the parish

A Good Place to Start

On the bottom right you'll find a new typelist of books. In response to a few requests over the years, I've decided to put some reading material on the blog that sort of points to what I believe and why. There are far more that could go on the list, but these books were genuinely formative in my theology. I admit that Dogmatics in Outline barely beat The Word of God and the Word of Man, but I only wanted one book per writer. I'm not convinced that Royal Priesthood should not have displaced The Politics of Jesus, nor am I sure that The Peacable Kingdom shouldn't be in place of The Community of Character. None of the listed books are easy reading, except for Achtemeier. His is very accessible. Brueggemann is not difficult, just long. Let me know what you think. What egregious sins did I commit by leaving someone off? Also, if you hate the books listed there or the authors, odds are very good that you'll hate what I'm saying here. If you've never read anything by any of them, your theological education is deficient, and I mean that with all sincerity.

Heresy and Interpretation: A Letter to My Blog-Friend Dallas Tim

Dear Tim,

A suggestion was made that you further investigate Biblical scholarship without using the old excuse of "I shouldn't have to." Your constant refrain is that the Bible is clear and that Jesus' words are clear, except when they're not and that doesn't seem to slow down the rate at which you insist it's still clear. In response to this suggestion you offered quotes from three of the "greatest theologians of all time" to show why you were not in fact guilty of a hermeneutical lens borrowed from American churches. You further insisted that these three men, not being American, buttressed your point. I couldn't be happier that you chose the three you did. You'll remember you chose Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, and you cherry-picked quotes about the divine origin of Scripture. Here are my observations. Try to respond to at least one of them without reverting to "Jesus said the whole law," or some such oversimplification.

1. As far as Aquinas was concerned, Luther and Calvin would both be heretics. Their interpretations pushed them outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and we all know extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I've regularly been accused of being a heretic, but no reform ever happened in Church without heresy.
2. You pretend as if the issue is inspiration and authority, but none of us who call ourselves Christian on this blog have disputed inspiration and authority; we've disputed degree and accuracy and origin, but not that the Bible has a little of both. What you don't seem to understand is that the authority comes from the Church, and that makes you a little Catholic. You consistently conflate inspiration and authority with inerrancy and end up arguing things no one else is arguing. Witness: Leighton says, "study Bible scholarship," you say, "the Bible is divine." Did Leighton say it wasn't? I'm sure he would if you asked, but that wasn't the point of his comment. Stop reading what you want to see in the posts and actually read the posts.
3. The three men you mentioned read similar texts, but not the same, of course, and yet something as simple as "this is my body...this is my blood," is interpreted radically differently in the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed tradition. And somehow, all three seem to have missed the really simple meaning that this was a meal and not a sacrament in the sense of sacrifice or some sign of membership to be controlled by sacerdotal figureheads. Despite Luther's claim that the lowliest layman is more reliable than popes or councils, it turns out the lowliest laymen have brought us some of the worst theologies and interpretations of the last several centuries. In fact, they quite suck at hermeneutics, as they should, because they've never bothered to study.
4. I honestly enjoy reading the Reformers as well as the Church Fathers, but I don't care if they disagree with me. Once we've established that they can't agree with each other about the "plain meaning of the text," everyone is a heretic. Everyone. So, if they don't agree with me and vice versa, I'm in good company. You quote Luther as if you agree with Lutheranism. I daresay that you may find things in common, but you'll part company in many areas. Heresy is useful. It forces to question our beliefs in light of experience. And, if you really believe right belief is the key to salvation, then you're a gnostic, another heresy, by the way. Following Jesus has always been the means and way of salvation, not believing a subset of propositions about Jesus.
5. Please try to answer the questions as they're posed from now on. I don't think anyone is interested in arguing inerrancy anymore. It's tiring, and quite frankly, silly. I'm not sure how so many smart people decided on such a stupid idea, but they did, and the Church is worse for it. If you don't have the original manuscripts, you have no argument. If you, along with James Cameron, can find them, you are welcome to once again argue inerrancy.
6. Read people you disagree with. I did my entire undergraduate degree in biblical studies at two fundamentalist schools. I've read the fundangelical arguments, and at one time, I even agreed with them. I'm still willing to read them. You should be willing to read things at odds with your beliefs. Anything else is just seeking ratification for what you already believe. That doesn't seem to be what you really want.

