As part of my sermon preparation this week, I've committed myself to reading one sermon (or essay) each day on the topic of Sunday's sermon. Two days into the process and I'm doing alright. My "low hanging fruit" is J. B. Phillips a British pastor and writer. J. B. Phillips is probably best known for his translation of the New Testament and for a book entitled Your God is Too Small. His little book New Testament Christianity has a chapter on each of the advent themes: hope, peace, joy (mingled in) and love. His essay on Peace deals almost exclusively with a sort of personal, spiritual and psychological peace.
Of Peace he writes, "'Peace with God' is sometimes rather carelessly used in religious circles as though it had only one connotation, as though all the problems of a complex human personality were solved if only a man [sic] would accept the redemptive sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Actually, this is an oversimplification, for although to accept the reconciliation which God has provided in an absolute essential, there are many other factors, especially among the more intelligent, which prevent the soul from being at peace" (p. 80).
In the essay he addresses:
1. The problem of Self-Pleasing (p. 81)
2. The resolving of inner conflicts (p. 82)--Guilt
3. The sharing of life with God (p. 83)
4. Realization of adequate resources (p. 84), "We probably are not adequate for all our ambitious schemes, and only at the cost of enormours nervous energy can we succeed in becoming momentarily what we really are not" (p. 84)
5. Peace as a positive gift (p. 85)
6. Alignment with the Purpose (p. 85), "However painful or difficult or, on the other hand, however inconspicuous or humdrum the life may be, the Christian finds his peace in accepting and playing his part in the the Master Plan. Here again we must ask ourselves, 'Am I doing what God wants me to do?'" (p. 86).
Phillips words are very common to me. They fit nicely within the personalized and therapeutic mind set of the evangelical language. In contrast, I also read Dr. Samuel Kobia's address to the international conference on violence and Christian Spirituality. http://www.overcomingviolence.org/
Dr. Kobia is the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. In his address he discussed the World Council's initiative "Decade to Overcome Violence." He referenced a World Health Organization report on violence and health. I've not found the explicit report he referenced however, one from November 24, 2001 said that "In the year 2000, 1.7 million death in the world were due to violence." Kobia sites here the forms of violence like armed conflict, suicide, homicides and domestic violence. The problem is indeed staggering. But here's my dilemma--what are we supposed to do about it? When he gets to the action stage of the the address, he spoke about prayers and Christian spirituality. I believe in prayer; I believe in spirituality. Yet, surely there is more than we can do.
Here's the question I wrote down Sunday morning, "Can we, in good conscience, speak about peace as an internal spiritual quality and ignore the larger social-global ramifications of our world?" In the end, both Phillips and Kobia though they characterize the problem differently, prescribe the same remedy. What do people committed to peace do beyond refraining from violence? How do we help in the work to make peace?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Sermon for the First Sunday of Advent
The Hope of Advent
Isaiah 64:1-9
November 27, 2005
Fifty years ago, the British Christian pastor and writer, J. B. Phillips wrote an essay entitled "Ground for Hope." He described a time 50 years prior as a time of "bouncing optimism." I found this phrase curious for as I imagine the 1950's–the time when J. B. Phillips was writing–I would imagine using the same description. The Leave It To Beaver Generation–surely there has never more been a time of bouncing optimism. Yet, as I read, I concluded that things hadn’t changed much from the time Phillips was writing to today. I concluded that Phillips must have overestimated the optimism of days gone by and that nearly every generation struggles with its unique set of anxieties and ills. We haven’t developed more problems in the intervening years just different ones. In the past fifty years, we have traded the enemy of communism for the enemy of terrorism, the threat of nuclear war for the threat of biological attack, the challenge of integration for the face of pluralism. Today we fear the possible breakout of a bird flu pandemic. In 1918-1919 the world witnessed a global flu pandemic that took the lives of between 20 and 40 million people. We watch the news and read the papers and we drown in the overwhelming flood of humanity’s ability to act inhumane and wonder if things have ever been this bad. Yet, every generation faces anxieties this includes the generations that gave to us holy scripture.
Whether we turn to the Bible for guidance or not depends a great deal on our outlook. While I am an advocate for Biblical hope, I recognize that Biblical hope is only one of a series of options. We can choose, as Phillips recognizes, wishful thinking. Wishful thinking sees the problems of today but feels powerless to respond. And so, we believe that some how God will simply whisk our problems away. We may also respond with unrealistic nostalgia–a naive view of the past that pretends we were somehow better, kinder, more Christian at some point in the past and if we could just get back there life would be good. The prevailing option however, in the face of our world’s complex problems seems to be atheistic analysis. By atheistic analysis I do not mean the analysis of atheists. Those who openly admit they do not believe in God and set out to prove that God does not exist do not concern me. I don’t encounter that many of them. What concerns me is what I see far too often–the functional atheism of professing Christians. How often do we set aside our beliefs about God in our discussions of politics, economics, psychology? Many Christians have decided that their faith works for nice pleasant occasions like weddings and funerals, Christmas and Easter traditions, but in the "real world" it’s of little value. When problem come their way it’s best to find the most applicable trend and the best wisdom of the age, than the most appropriate text and the wisdom of the ages.
Why is biblical hope superior to the other responses to the circumstances of the day? Again, J. B. Phillips writes that when we are reading scripture, "We are reading what was written by men at first-hand grips with realities, and it is astonishing and heartening to find how hopeful they are" (p. 47). Biblical hope provides the most constructive response to anxieties because it provides the one that affirms both our human abilities and limitations. Biblical hope points us to what we can do and points us beyond ourselves to the One who can do immeasurably more.
For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.
Isaiah’s prayer is an example of Biblical hope. Biblical Hope holds an honest vision of today’s circumstances along side an expectation that God will act for good. Correspondingly, it involves a commitment to align one’s self with the purposes of God. He prays, "Oh that you would rend open the heavens." The word "apocalypse" literally means to uncover or reveal. We think of it as the end of the world but it is more accurately depicted in the sort of scene Isaiah imagines. Isaiah had heard the stories from his scriptures about God guiding his people to that place with a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night. Isaiah knew how God had made promises to Abraham, commissioned Moses, empowered Joshua, preserved Ruth and ordained David. Isaiah knew if they had any hope at all, God would have to act on their behalf. "From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who works for those who wait for him." (Isaiah 64:4, NRSV).
If we are to emulate Isaiah’s Biblical hope, we also must cultivate an anticipation of a God who acts. Yet, we have a barrier here as the result of our expectations. The scientific world view says that when we encounter any phenomena we seek ways to explain, predict and control. How do we explain what takes place when grass converts sunlight, oxygen and water into cells? How do we explain what takes place when gas prices rise and fall? Once we’ve learned to explain things we learn to predict them. Meteorologists have their careers staked on their ability to predict. They look at trends and based on their understanding of those previous trends, they can suggest what the next day will be like. But our modern world view most wants control. We want to be able to eradicate diseases, persuade clients, sustain markets, and feed the population. Explain, predict, control is a great mantra for many things but it simply doesn’t apply to the activities of God. God’s actions cannot be explained. We do not know why God chooses to act at one point and not at another. Nor can we predict when God would act. I’d love to be able to give you a five day forecast on Sunday mornings. There should be a low tomorrow of mild disconnect from God and a high of scattered blessings. The blessings will begin to blow out of our area by Wednesday leaving us with cold speculation about the existence of God by Thursday. But God’s activities don’t work that way and even if they did, we could never control God. Biblical hope comes with no formulas; it comes with not plans. Since God’s activities do not fit into our world view’s template of explain, predict and control, many choose to relinquish faith.
Biblical hope however, focuses on the way God has acted in the past, on the nature of the promises made in scripture and affirms that such expectations can be placed before God in prayer. Knowing this makes Bible study of such crucial importance. By actually studying scripture we develop a sense of God’s character and a narrative of how God has chosen to act. People often do not turn to the Bible until they get in a bind and need quick answers. In the back of some Gideon’s Bibles, you know, it has a list of possible resources–if lonely read, page 455; if confused read, page 124, etc. But honestly the Bible doesn’t work that way. The wisdom of scripture comes through like the benefits of exercise–slowly at first but if we remain consistent it develops over time. If you have not committed to an intentional plan of Bible study, I hope you will. Isaiah is a great book to study in that regard. Occasionally I encounter people who describe their prayer life to me. A few times, people have said to me, "I don’t pray anymore. I don’t pray because it doesn’t work. I prayed for wealth [or whatever they prayed for] and I didn’t get it." I’ve generally wanted to say in those moments, "What in the biblical story of faith made you believe that God would answer that prayer?" Isaiah rooted his prayer in the activities of God in this past.
