles and in ecclesiological discussions, is testimony to how important his narrative, thought, and eccesiology has become.

Some thoughts as I continue in my reading of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, in the chapter : Berlin 1933, and the church protest and statements concerning the Ayran clause. Many Germans in the church were vocal in their support of nationalism in this matter. They accepted the premise of the acceptability of pre-emptive action against a threat whose veracity was "guaranteed" by the Reich.

In the year that Hitler came to official power, the church struggle was a consuming force in Bonhoefer's activity. Much of the activity reminds one of the kinds of divisions today. I cannot subscribe to the notion that it is to be considered inappropriate to "compare" the political climate of Nazi germany with any subsequent era or society, merely on the basis of the "degree" of the evil unleashed. Evil is evil. Unjust and unChristian "consent" to "walk that wall for us" and do "whatever it takes" to "protect our way of life"; this is all evil in alternate guise, and under which, the church has the issue thrust before it as to what Kingdom it owes and shall give its loyalty.

The arguments for nationalism today seem so similar. For Hitler, his "waepons of mass destruction" was the "Bolshevik threat", which was invoked as the theme and justification for Hitler's expansionist dream, all in the name of the German's security as a nation. This building on "threat" and "fear" and "protecting our way of life" is for me an ominous sign , and I agree with Hauerwas that violence draws its power from our fear of the stranger; that "ominous other" which precipitates paranoid reactions of murderous proportions. And we see Christians totally oblivious to this appeal to fear.

More , on what constitutes Constantianism, from Anthony

Musings of an Emergent Postmodern Negro: Martin Luther King Jr....Constantinian Christian?

For me, whether or not a particular Christian project is constantinianism hedges on its relationship and perspective on the Eschaton or full manifestation of God's kingdom of earth. The issue remains primarily for me an eschatological issue. Does your project see itself as building the kingdom of God on earth? Does your project see its organizations, embodiedments, or even political entities as the only faithful embodiedment of the Eschaton? Does your project conflate the kingdom of God with your political agenda? Is your project assumed to be the only "totalizing" system that fully embodies the kingdom of God? Questions like these are my point of departure about what does or what does not constitute "statism" or constantinianism.

These seem to be faithful, honest , and theologically pertinet questions about how "statist" our concept or implementation of the Kingdom is.

Then, this question, re: another hero of mine, and one very much on my own list of influential/formative saints in my life, MLK Jr.

Were Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and those in the prophetic black Church during the Civil Rights movement Constantinian Christians because they used the mechanism of the "nation-state" to bring about a more just society? Were they "statist" Christians?

If so, then I wonder, I really really wonder: What would James Smith and those in the Radical Orthodoxy camp have told black Christians in Montgomery, Alabama, during Jim Crow? What would Smith and others say to young black Christians who wanted to see change in the society? "Go to church and worship Jesus"? "Wait for white Christians in power to become virtuous Christians on the issue of race and class"?

What's up?The reason I ask this is because there is much I agree with in Radical Orthodoxy -- their critique of liberal individualism, the pathologies of capitalism, and so forth. I suspect it's for these same reasons that I see Radical Orthodoxy books on alot of emerging church bloggers' reading lists.

But I am still torn about this question: What would America be like now ... What would many churches be like right now without the prophetic witness of Christians like King towards both the State and the Church, had they simply remained in their respective church buildings worshipping King Jesus? I think that is a question that
Radical Orthodoxy needs to answer.

I don't have much detail on what the heck JKA is saying here. He seems to like making somewhat esoteric, veiled references to what he apparently thinks Wallis and Sojourners represent.

RCA: Perspectives: As We See It: How to Get Your Hands Dirty

Is there only one way to get your hands dirty? Supposedly so, to listen to the conventional Right and Left on the American Christian scene. On the one hand, our brothers and sisters on the Religious Right try to convince us that in the name of "liberty"--which is a "gift from God"--we need to be willing to get our hands dirty and undertake military action. On the other hand, "progressive," Sojourners-type activists disparage the ecclesial- centric politics of Stanley Hauerwas and others as "purist" and "quietist"--as if committing to the church as polis is a way of staying "clean." On the matter of "dirty hands," then, Sojourners' Jim Wallis and National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard are on the same continuum: both think that getting one's hands dirty means getting into bed with the state. (I promise not to run with the metaphor.)

But is pulling a trigger the only way to get your hands dirty? Is playing by the rules of party (and partisan) politics, even of liberal democracy, the only way to really care about justice? Is that the only way to "do" something about oppression and injustice? Dirty Hands Aren't pacifists who minister to the wounded and open up their sanctuaries to care for victims also getting their hands dirty? Could we not say that those who celebrate the Eucharist as politics also have blood on their hands?

and what the heck does this really mean?

celebrate the Eucharist as politics

I must cede right up front that I am not extremely "eucharistic" or liturgy-centric. I think my Baptist upbringing is to blame for that. I realize there is a lot to learn on that score. But I'm not sure what this really means. I understand that the Eucharist can be political in its results, meaning, etc. But then how does Eucharist act AS politics?

I also cannnot agree with the notion that Sojourners "gets in bed" with the state. I mean, merely agreeing to confront/dialogue/debate with the aims/claims/purpose of the state on "it's own turf" does not neccesarily "cede ground" or "jump in bed". There is certainly no semblance of "cooperation" or "agreement" or telos here. Wallis is also under no illusions about the "righteousness" of the "political liberals" , usuaully ensconced in the Democratic party. He has long been critical and confrontive with administrations of the Democratic party (such as Johnson in Vietnam) and Carter in Timor.