Grace and peace.

King of Schlock

James Cameron, creator of one of the worst movies of all time--a film for which the Academy inexplicably rolled over like a two-dollar whore and threw Oscars at Cameron like flowers at Caesar returned from battling the barbarian hordes--has a film coming up on Discovery Channel (March 4) that purports to show the ossuaries of Jesus and his family. That's right. His family. Mary Magdalene and their son Judah. In a suburb in Jerusalem. (I knew Lifechurch.tv was his fucking idea!) I'm not making this up. Can't you see it:

"Judah, goddamnit, get over here. Yes, you. The little peckerhead. I keep telling you, I'm the lion of Judah and you're Judah. Dumbass kids. Why didn't I just stay on the cross? Mary, where's my belt?"

Even if you don't believe in the resurrection, it's easy to see how Cameron could use this to improve his flagging career, which seems literally stuck in the water since Titanic, with the exception of a painfully boring expedition into space. The king of the world is not going to stay out of the spotlight for too long. Not to mention the money that could be made. I'm wondering if Cameron has considered a career resurrecting the sacred relics business. Maybe he can find the liver of Prometheus next, or the Ark of the Covenant, or Noah's Ark, or the bones of Confucius' ox. Hell, I'd be happy if he could just find me the holy spirit.

Bringing Sanity to the Discussion: Mr. Deity

Tim sent this along. Go have a laugh. They do a great job of illustrating the absurdity.

Apologetical Method

Exchanged a few emails with a young man who grew up Nazarene but would probably describe himself as an atheist now. If he wants you to know who he is, I'm sure he'll post in the comments. I'm posting an excerpt from our conversation because I found it to be a startlingly accurate assessment of the way Christians, especially of the fundangelical variety, are trained to do apologetics. It's his assessment, by the way, just in case you think I'm engaging in shameless self-promotion. Anyway, here it is:

"Throughout college, the dissonance between what I believed and what I saw around me grew wider and wider. One day, I realized that all I was doing was practicing apologetics in light of wanting to maintain my beliefs. I came to the point where I was trying to justify Christianity in light of what I knew to be true about the world and the ways people acted. I was, in effect, starting with the answer (Christianity) and then applying the questions. When I sat down and started with the questions first, I realized that there was no way to reasonably end up with the answers Christianity had always provided me. "

Which One of You Holiness Folk is the Gay One?

Someone googled "homosexuality in the Nazarene Church leadership" tonight and found this blog. Which one of you is the gay one? Speak up now and keep your pension. If we have to search you out, it's straight (hee hee) to the Methodist Church with you.

Gay, Episcopalian, and...Wait

The news is here. In seven months or less, the Episcopal Church will realign. My prediction at the middle of last year was that we'd see two churches realign this year: Episcopal and PCUSA. Not a brave prediction, I realize, given the then current state of affairs. Still, it's sad to see it happen this way, or maybe it's for the best, but it's particularly troubling to see Schori and Akinola sign the same document on human sexuality. I think my Episcopalian friends had high hopes for the bishop. Alas...

It may be for the best inasmuch as nearly every church will be taking a side one way or another on the issue of homosexuality. The recurring criticism I hear about emergent folk like McLaren is their reticence to answer the question about gays and the Bible. Denominations are lining up on both sides of the issue and dividing on both sides of the issue. It's a matter of time before you'll start to see theologically conservative and culturally liberal post-evangelicals heading for the UCC. There won't be another safe place for them to minister.

Who Me?

I find myself in the odd position of talking to college students about their futures on a fairly regular basis. One friend called today to tell me she'd switched her major from psych to veterinary medicine. A wise move for her, and one that probably means she's becoming progressively saner. That is not a dig at the mental health profession; there are lots of good ones out there, and lots of people who pick it for the wrong reasons. Anyway, aside from the usual suspects--finance or art? business admin or european history? computer science or the novels of George Orwell?--I also listen to young people talk about a future in ministry.