Yet, Biblical hope also grounds itself in our need to align ourselves with God’s purposes. It is naive to think that God is here to serve our agenda. The problem with wishful thinking, unrealistic nostalgia and the functional atheism of today is that all of them are assertions of our rebellion. We want things our way and if God wants to fit into that agenda great but if not God can go back to heaven and play with the clouds and angels. Isaiah’s view of God isn’t so passive and fluffy. This God makes mountains shake and throws nations into chaos like burning twigs. This God crafts and molds people but doesn’t ask for our opinions or permission.
Ultimately, biblical faith reminds us that if we have any hope in this world it comes from repentance. Our hope comes from committing ourselves to doing God’s work.
It is in this conscious commitment to God’s plans that we find our response to all that causes us anxiety. Isaiah recognized that repentance was involved here.
The response to terrorism isn’t the war on terrorism but in missions of life. I have a college friend living in Malaysia who wondered if people from this church would be interested in a mission trip to his Island nation. I thought about all of the difficulties and challenges, the fears and anxieties that such a mission trip would create but I am reminded that if we want to experience God we may just have to visit God on the job. Our nation has been rocked this year by such destruction and damage. We cannot simply send our young people on a mission trip and call the work done. I pray that someone today will say we need at least one adult mission trip in 2006 to a location where God is calling us to participate in God’s work: it could be to God Samaritan Outreach Center in Los Fresnos, Texas to work with Filoberto Perrara, it could be Jackson, Mississippi or it could even be to Malaysia but we find our hope by aligning ourselves with God’s work in the world. Isaiah prayed to God, "You meet those who gladly do right." Let’s be those people whom God meets.
Isaiah 64:1-9
November 27, 2005
Fifty years ago, the British Christian pastor and writer, J. B. Phillips wrote an essay entitled "Ground for Hope." He described a time 50 years prior as a time of "bouncing optimism." I found this phrase curious for as I imagine the 1950's–the time when J. B. Phillips was writing–I would imagine using the same description. The Leave It To Beaver Generation–surely there has never more been a time of bouncing optimism. Yet, as I read, I concluded that things hadn’t changed much from the time Phillips was writing to today. I concluded that Phillips must have overestimated the optimism of days gone by and that nearly every generation struggles with its unique set of anxieties and ills. We haven’t developed more problems in the intervening years just different ones. In the past fifty years, we have traded the enemy of communism for the enemy of terrorism, the threat of nuclear war for the threat of biological attack, the challenge of integration for the face of pluralism. Today we fear the possible breakout of a bird flu pandemic. In 1918-1919 the world witnessed a global flu pandemic that took the lives of between 20 and 40 million people. We watch the news and read the papers and we drown in the overwhelming flood of humanity’s ability to act inhumane and wonder if things have ever been this bad. Yet, every generation faces anxieties this includes the generations that gave to us holy scripture.
Whether we turn to the Bible for guidance or not depends a great deal on our outlook. While I am an advocate for Biblical hope, I recognize that Biblical hope is only one of a series of options. We can choose, as Phillips recognizes, wishful thinking. Wishful thinking sees the problems of today but feels powerless to respond. And so, we believe that some how God will simply whisk our problems away. We may also respond with unrealistic nostalgia–a naive view of the past that pretends we were somehow better, kinder, more Christian at some point in the past and if we could just get back there life would be good. The prevailing option however, in the face of our world’s complex problems seems to be atheistic analysis. By atheistic analysis I do not mean the analysis of atheists. Those who openly admit they do not believe in God and set out to prove that God does not exist do not concern me. I don’t encounter that many of them. What concerns me is what I see far too often–the functional atheism of professing Christians. How often do we set aside our beliefs about God in our discussions of politics, economics, psychology? Many Christians have decided that their faith works for nice pleasant occasions like weddings and funerals, Christmas and Easter traditions, but in the "real world" it’s of little value. When problem come their way it’s best to find the most applicable trend and the best wisdom of the age, than the most appropriate text and the wisdom of the ages.
Why is biblical hope superior to the other responses to the circumstances of the day? Again, J. B. Phillips writes that when we are reading scripture, "We are reading what was written by men at first-hand grips with realities, and it is astonishing and heartening to find how hopeful they are" (p. 47). Biblical hope provides the most constructive response to anxieties because it provides the one that affirms both our human abilities and limitations. Biblical hope points us to what we can do and points us beyond ourselves to the One who can do immeasurably more.
For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.
Isaiah’s prayer is an example of Biblical hope. Biblical Hope holds an honest vision of today’s circumstances along side an expectation that God will act for good. Correspondingly, it involves a commitment to align one’s self with the purposes of God. He prays, "Oh that you would rend open the heavens." The word "apocalypse" literally means to uncover or reveal. We think of it as the end of the world but it is more accurately depicted in the sort of scene Isaiah imagines. Isaiah had heard the stories from his scriptures about God guiding his people to that place with a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night. Isaiah knew how God had made promises to Abraham, commissioned Moses, empowered Joshua, preserved Ruth and ordained David. Isaiah knew if they had any hope at all, God would have to act on their behalf. "From ages past no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who works for those who wait for him." (Isaiah 64:4, NRSV).
If we are to emulate Isaiah’s Biblical hope, we also must cultivate an anticipation of a God who acts. Yet, we have a barrier here as the result of our expectations. The scientific world view says that when we encounter any phenomena we seek ways to explain, predict and control. How do we explain what takes place when grass converts sunlight, oxygen and water into cells? How do we explain what takes place when gas prices rise and fall? Once we’ve learned to explain things we learn to predict them. Meteorologists have their careers staked on their ability to predict. They look at trends and based on their understanding of those previous trends, they can suggest what the next day will be like. But our modern world view most wants control. We want to be able to eradicate diseases, persuade clients, sustain markets, and feed the population. Explain, predict, control is a great mantra for many things but it simply doesn’t apply to the activities of God. God’s actions cannot be explained. We do not know why God chooses to act at one point and not at another. Nor can we predict when God would act. I’d love to be able to give you a five day forecast on Sunday mornings. There should be a low tomorrow of mild disconnect from God and a high of scattered blessings. The blessings will begin to blow out of our area by Wednesday leaving us with cold speculation about the existence of God by Thursday. But God’s activities don’t work that way and even if they did, we could never control God. Biblical hope comes with no formulas; it comes with not plans. Since God’s activities do not fit into our world view’s template of explain, predict and control, many choose to relinquish faith.
Biblical hope however, focuses on the way God has acted in the past, on the nature of the promises made in scripture and affirms that such expectations can be placed before God in prayer. Knowing this makes Bible study of such crucial importance. By actually studying scripture we develop a sense of God’s character and a narrative of how God has chosen to act. People often do not turn to the Bible until they get in a bind and need quick answers. In the back of some Gideon’s Bibles, you know, it has a list of possible resources–if lonely read, page 455; if confused read, page 124, etc. But honestly the Bible doesn’t work that way. The wisdom of scripture comes through like the benefits of exercise–slowly at first but if we remain consistent it develops over time. If you have not committed to an intentional plan of Bible study, I hope you will. Isaiah is a great book to study in that regard. Occasionally I encounter people who describe their prayer life to me. A few times, people have said to me, "I don’t pray anymore. I don’t pray because it doesn’t work. I prayed for wealth [or whatever they prayed for] and I didn’t get it." I’ve generally wanted to say in those moments, "What in the biblical story of faith made you believe that God would answer that prayer?" Isaiah rooted his prayer in the activities of God in this past.