The whole problem here is that Smith is not presenting these as questions aimed toward dialogue on these issues, but in what I would characterize as "jabs" approaching what has been called "drive-by". And in this particular case, I would tend to belive that Wallis and Sojourners, as they always have, would welcome the issues being explored, as Smith has so ably demonstrated that he is capable of doing. I raised the question last week that I feel the time is long overdue for such a discussion to take place. Thus far, I am aware of three people who have raised some "well........" kinds of questions about Jamie Smith's criticisms of Wallis (Charlie, Anthony, and in response to Anthony, Jonathan.....see the question raised by Anthony and reply by Jonathan on Jonathan's Blog I have "mirrored the comments below )

This is a disturbing and yet not entirely surprising trend. Whenver "popularity" and "PR" (ie. "Business and Marketing practices") hold sway, then tendencies like this are bound to become issues. Many institutions fall victim to this kind of pitfall, and it raises fullscale the kinds of issues that are raised in The Cluetrain Manifesto. It seems to me that perhaps churches should begin to consider the similar implications for them; do we want real conversation and truthful confrontation, or do we want to "sell" the church as a consumer product?

untiedmethodist.com: Do we want news or PR?

In a column in the July/August Zion's Herald, Cynthia Astle, who had written for and edited the Reporter for 17 years, says the Reporter's (the UMReporter) new management wants to remove reader response items and letters to the editor from the newspaper. While not mentioning her by name, Astle implies that the Reporter's new CEO and president Sarah Wilke, the daughter of retired Bishop Sarahwilke_3 Richard Wilke, wants to downplay disagreements and controversies within United Methodism in order to "build up" the church.

As much as I've been a little miffed lately by James K.A. Smith's approach to critiquing Jim Wallis, I am also firmly convinced that the gist of his projects are engaging, intriguing, and extremely valuable to us in the church. I also intend to continue reading all the Hauerwas I can get my hands on and point my browser toward, as well as Bonhoeffer (still in the Bethge Biography of Bonhoeffer) The following is some of the stuff I'm looking forward to upcoming from Smith, as described on his Calvin College page.

Research | James K.A. Smith

The next phase of my research will pull together these philosophical and theological trajectories as I begin work in the area of Christian public philosophy and political theology with a special interest in international relations in a post-9/11 world.

Specific projects include the following: * A book directed toward students, pastors, church leaders, and the community of believers, tentatively titled Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Growing out of my 2003 lectures at L'abri Fellowship in Switzerland, my goal in this book is to critically engage and explain the culture of postmodernity, particularly with a view to the implications of postmodernity for the life of the Church. In the process I'll critically engage the work of figures such as Brian McLaren and Leonard Sweet, offering a 'friendly critique' of their picture of the postmodern church.

* My sabbatical project for 2004/2005 is entitled Holy Wars and Democratic Crusades: Deconstructing Myths of Religious Violence and Secular Peace. Building on the work on democratic peace theory, this project engages the postmodern critique of religion (especially as articulated by Derrida) as inherently violent. This will represent the culmination of my critique of Derrida that has been sketched in previous articles.

* Beginning summer 2005 and through 2005/2006, I will be at work on a book project currently titled Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Learning, and the Formation of Radical Disciples. This project is funded by the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship and the Lilly Vocation Project. Aimed at students, but also of interest to scholars and other readers, the book will make the philosophical case for the role of worship and liturgical practices in the formation of a "worldview" (and will also critique the mis-appropriation of worldview language by the "Biola school"). It will include an analysis of the formative practices of "secular" liturgies and argue for a recovery of the centrality of worship as a crucial, necessary aspect of eduction and formation. I hope the book will be complete by September 2006.

* In the summer of 2004 I was engaged in research with my McGregor Research Fellow (and fellow Canadian!), Nathan Sytsma. The project was entitled "The Violence of Belief: Democratic Peace Theory's Commitment to Secularization." The theory of "democratic peace" is often cited as "the closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international relations." Informing American foreign policy for the past two administrations, one aspect of this program has been under-theorized: the relationship of democratic peace theory to the project of secularization. This project will investigate the ways in which the theory is predicated on a confidence in secularity as securing peace and therefore parallels "postmodern" critiques of religious violence. Both feed into the increased secularization of the public sphere based on assumptions about the "violence" of particular, determinate religious confessions. I hope to publish some of the fruits of this research in venues such as the Wilson Quarterly or Harper's.

* Beginning in fall 2006, I hope to undertake a project in political theology on the topic of freedom: a word bandied about in much American political discourse, particularly with respect to foreign policy and the "export" of American democracy--and regularly freighted with theological assumption and even overt claims. I hope to write a small, accessible book that will interrogate the "theology of freedom" that informs the current administration. My goal is to have the book done in time to appear for the fall 2008 presidential elections.

All of this stuff sounds absolutely terrific, and I look forward to exploring that.

"Worship, Learning, and the Formation of Radical Disciples" is the most intriguing of all. My latest burst of energy to "re-engage" in a more serious and disciplined way the life of the Church of the Saviour's eccesial living (and when I use that term re: that community, it really is "living", for never have I seen a church more thoroughly occupied with being God's people and announcing the arrival of God's Kingdom as this group has).

An article here that gives occasion for some more things that come to mind:

Body and Soul: The moral of the story

The moral of the story

Jim Wallis has an op-ed in today's New York Times. It's pretty much the same speech Wallis has been delivering to Democrats for years:

1. Come back to issues like reducing poverty that Democrats used to fight for and frame them in moral, perhaps even Biblical, terms.

2. Realize that saving the environment is a faith issue.

3. Point out that access to health care, child care, and increasing options for women will all decrease the number of abortions. This is a better frame for the issue than "choice."

4. Be willing to give a little on abortion restrictions -- especially parental notification.

5. Help protect children against "Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography."

6. Make a moral issue of reducing global poverty rather than military power as the basis for international leadership.

I made the following comments,