The SBC discovered several years ago that many of their seminary students had no interest in traditional church ministry. Many of their best and brightest wanted to start non-profits, health missions, coffee shops, food co-ops, adoption agencies, almost anything but a church. (Jezebel's escorts, anyone? How 'bout Goshen Realty? Jael's Finishing School for Debutantes?) This trend seems to be growing, and it's not one I'm sad to see. Another friend at seminary in VA has decided she wants no part of traditional church. One here in town who already has a Master's in theology decided the same thing. Yet I have other friends who are convinced that the Church is their calling, at least in terms of profession. I have had some gloomy thoughts about this, and I've decided to share them with you. This is a blog; you can stop reading anytime.

Here is the future for professional ministry in no particular order:

1. Fundangelical. The same old path: youth minister to junior associate or college minister to executive or senior associate to senior pastor. At some point in each role, you will be asked to kill yourself incrementally. Whatever you think is important will be revealed not to be conducive to success in ministry.

2. Trailblazer. Plant a church. If you're good, grow to hundreds or thousands in short order. Kill yourself incrementally dealing with the fundangelicals who unfortunately pay your salary. Realize what a lot of simpletons most Christians are and start preaching the same sermons over and over with smaller words and prettier graphics each time. If you're not good, struggle with a home group or small church which forces bivocationality upon you until you burn out and take a staff position somewhere or sell insurance or mortgages or cars. If you plant within a denomination, prepare to suffer the wrath of someone who sold their soul a long time ago so the "company" would buy them a Lincoln to drive and an upper management title to display. If you plant solo, prepare for every crazy bastard in five counties to show up at your church on a Sunday morning with a "word from the Lord."

3. "Postmodern." Embrace homosexuals. Flirt with heterodoxy. Attract young people. Get fired by your denomination or agree to modify your position on certain issues. If those issues are deal breakers for you, either sell your soul or get the hell out. If you sell your soul, see point one. If you get out, start a non-profit or get a real job and minister on a volunteer basis.

4. Mainline. Preside over an increasingly liberal and increasingly small movement that lacks moral force but has the money to hang in for quite a while. Flirt with the cultural fringe while you try to figure out what the hell you actually believe. Save enough money to open a retreat center somewhere in Idaho, if you can find land not owned by white supremacist groups.

By the way, most of my advice has looked like point number three. If you're going to do it, know you're going to get bent over and...you know. Once you get...you know...do what you should have done in the first place: admit that the old wineskins aren't working and find something that does. Peace.

McLaren to Obama

This will be making the rounds, but I thought I'd post the link here in case you haven't seen it yet. Thanks to Michael for sending it along.

Dixie Chicks, Grammys, and Whiners

I don't watch the Grammys. Too much nonsense and too many bad entertainers. We had some folks over last night that wanted to see the Justin Timblerlake deal, so we had the tv on in the background. I noticed the Dixie Chicks cleaning up. When they won Album of the Year, I admit being somewhat elated. I didn't have a dog in the fight, but it was nice to see some sort of vindication for the ladies who told W to piss off and who then told country radio to piss off. The new project was called everything from too personal, to not very good, to a betrayal of country roots, to music without a genre (cause that's a bad thing?). My issue here is really with what I heard on the radio this morning from an XM dj on one of the country stations. "I thought here was a chance for Natalie to accept the award graciously..." He was apparently disappointed that she quoted the "famous Simpsons...ha, ha." I thought it was a great moment, certainly better than most of the scripted ego masturbation that goes on at award shows. And she deserved a few minutes to gloat. The woman has been called everything you can imagine. And for the people who think she should keep her political views to herself, that usually means you prefere your music saccharine, mildly entertaining, and of no particular substance. You can listen to that if you want. Give me more Dixie Chicks. And I also understand that some people will see a Grammy as nothing more than some "liberal" group speaking out against the government or the war or whatever. Yeah. So. Shouldn't art and the arts be used precisely for that?