Yet, Biblical hope also grounds itself in our need to align ourselves with God’s purposes. It is naive to think that God is here to serve our agenda. The problem with wishful thinking, unrealistic nostalgia and the functional atheism of today is that all of them are assertions of our rebellion. We want things our way and if God wants to fit into that agenda great but if not God can go back to heaven and play with the clouds and angels. Isaiah’s view of God isn’t so passive and fluffy. This God makes mountains shake and throws nations into chaos like burning twigs. This God crafts and molds people but doesn’t ask for our opinions or permission.
Ultimately, biblical faith reminds us that if we have any hope in this world it comes from repentance. Our hope comes from committing ourselves to doing God’s work.
It is in this conscious commitment to God’s plans that we find our response to all that causes us anxiety. Isaiah recognized that repentance was involved here.
The response to terrorism isn’t the war on terrorism but in missions of life. I have a college friend living in Malaysia who wondered if people from this church would be interested in a mission trip to his Island nation. I thought about all of the difficulties and challenges, the fears and anxieties that such a mission trip would create but I am reminded that if we want to experience God we may just have to visit God on the job. Our nation has been rocked this year by such destruction and damage. We cannot simply send our young people on a mission trip and call the work done. I pray that someone today will say we need at least one adult mission trip in 2006 to a location where God is calling us to participate in God’s work: it could be to God Samaritan Outreach Center in Los Fresnos, Texas to work with Filoberto Perrara, it could be Jackson, Mississippi or it could even be to Malaysia but we find our hope by aligning ourselves with God’s work in the world. Isaiah prayed to God, "You meet those who gladly do right." Let’s be those people whom God meets.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Giving Thanks for BookNotes on CSPAN2
On the weekends, CSPAN2 has various authors speaking about books they have written. I love it though I don't get to watch it all that much for various obvious reasons (no one in my family wants to sit through a lecture on TV). But it is the perfect combination of my natural desire to sit on my butt and watch TV with my professional obligation to be literate. It's a poorly kept secret that I don't really like to read. I have a lot of books and read a good deal because I think ministers have an obligation to be well read. But there are hundreds of activities I enjoy more than sitting down with a book.
So, this morning (the Friday after Thanksgiving) I listened to part of Steven Johnson http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/ talking about his new book, Everything Bad is Good For You. In the book, he argues that today's television and video games are complex and being complex they enable levels of problems solving and decision making that you don't find in other forms of media. The argument by itself is compelling enough as it goes but, I found the question and answer discussion that followed much more interesting. He was speaking at a Barnes and Nobles. In the lecture, he said he believed in literature and was making no argument against literacy. But the first four comments that the audience made were defensive statements about the value of reading. It revealed sense of moral superiority among these readers--who were all over 40 and probably over 50. It was clear--if only to me--that they had so thoroughly rehearsed they scripts which said TV and video games reduces intellectual capacities while reading develops that they simply couldn't comprehend the argument Johnson was making. They revealed, in that, a certain deficit in their own literacy as we was making arguments from well known cognitive psychological works on multiple intelligence.
A second thing that the audience revealed was what I perceive to be part of a generation gap in the way we think. They, being an older audience, had a hierarchical view of intelligence where in there is one path to intelligence (one that involved a good does of reading) and anything that suggested other paths to intelligence seeks to dismiss the value of reading. Again, Johnson repeatedly affirmed the value of reading. His argument was not that gaming and TV represented a superior for of intellectual exploration. He simply wanted to argue that they were indeed getting smarter and not necessarily making people dumber.
The reaction he was getting from the audience is one I've seen before. People who've been thinking for a long time will often trot out arguments from older debates in response to new ideas. They shortcut the listening process required to understand a new idea and set up defenses rather quickly. I have tried at other times to do similar things in pastoral ministry.
(1) I have tried to suggest that the liberal vs. conservative argument is now bankrupt. Despite the fact that many people still talk about it a great deal, what people now classify as "liberal" is hardly cohesive enough to be described with one term. Yes, we still have what people would rightly describe as "liberals" but there are other varieties that are not conservative but are not quite liberal--older versions like Kierkegaardian existentialism (a Christian existentialism as opposed to later non-Christians manifestations) and neo-orthodoxy, and more recently things like narrative and other social constructionists, post-liberal, socially located theologies. I haven't gotten very far in the argument as inevitably it breaks down into old conservative vs. liberal epitaths.
(2) I have tried to suggest that the way to build is church is through Christian education. Whenever we use the word "evangelism" people have a wealth of images from Billy Graham Crusades to cold calling with tracts in hand. Trying to suggest that despite all the images they have, there are still other ways to do evangelism is an uphill battle.
Needless to say, I empathized with Johnson who seemed to be struggling with an audience who wanted to argue with him but hadn't really heard what he said.
So, this morning (the Friday after Thanksgiving) I listened to part of Steven Johnson http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/ talking about his new book, Everything Bad is Good For You. In the book, he argues that today's television and video games are complex and being complex they enable levels of problems solving and decision making that you don't find in other forms of media. The argument by itself is compelling enough as it goes but, I found the question and answer discussion that followed much more interesting. He was speaking at a Barnes and Nobles. In the lecture, he said he believed in literature and was making no argument against literacy. But the first four comments that the audience made were defensive statements about the value of reading. It revealed sense of moral superiority among these readers--who were all over 40 and probably over 50. It was clear--if only to me--that they had so thoroughly rehearsed they scripts which said TV and video games reduces intellectual capacities while reading develops that they simply couldn't comprehend the argument Johnson was making. They revealed, in that, a certain deficit in their own literacy as we was making arguments from well known cognitive psychological works on multiple intelligence.
A second thing that the audience revealed was what I perceive to be part of a generation gap in the way we think. They, being an older audience, had a hierarchical view of intelligence where in there is one path to intelligence (one that involved a good does of reading) and anything that suggested other paths to intelligence seeks to dismiss the value of reading. Again, Johnson repeatedly affirmed the value of reading. His argument was not that gaming and TV represented a superior for of intellectual exploration. He simply wanted to argue that they were indeed getting smarter and not necessarily making people dumber.
The reaction he was getting from the audience is one I've seen before. People who've been thinking for a long time will often trot out arguments from older debates in response to new ideas. They shortcut the listening process required to understand a new idea and set up defenses rather quickly. I have tried at other times to do similar things in pastoral ministry.
(1) I have tried to suggest that the liberal vs. conservative argument is now bankrupt. Despite the fact that many people still talk about it a great deal, what people now classify as "liberal" is hardly cohesive enough to be described with one term. Yes, we still have what people would rightly describe as "liberals" but there are other varieties that are not conservative but are not quite liberal--older versions like Kierkegaardian existentialism (a Christian existentialism as opposed to later non-Christians manifestations) and neo-orthodoxy, and more recently things like narrative and other social constructionists, post-liberal, socially located theologies. I haven't gotten very far in the argument as inevitably it breaks down into old conservative vs. liberal epitaths.
(2) I have tried to suggest that the way to build is church is through Christian education. Whenever we use the word "evangelism" people have a wealth of images from Billy Graham Crusades to cold calling with tracts in hand. Trying to suggest that despite all the images they have, there are still other ways to do evangelism is an uphill battle.
Needless to say, I empathized with Johnson who seemed to be struggling with an audience who wanted to argue with him but hadn't really heard what he said.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Third Sunday of Advent--Philippians 4:4-9
Third Sunday of Advent, December 11, 2005
Philippians 4:4-9
Rejoice in the Lord Always, Again I say Rejoice. Paul uses the word rejoice or some variation of it, eleven times in the small letter to the Philippian Christians 1:18 (2), 2:17 (1 and derivative 2:18 (1 and diravative) 2:28, 3:1, 4:4 (2) and 4:10. The word by itself simply means to be joyful or to be happy. Yet, Paul does not admonish the Philippians to be happy in general. Rather by looking at the specific ways he uses the word, we can identify four specific characteristics of rejoicing for Paul.
1. Paul’s rejoicing comes in the face of unpleasant circumstances. In 1:18, he says that although there are those who proclaim the gospel out of selfish greed, he rejoice that Christ is proclaimed. In 2:17-18, he acknowledges that he is being "poured out" that is he is being exhausted in the service of the Lord. Joy does not depend on our circumstances but rather depends on choice.
2. Paul’s joy is communal. Repeatedly Paul implores the Philippians to rejoice with him (the meaning of the word sugcharis He has joy from their concern for him (4:10) and he recognizes that they will rejoice having Epaphroditus returned to them (2:28). Joy is made complete within the communal fellowship of the early church.
3. Paul’s joy is contagious. 2:17-18 expresses a reciprocal quality to joy. He rejoices with them and wants them to rejoice with him. Their joy feeds one another.
4. Paul’s joy is theocentric. The word theocentric means centered on God. God is at the center of their Joy. So it is that Paul uses the phrase in the Lord to modify rejoice. If repentance is returning to God’s grace in the face sin; rejoicing is returning to God’s joy in the face of sadness. Or perhaps more accurately from this context, returning to God’s peace in the face of anxiety. God is the source of joy. Joy is not found apart from God but in God.
Let your gentleness be evident to all. Paul is pleading with two persons in the church who seem to be at odds with one another (4:2-3).
The Lord is Near. Does Paul mean that the return of Christ is near (see the preceding discussion) or does he mean that the Lord is presen? Certainly Paul emphasizes both an apocalyptic return of Christ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3) and also the presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10-11), in Baptism (Galatians 3:26-28) and through God’s on-going work (2:13). Since nothing leading up to this point has suggested the nearness of Christ’s return, it is best to think of the nearness of the Lord in this sense as a reassurance that Christ is present with the church.
Do not be anxious about anything. The Philippian Christians may well have been anxious about several matters. (1) They were concerned about their friend Epaphroditus who had apparently gone to Paul with a collection from the Philippian church to support him while he was in prison and/or house arrest. He had become ill--which the Philippians had almost surely heard--and almost died. (2) They were concerned about Paul’s plight (4:10-120). The primary reason for Paul writing--it appears--was to thank the church for their concern and to reassure them of his well-being and contentment in every circumstance. (3) They were concerned about the demands it seemed certain Judaizers were trying to persaude them to meet (chapter 3). It appears from this portion of the letter that a group of Christian leaders who sought to adhere to a version of Jewish righteousness that emphasized purity laws (eating kosher and circumcision) had sought to persuade the Philippians to follow suit. This was also the issue in Galatians. Paul takes some time to refute these leaders in the middle part of the letter.
But in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests to God. The response to the following forms of anxiety is a consistent prayer life filled with praise (prayer), requests (petition) and thanksgiving. And the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Peace of God should be understood as peace with God. Paul did not have here in mind the Greek or Roman concept of a cessation of war but thought much more of the Jewish concept of shalom. Keep in mind that the context (4:2-3) speaks of an end to a conflict within the church. Peace of God relates also to peace with sisters and brothers. As James D. G. Dunn writes, "As the most fundamental of all human relationships, a positively interactive relationship with God is the basis of all other fruitful relationships. Without it human community cannot fully flourish" (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 387). Paul recognizes that there is something mystical and not entirely explainable in the peace of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworth--think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from em, or seen in me--put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. Paul’s concluding admonition consists of pleoxia or the compilation of a string of ideas. This is seen frequently in Paul’s "vice catalogs" (Romans 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21) and in his virtues catalogs (2 Cor. 6:6; Gal 5:22-23; Col 3:12). It’s a rhetorical device meant to emphasize the virtues but should not really be subjected to excessive scrutiny.
Paul calls his readers to follow his example which he has done before.
Philippians 4:4-9
Rejoice in the Lord Always, Again I say Rejoice. Paul uses the word rejoice or some variation of it, eleven times in the small letter to the Philippian Christians 1:18 (2), 2:17 (1 and derivative 2:18 (1 and diravative) 2:28, 3:1, 4:4 (2) and 4:10. The word by itself simply means to be joyful or to be happy. Yet, Paul does not admonish the Philippians to be happy in general. Rather by looking at the specific ways he uses the word, we can identify four specific characteristics of rejoicing for Paul.
1. Paul’s rejoicing comes in the face of unpleasant circumstances. In 1:18, he says that although there are those who proclaim the gospel out of selfish greed, he rejoice that Christ is proclaimed. In 2:17-18, he acknowledges that he is being "poured out" that is he is being exhausted in the service of the Lord. Joy does not depend on our circumstances but rather depends on choice.
2. Paul’s joy is communal. Repeatedly Paul implores the Philippians to rejoice with him (the meaning of the word sugcharis He has joy from their concern for him (4:10) and he recognizes that they will rejoice having Epaphroditus returned to them (2:28). Joy is made complete within the communal fellowship of the early church.
3. Paul’s joy is contagious. 2:17-18 expresses a reciprocal quality to joy. He rejoices with them and wants them to rejoice with him. Their joy feeds one another.
4. Paul’s joy is theocentric. The word theocentric means centered on God. God is at the center of their Joy. So it is that Paul uses the phrase in the Lord to modify rejoice. If repentance is returning to God’s grace in the face sin; rejoicing is returning to God’s joy in the face of sadness. Or perhaps more accurately from this context, returning to God’s peace in the face of anxiety. God is the source of joy. Joy is not found apart from God but in God.
Let your gentleness be evident to all. Paul is pleading with two persons in the church who seem to be at odds with one another (4:2-3).
The Lord is Near. Does Paul mean that the return of Christ is near (see the preceding discussion) or does he mean that the Lord is presen? Certainly Paul emphasizes both an apocalyptic return of Christ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3) and also the presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10-11), in Baptism (Galatians 3:26-28) and through God’s on-going work (2:13). Since nothing leading up to this point has suggested the nearness of Christ’s return, it is best to think of the nearness of the Lord in this sense as a reassurance that Christ is present with the church.
Do not be anxious about anything. The Philippian Christians may well have been anxious about several matters. (1) They were concerned about their friend Epaphroditus who had apparently gone to Paul with a collection from the Philippian church to support him while he was in prison and/or house arrest. He had become ill--which the Philippians had almost surely heard--and almost died. (2) They were concerned about Paul’s plight (4:10-120). The primary reason for Paul writing--it appears--was to thank the church for their concern and to reassure them of his well-being and contentment in every circumstance. (3) They were concerned about the demands it seemed certain Judaizers were trying to persaude them to meet (chapter 3). It appears from this portion of the letter that a group of Christian leaders who sought to adhere to a version of Jewish righteousness that emphasized purity laws (eating kosher and circumcision) had sought to persuade the Philippians to follow suit. This was also the issue in Galatians. Paul takes some time to refute these leaders in the middle part of the letter.
But in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests to God. The response to the following forms of anxiety is a consistent prayer life filled with praise (prayer), requests (petition) and thanksgiving. And the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Peace of God should be understood as peace with God. Paul did not have here in mind the Greek or Roman concept of a cessation of war but thought much more of the Jewish concept of shalom. Keep in mind that the context (4:2-3) speaks of an end to a conflict within the church. Peace of God relates also to peace with sisters and brothers. As James D. G. Dunn writes, "As the most fundamental of all human relationships, a positively interactive relationship with God is the basis of all other fruitful relationships. Without it human community cannot fully flourish" (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 387). Paul recognizes that there is something mystical and not entirely explainable in the peace of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworth--think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from em, or seen in me--put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. Paul’s concluding admonition consists of pleoxia or the compilation of a string of ideas. This is seen frequently in Paul’s "vice catalogs" (Romans 1:29-31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10-11; 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21) and in his virtues catalogs (2 Cor. 6:6; Gal 5:22-23; Col 3:12). It’s a rhetorical device meant to emphasize the virtues but should not really be subjected to excessive scrutiny.
Paul calls his readers to follow his example which he has done before.
Second Sunday of Advent
Second Sunday of Advent, December 4, 2005
2 Peter 3:8-18 (Peace)
Debate about the authorship of 2 Peter has continued for as long as the book has been a part of the discussion among Christians. In the third century, Origen wrote "Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built–against which the gates of Hades will not prevail–left one epistle of acknowledged authenticity. Suppose we allow that he left a second; yet, this is doubtful" (from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot, p. 516). Second Peter was the last book to actually be canonized into the New Testament showing the obvious skepticism the church showed to its authenticity. A few internal clues to its pseudonymous authorship include:
- Peter himself died in 64 yet the letter contains references to historical events that happened much later.
–The collection and circulation of Paul’s letters and their view as "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16) probably did not occur until at least the late 90's.
–The passing of the Apostles (2 Peter 3:2) and the diminishing hope of Christ’s return (2 Peter 3:4) - Complex Greek that is doubtful of a first century Jewish fisherman.
Saying that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter is a little more threatening than saying Matthew didn’t write the gospel of Matthew. None of the gospels explicitly claim any specific authorship. The authors were placed on them after the fact by tradition. However, the opening verse of 2 Peter says it was written by Simon Peter. Some conservative scholars defend Peter’s authorship of the letter. Yet the conservative scholar Bruce Metzger who offers credible–or at least plausible–defense of Peter’s authorship of 1 Peter writes, "In light of such intenral and external evidence [similar to what’s been detailed above] one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, p. 258-259).
There are other conservative biblical scholars who defend Peter’s authorship. But should we choose to accept the majority opinion that Peter did not write 2 Peter, what do we do with a book that seems to contain such an obviously false statement? Do we simply ignore it? There are those who would say indeed we ought to intentionally ignore certain passages which contain content which we find exceedingly problematic. That is, we ought to have a canon within a canon. Certainly, whether we do so intentionally or not most of us function with such a canon within a canon–emphasizing certain passages and de-emphasizing others. A fact that some people relish in pointing out by referring to our unwillingness to stone our children for back talk as scripture would direct (Deut 21:18-21). For people so inclined, they could simply ignore 2 Peter and write it off as nonauthoritative since it seems to falsely present itself as the work of Jesus’s apostle.
Others defend the pseudonymous letters as scripture. Disciples biblical scholars Boring and Craddock emphasize that pseudonimity bothers us more than it would a first century person. The practice, they argue, was much more common then. Further they write, "The issue in each case [of pseudonymous authorship] is whether the document concerned represents the apostolic faith. The fact that the books are in the canon indicates that the early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, heard in these documents the word of God, the authentic witness to the apostolic faith, as it tried to find its own way forward after the death of the apostles but before any authoritative tradition, canon, or organizational structure had been accepted" (M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People’s New Testament Commentary, p. 595). We can choose to ignore it or choose to accept it on the grounds that the Holy Spirit was at work not merely in the writing of the texts but also in the collection and canonization of the texts of the New Testament.
Obviously since I’ve chosen to preach on this text, I’m not one who believes it ought to be ignored. There are certain passages in both the Old and New Testament that I find so problematic that I do not believe they represents God’s word. The charge that gets rightfully made against people like me who choose to willfully deny the authority of certain passages is "How do you decide?" Aren’t we putting ourselves above scripture and making ourselves judges of the text rather than allowing the text to judge us? I haven’t worked out a completely acceptable answer to this question but here are a few guidelines that I try to follow.
- I do not deny the authority of a passage simply because it calls me to do something I don’t want to do or asks me to believe something I find hard to believe.
I don’t like what Jesus said about seeking retribution (Matthew 5:38-42). Oh well. My discomfort doesn’t justify ignoring Christ’s teaching. I have find it hard to believe in the whole demon possession of a person but my incredulity doesn’t mean I get to ignore exorcism texts. I am obligated to wrestles with those texts even if I find them hard to grasp or accept at face value. - I cannot construct of view of scripture that excuses my behavior but judges others.
My friend Doug Skinner has said, "Be careful of anyone whose theology brings all the good news to them and all the judgement to someone else." Put another way, in the Old Testament a prophet was often called upon to bring words of God’s judgment against a group of people. God used them to call people to repentance. I believe few people are called by God to play that role. On the other hand, all of us are called to examine ourselves and seek to pursue holiness and serve the kingdom of God. - I can only deny the authority of a particular passage on the basis of a strong sense that the passage denies my understanding of the Gospel (God’s good news for humanity) and God’s vocation (what God expects people to be and to do).
Paul Ricoeur has described the situation in Protestantism where "you can criticize the Bible only by citing another text from the Bible" (from Figuring the Sacred, p. 71). In saying this, Ricoeur was being descriptive of Protestantism’s tendency. He didn’t necessarily advocate it as the correct approach. Such a practice leads to the accusation that you "can prove anything with the Bible" or justify any behavior from some passage of scripture. People line up their passages "for" or "against" whatever they themselves are "for" or "against." We must be diligently avoid such a practice. However, there is a sense of the gospel and its implications that can be articulated across the breadth of the Biblical witness. We identify that gospel by looking at the frequency and primacy of biblical testimony. Similarly, we can through discernment identify that which God expects us to do–God’s commands for a pure life and God’s call to service, mission and ministry. This process of discernment requires consistent and prayerful scripture study. It rarely works that we can come at the Bible with "our" questions and get straight answers. What does work is to cultivate a practice of daily scripture reading and deep, intentional Bible study in conversation with other Christians, that enables us to arrive at answers when they are needed. Well, that’s a long detour from the actual text. But, I thought it needed to be said and here’s as good a time as any to say it.
Our scripture reading begins in verse 8 which actually divides the actual thought. The author begins a new section of the letter in verse 1 where he explains his purpose in writing. The writer sought to return his audiences attention to continuing in the teaching they had received. In the opening passages of the letter (2 Peter 1:3ff), he describes the process of continuing in the faithful walk despite the corruption that surrounds us. Along with faith, he says, we must make every effort to add goodness, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection and love. He certainly suggests that those who lack these qualities fall short of God’s expectations and they do not experience the fullness of God’s promise (2 Peter 1:8-11). This process is called sanctification. Sanctification is a process by which the Holy Spirit works in us to cultivate a Christ-like nature. In the simplest terms, sanctification is godly self-improvement. It requires endurance. In particular for the audience of 2 Peter, the motivation to live a holy life and work toward sanctification came with the belief that Christ would come back soon. However, as time wore on and Jesus’s apostles began to die, the sense that Christ would return soon began to wain. Scoffers apparently compounded the problem for the early church mocking their belief in Christ’s eminent return. Second Peter addresses this concern head on reminding readers that God’s time and ours are not the same. "A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day." If we think God is being slow, we are calculating slowness on our scales and trying to impose those scales on God. God is not confined by creation; God is the Creator.
In this is also a motivation. God’s delay in bringing history to a close is not stoic apathy toward our human plight. God is not teasing us by waiting so long. Rather, God’s delay is born out of God’s love. God doesn’t desire anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Verse 10 raises speculation about the "day of the Lord" or what some now call the "rapture." All too often, people speculate about the who, what, when, where and how of this day and forget prophetic trajectory. What do I mean by prophetic trajectory? I mean the point that a biblical writer was trying to make. Read through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, the book of Revelation in the New Testament, and other books, and you will read about scenes of incredible destruction. In these futuristic visions, God is portrayed as one who comes to bring destruction and judgment to the world. This pictures can be both exciting and frightening. Yet fixating on the these scenes without considering their purpose is a bit like reducing the Fourth of July to a day of fireworks. Yes, the fireworks are salient symbols of July 4th but we celebrate the Fourth of July to commemorate our nation’s founding. Similarly, the scenes of the Day of the Lord in the Bible serve a broader purpose. In this case, they grasp our attention and call us to holy living. "Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness . . ?" (vs. 11). Given all these, we strive to be at peace, without spot or blemish, patient and wise. Regardless of what we believe concerning the Day of the Lord, Peter’s call is to endure in the process of sanctification.
Isaiah 64:1-9
First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2005
Isaiah 64:1-9 (Hope)
For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah is a mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.
This texts uses a variety of metaphoric images to convey its message. Isaiah asks that the enemies be caused to be like twigs ablaze or like boiling water. The picture envisioned is that of chaos. Unlike a log or coals which burns steadily and predictable, kindled twigs burn rapidly. They crackle and pop. The air pockets in the space between the wood causes the flames to bounce off one another. Similarly, boiling water rolls and bubbles. The writer had likely seen armies lined up in long, orderly rows, marching to destroy. He prays for their ordered marched to be disassembled.
To describe "us" (i.e., the people of Judah), Isaiah said that they had become like one unclean and like filthy rags. Unlike today where we make dish towels for the explicit purpose of cleaning, rags were probably the remaining material of old, worn garments. Something once in tact had become torn. Next, Isaiah describes his people as dried leaves. Something once vibrant had become lifeless. Finally, Isaiah, perhaps extending the metaphor of dried leaves, says that they have been blown about. Something once grounded has become scattered. Isaiah’s description of how they are encounters his image of what they might be–clay in the hands of God, the potter. In the act of making a pot, a potter reverses the process that Isaiah has described. Taking useless, scattered, earthen materials, the potter forms the pot into a useful, in tact, assembled object.
There is a close relationship between the hope that Isaiah has for the reforming of the temple and the city and the activity of repentance and God’s forgiveness. Where we often think of forgiveness as purely and internal matter, this writer envisioned forgiveness as an essential step in rebuilding the physical world in which they lived. It would to some rethinking, but it is perhaps some rethinking we ought to do, for us to consider repentance and forgiveness as essential steps in the rebuilding of our finances, our families, our careers, our church structures and our communities.
Isaiah 64:1-9 (Hope)
For now well over a hundred years, Biblical scholars have accepted the idea that Isaiah was written by two and perhaps three authors. Isaiah, the prophet of Jerusalem, composed chapters 1-39. Another prophet writing wrote chapters 40-55. A third prophet, or the second prophet in a different setting, wrote chapters 56-66. The three parts of Isaiah have always been edited together. They share common themes and theological outlooks. Nonetheless, the historic circumstances surrounding the author of our focal text are decidedly different from those of the early part of the book. Specifically, chapters 56-66 address those who returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity (see Ezra and Nehemiah). They now behold the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and God’s holy temple. The sight of the ruined temple provides the historical context for this prayer (Isaiah 63:18; 64:10-13). The prayer of Isaiah is a mixes contrition and confession, petition and hope. The contrition and confession comes as the prophet acknowledges how few call upon the name of the Lord or rely on God. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was understood by the prophet to be God’s punishment for sins. The petition and hope is expressed in the prophets desire for a rebuilt Jerusalem and temple. It is also in the desire to see vengeance served against God’s enemies–likely those who both destroyed the temple but also those who stand in the way of the temple’s reconstruction.
This texts uses a variety of metaphoric images to convey its message. Isaiah asks that the enemies be caused to be like twigs ablaze or like boiling water. The picture envisioned is that of chaos. Unlike a log or coals which burns steadily and predictable, kindled twigs burn rapidly. They crackle and pop. The air pockets in the space between the wood causes the flames to bounce off one another. Similarly, boiling water rolls and bubbles. The writer had likely seen armies lined up in long, orderly rows, marching to destroy. He prays for their ordered marched to be disassembled.
To describe "us" (i.e., the people of Judah), Isaiah said that they had become like one unclean and like filthy rags. Unlike today where we make dish towels for the explicit purpose of cleaning, rags were probably the remaining material of old, worn garments. Something once in tact had become torn. Next, Isaiah describes his people as dried leaves. Something once vibrant had become lifeless. Finally, Isaiah, perhaps extending the metaphor of dried leaves, says that they have been blown about. Something once grounded has become scattered. Isaiah’s description of how they are encounters his image of what they might be–clay in the hands of God, the potter. In the act of making a pot, a potter reverses the process that Isaiah has described. Taking useless, scattered, earthen materials, the potter forms the pot into a useful, in tact, assembled object.
There is a close relationship between the hope that Isaiah has for the reforming of the temple and the city and the activity of repentance and God’s forgiveness. Where we often think of forgiveness as purely and internal matter, this writer envisioned forgiveness as an essential step in rebuilding the physical world in which they lived. It would to some rethinking, but it is perhaps some rethinking we ought to do, for us to consider repentance and forgiveness as essential steps in the rebuilding of our finances, our families, our careers, our church structures and our communities.
Biblical Reflections
As part of my sermon preparations, I try to write a summary of the exegetical work I do for the sermon preparation. I call them "Biblical Reflections." They work best when they are done weeks in advance. I have not, however, been successful in accomplishing that for quite some time. I have decided to start postin these to this blog instead of sending them via e-mail.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Next Blog
At the top of most of the blog sites through blogspot, there's a "Next Blog" button. Lately, I've been randomly moving browsing blogs. It amazes me how many people use their blogs to wrestle with issues of faith. Even in a church as open-minded as ours, I don't see people asking the same complex, reflective or difficult questions as I do out on the internet. Could it be (a) that the people who ask the most interesting/important theological questions don't come to church; (b) that when they come they don't ask their questions out loud; (c) that church doesn't provide a context for serious question asking; (d) people are asking questions at church but I simply don't hear them because too many people are relating some benign detail of their week.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Authenticity and Inclusion--Dialogue Part 4
Authenticity refers to speaking in ways that reflect how your truly are. In computer terminology, when a program shows on screen what you can expect to get on the page, it is called WYSWIG (What you see is what you get). Anymore, nearly everything is WYSWIG so it's not that big a deal. But I remember the days of the blue background WordPerfect. Authenticity is the WYSWIG of human communication. Authenticity is communicative component of integrity.
Inclusion is a willingness to be in dialogue with those who disagree with us or who are not like us. Authenticity and inclusion are hard to correlate. We may genuinely dislike people, genuinely not want to be in dialogue with them. Authenticity would require us to be up front about that. Inclusion would require us to change that in ourselves. Tolerance is the mid-point between the two. Which is why I think tolerance as a value is really a mid-point and not an end goal. We need tolerance in a pluralistic culture yet hopefully we will reach that point where we are authentically inclusive of people's diversity.
To be perfectly honest, I think there are limits to inclusion. I think there ought to be limits in a variety of settings. We ought to limit our inclusions of person who volunteer with children and youth. We must make every effort to ensure their safety and their moral development. We ought to be careful who we include in the group of people who speak for us. Yet, when it comes to dialogue should we, as adults, refuse to hear people out. Put another way is there any danger to listening to people no matter what their message is?
Inclusion is a willingness to be in dialogue with those who disagree with us or who are not like us. Authenticity and inclusion are hard to correlate. We may genuinely dislike people, genuinely not want to be in dialogue with them. Authenticity would require us to be up front about that. Inclusion would require us to change that in ourselves. Tolerance is the mid-point between the two. Which is why I think tolerance as a value is really a mid-point and not an end goal. We need tolerance in a pluralistic culture yet hopefully we will reach that point where we are authentically inclusive of people's diversity.
To be perfectly honest, I think there are limits to inclusion. I think there ought to be limits in a variety of settings. We ought to limit our inclusions of person who volunteer with children and youth. We must make every effort to ensure their safety and their moral development. We ought to be careful who we include in the group of people who speak for us. Yet, when it comes to dialogue should we, as adults, refuse to hear people out. Put another way is there any danger to listening to people no matter what their message is?
Friday, August 19, 2005
Morning Greetings
From time to time, I think "wouldn't it be great if I said something more meaningful to my family as we departed in the mornings?" I mean, "see ya' later" hardly qualifies as a pep talk for a hard day.
Deborah DeWinter, the Programme executive for the World Council of Churches in the United States told a story once of an African father who would say to his children, "Don't let anyone take the Jesus out of you. Don't take the Jesus out of anyone." That struck me as profound. So, I've been saying that to my daughter the last three days. This morning she replied, "I know, Dad, you said that to me yesterday. You say that to me every day." I haven't said it every day this was only day three. I've taken her to school close to 600 times. Which rounds out to mean that I've said it .5 percent of the time. I don't know if this was her way of saying, "Don't embarass me." Though we were in the car and no one could tell what we were saying to one another. OR perhaps her way of saying, "I appreciate that." Either way, I think she was fairly firm this morning that the Jesus in her wasn't going anywhere and if the Jesus in anyone else moved, it wasn't her fault.
I shall try again on Monday to find something meaningful to say. Though profundity is hard at 8:30 in the morning sitting in the middle of a Jr. High parking lot.
Deborah DeWinter, the Programme executive for the World Council of Churches in the United States told a story once of an African father who would say to his children, "Don't let anyone take the Jesus out of you. Don't take the Jesus out of anyone." That struck me as profound. So, I've been saying that to my daughter the last three days. This morning she replied, "I know, Dad, you said that to me yesterday. You say that to me every day." I haven't said it every day this was only day three. I've taken her to school close to 600 times. Which rounds out to mean that I've said it .5 percent of the time. I don't know if this was her way of saying, "Don't embarass me." Though we were in the car and no one could tell what we were saying to one another. OR perhaps her way of saying, "I appreciate that." Either way, I think she was fairly firm this morning that the Jesus in her wasn't going anywhere and if the Jesus in anyone else moved, it wasn't her fault.
I shall try again on Monday to find something meaningful to say. Though profundity is hard at 8:30 in the morning sitting in the middle of a Jr. High parking lot.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Presumption and Burden
Earlier today in a story about Mayor Laura Miller's attempt to have D'Angelo Lee forcibly removed from the land commission twice people made the comment that people are innocent until proven guilty. As is common in America a good legal axiom has here been truncated to make a false statement. A person is either guilty or innocent on the basis of the decisions they make. When people commit crimes, they cease being innocent whether they are ever found guilty or not. Similarly, people who have not commited crimes remain innocent even if a jury finds them guilty.
In the American legal system, a person is presumed innocent. This is a legal concept rooted in Roman law and quite possibly Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." In COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895), Justice White writing for the majority said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The presumption of innocence is an important legal and ethical concept. However, its a good example of a social construction.
A person is not truly innocent if they have committed a crime. The legal system is designed to treat them as innocent. This means that those wishing to prosecute them for a crime have the burden of proof. They have the obligation to prove a person's guilt before the jury. If they do not prove the guilt, the person continues without threat of further prosecution or punishment. Presumption and burden of proof works in lots of different settings.
When a parent sets a curfew for 10:00 pm this 10:00 pm curfew has presumption. A teenager wanting to exceed that has the burden of proof to convince mom or dad that it should be exceeded in a particular situation. In an academic policy debate, the status quo has presumption and those wishing to change the status quo has burden of proof. This team is usually called the affirmative as they are the ones affirming the resolution and the resolution calls for a change. Academic competitive debates never end in a tie for this reason. If the affirmative team doesn't meet its burden of proof the round is awarded to the negative. Philip Tompkins, an organizational communication scholar, used the ideas of presumption and burden of proof in discussion the Marshall Space Flight Center's communication patterns. In the 1960's a person who thought an operation was unsafe had presumption. Those who wanted to move ahead had to prove that their designs were safe. Tompkins discovered in the wake of the Challenger Explosion that was largely blamed on Marshall that by the 80's presumption and burden of proof had changed. Those who thought something was unsafe then had the burden of proof.
Presumption and burden of proof are not ontological. They are designated to one side and the other of a contentious issue by those who mitigate the contentious issue. My short term appeal is that people ought not say a person "is" innocent until proven guilty but that a person is "presumed" innocent. On a deeper level, we should be aware of how presumption and burden of proof operate in so many different contexts.
In the American legal system, a person is presumed innocent. This is a legal concept rooted in Roman law and quite possibly Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 19:15, "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." In COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895), Justice White writing for the majority said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The presumption of innocence is an important legal and ethical concept. However, its a good example of a social construction.
A person is not truly innocent if they have committed a crime. The legal system is designed to treat them as innocent. This means that those wishing to prosecute them for a crime have the burden of proof. They have the obligation to prove a person's guilt before the jury. If they do not prove the guilt, the person continues without threat of further prosecution or punishment. Presumption and burden of proof works in lots of different settings.
When a parent sets a curfew for 10:00 pm this 10:00 pm curfew has presumption. A teenager wanting to exceed that has the burden of proof to convince mom or dad that it should be exceeded in a particular situation. In an academic policy debate, the status quo has presumption and those wishing to change the status quo has burden of proof. This team is usually called the affirmative as they are the ones affirming the resolution and the resolution calls for a change. Academic competitive debates never end in a tie for this reason. If the affirmative team doesn't meet its burden of proof the round is awarded to the negative. Philip Tompkins, an organizational communication scholar, used the ideas of presumption and burden of proof in discussion the Marshall Space Flight Center's communication patterns. In the 1960's a person who thought an operation was unsafe had presumption. Those who wanted to move ahead had to prove that their designs were safe. Tompkins discovered in the wake of the Challenger Explosion that was largely blamed on Marshall that by the 80's presumption and burden of proof had changed. Those who thought something was unsafe then had the burden of proof.
Presumption and burden of proof are not ontological. They are designated to one side and the other of a contentious issue by those who mitigate the contentious issue. My short term appeal is that people ought not say a person "is" innocent until proven guilty but that a person is "presumed" innocent. On a deeper level, we should be aware of how presumption and burden of proof operate in so many different contexts.
Friday, August 05, 2005
What's Next
My wife bought the fourth season of West Wing for me recently. I'm a huge West Wing fan. But, I've also noticed that I show signs of addiction. Yesterday I watched four episodes--straight. And I can be down-right irritable whenever I'm watching it. Which makes no sense whatsoever. If I miss something due to interruption, I can always go back and watch it again. More importantly, it's insane to put a TV program above people. Of course, as much as I like to think I'm the only one in the world wired quite the way I am, I know that all of us from time to time exaggerate the importance of unimportant things at the expense of others. We'll talk about an expensive cup off coffee with words like "need" and "have to have." We'll argue about sports questions on call-in radio programs. We get upset when people cut us off in traffic. Yet, we seem unaffected by the big problems. The truly catastrophic problems of the world--hunger, poor education, the loss of a collective conscience--do not seem to get to us in quite the same way. Yes, they bother us but they don't get quite the same rise out of us as our "pet peeves."
I think, perhaps, this has to do with power. Perhaps we get energized by small things because we can do something about the small things. These big issues are beyond our control. We lack the resources to solve them. Daily, it seems, we must be reminded that we serve a God who will ultimately take care of the big things and who calls us not to solve the whole problem but to do our part. That begins, I believe, through a daily time with God where we ask God to help us prioritize and determine our response. I suspect that's summed up in the prayer we make, "Thy kingdom come."
I think, perhaps, this has to do with power. Perhaps we get energized by small things because we can do something about the small things. These big issues are beyond our control. We lack the resources to solve them. Daily, it seems, we must be reminded that we serve a God who will ultimately take care of the big things and who calls us not to solve the whole problem but to do our part. That begins, I believe, through a daily time with God where we ask God to help us prioritize and determine our response. I suspect that's summed up in the prayer we make, "Thy kingdom come."
Friday, July 01, 2005
Stone-Campbell Dialogue
This press release can be found at http://www.disciples.org/ccu/news/062805%20stone%20campbell.htm
Dallas -- More than 500 persons from a cappella Churches of Christ, theChristian Churches/Churches of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples ofChrist) joined in worship and communion in Dallas recently to open the 10thsession of the Stone-Campbell Dialogue team.
Representatives from each of the three streams of the Stone-Campbellmovement gathered at Skillman Church of Christ June 5-6 to explore the themeof "the way we interpret the Bible." Papers were presented by Dr. EugeneBoring, retired professor of New Testament at Brite Seminary in Ft. Worth,on behalf of the Disciples; Dr. Mark Hamilton, professor of Bible at AbileneChristian University, Abilene on behalf of the Churches of Christ and Dr.Tony Springer, professor of Church History at Dallas Christian College onbehalf of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.
In their discussion, team members found a great deal of convergence andcommon understanding on scriptural interpretation. A small group will takeresults of this meeting to shape a draft statement for presentation nextyear toward acceptance as a "common statement on Scripture."
Dialogue team member Robert Welsh, president of the Disciples' Councilon Christian Unity, said, "I was encouraged a great deal by this 10thsession of our dialogue, both by the content of the discussion in facingwhat had been seen to be the fundamental issue separating us within theStone-Campbell family (the authority of Scripture) and by the wonderfulservice of worship that brought so many together on Sunday evening toworship and praise God, and to share in receiving the bread and cup of HolyCommunion as a sign of our oneness in Christ."
Peter Morgan, retired president of the Disciples of Christ HistoricalSociety, said, "We were able to have serious conversation withoutseparating. It was a hallelujah moment in my heart."
The team also spent important time on their idea for a 2009 "GreatCommunion Celebration" in partnership with the board of the Disciples ofChrist Historical Society. This event would mark the 200th anniversary ofthe publication of Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address when it is hoped that thousands of Christians from across the three streams of the movement will join in celebration of the Lord¹s Supper in local communities all across North America.In preparation for the 2009 event, the Dialogue team will provide studymaterials for use in congregational settings. Disciples team member DianeSpleth, pastor of Franklin Central Christian Church, volunteered to combinedrafts of a Congregational Workbook into a document that could be tested ina few congregations before the Dialogue's next meeting.The Stone-Campbell Dialogue team will meet in Nashville on June 11-13,2006, to produce a common statement on interpretation and authority ofScripture, to finalize the Congregational Workbook and to generate ideas onhow to promote unity across the three streams of the Stone-Campbellmovement.The Dialogue is important to Disciples, Welsh said, "because it opensto us the possibility of healing the divisions within our own house, withinthe Stone-Campbell movement, as a part of our larger work and conversationsin our quest for Christian unity."
Members of the Dialogue team are:For Christian Churches/Churches of Christ: Paul Blowers, John Mills, James North,Robert Rea, Randy Snyder, Henry WebbFor the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): Timothy James, William McDonald, Peter Morgan, Arnold Nelson, Diane Spleth, Robert Welsh, Newell WilliamsFor Churches of Christ: Douglas Foster, Carol Gafford, Gary Holloway,Gary Pearson, Charme Robarts, Jerry TaylorObservers: Victor Knowles (POEM Ministries and member of Reformation Forum) andJeff Weston (World Convention of Churches of Christ).
Dallas -- More than 500 persons from a cappella Churches of Christ, theChristian Churches/Churches of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples ofChrist) joined in worship and communion in Dallas recently to open the 10thsession of the Stone-Campbell Dialogue team.
Representatives from each of the three streams of the Stone-Campbellmovement gathered at Skillman Church of Christ June 5-6 to explore the themeof "the way we interpret the Bible." Papers were presented by Dr. EugeneBoring, retired professor of New Testament at Brite Seminary in Ft. Worth,on behalf of the Disciples; Dr. Mark Hamilton, professor of Bible at AbileneChristian University, Abilene on behalf of the Churches of Christ and Dr.Tony Springer, professor of Church History at Dallas Christian College onbehalf of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.
In their discussion, team members found a great deal of convergence andcommon understanding on scriptural interpretation. A small group will takeresults of this meeting to shape a draft statement for presentation nextyear toward acceptance as a "common statement on Scripture."
Dialogue team member Robert Welsh, president of the Disciples' Councilon Christian Unity, said, "I was encouraged a great deal by this 10thsession of our dialogue, both by the content of the discussion in facingwhat had been seen to be the fundamental issue separating us within theStone-Campbell family (the authority of Scripture) and by the wonderfulservice of worship that brought so many together on Sunday evening toworship and praise God, and to share in receiving the bread and cup of HolyCommunion as a sign of our oneness in Christ."
Peter Morgan, retired president of the Disciples of Christ HistoricalSociety, said, "We were able to have serious conversation withoutseparating. It was a hallelujah moment in my heart."
The team also spent important time on their idea for a 2009 "GreatCommunion Celebration" in partnership with the board of the Disciples ofChrist Historical Society. This event would mark the 200th anniversary ofthe publication of Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address when it is hoped that thousands of Christians from across the three streams of the movement will join in celebration of the Lord¹s Supper in local communities all across North America.In preparation for the 2009 event, the Dialogue team will provide studymaterials for use in congregational settings. Disciples team member DianeSpleth, pastor of Franklin Central Christian Church, volunteered to combinedrafts of a Congregational Workbook into a document that could be tested ina few congregations before the Dialogue's next meeting.The Stone-Campbell Dialogue team will meet in Nashville on June 11-13,2006, to produce a common statement on interpretation and authority ofScripture, to finalize the Congregational Workbook and to generate ideas onhow to promote unity across the three streams of the Stone-Campbellmovement.The Dialogue is important to Disciples, Welsh said, "because it opensto us the possibility of healing the divisions within our own house, withinthe Stone-Campbell movement, as a part of our larger work and conversationsin our quest for Christian unity."
Members of the Dialogue team are:For Christian Churches/Churches of Christ: Paul Blowers, John Mills, James North,Robert Rea, Randy Snyder, Henry WebbFor the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): Timothy James, William McDonald, Peter Morgan, Arnold Nelson, Diane Spleth, Robert Welsh, Newell WilliamsFor Churches of Christ: Douglas Foster, Carol Gafford, Gary Holloway,Gary Pearson, Charme Robarts, Jerry TaylorObservers: Victor Knowles (POEM Ministries and member of Reformation Forum) andJeff Weston (World Convention of Churches of Christ).
Friday, June 24, 2005
Ecumenism
I was asked to write a newsletter article on ecumenism for an online newsletter called The Centrist. As usual, I wrote a longer article than was requested. Here, so as not to feel that I wasted anything, is the longer article.
Kind of Ecumenical
On her way out of church, Ginger introduced me to a guest. Her guest was a younger lady—probably in her 40’s. Ginger is 82. Her friend was of a different ethnic background. “This is my friend,” she said, “She’s visiting with us today and next week I’ll be going to her church. Just to see how each other worship, you know. That’s kind of ecumenical, isn’t it?” The brief conversation took place in that hectic, right after worship shake people out the door time. I didn’t have time to respond. Yet these two women sharing in each other’s worship services—across generational, religious and cultural lines—epitomize the vision of ecumenism.
The words “ecumenism” and “ecumenical” derive from a Greek word oikoumenē which gets translated in the New Testament usually as “world” but has more the sense of all the people of the world (Arndt et al.). It also relates to a cluster of words connected to the management of a household. Ecumenism focuses our attention on the whole church’s stewardship of the whole human household.
To speak of the ecumenical movement is somewhat of a misnomer as we have inherited several ecumenical efforts. I define the ecumenical movement as the collective efforts of Christians to make visible in the world the unity Christians have in Christ. This definition has several parts. First, ecumenism is a Christian movement. Interfaith dialogue between Christians and non-Christians is vitally important (now more so than ever) but, the theological vocabulary and motivations of Christian ecumenism begin and end with Christ—his prayer that we be united (John 17) and the vision of unity inspired by the gospel. Second, ecumenism calls us to unity. Unity does not necessarily mean organizational merger. At its most basic level unity calls us to mutual recognition and respect. We may think that we are long past the days when Christians condemned one another to hell; however, religious animosity and distrust persist between believing groups. Today, this seems to break down more between religiously and politically conservatives and liberals than between certain denominations, but divisiveness is divisiveness no matter which way it slices you. Hopefully, unity progresses to more concrete forms of shared ministry. Finally, ecumenical unity is a unity achieved by Christ and is not a human work. In Christ, we have been made one (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-22). That is Christ’s achievement. His achievement calls us to visibly manifest this unity as authentically as we can.
At every stage of Christian history, divisions have emerged. With each division, certain Christians have worked against disharmony and worked toward reconciliation and unity. Patrick of Ireland, though he lived before the days of real denominational divisions, did much to connect the apparent barbarians of the north with the larger church in continental Europe. During the Magisterial Reformation, Martin Bucer, former Dominican turned reformer, sought to bridge the divides between Luther and Zwingli, Protestants and Catholics and even influenced Cranmer in the production of The Book of Common Prayer. During the second Awakening of the 19th century, revivalists like Barton Stone brought together Christians from Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and restorationist Christian heritages. Peacemakers like Patrick, Bucer and Stone have much to teach us as we look to the present experience of ecumenical work.
Contemporary ecumenism is largely the product of early 20th Century efforts. Building on the foundation of 19th Century cooperative efforts, a significant step toward Christian unity emerged in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1910. There, under the leadership of John R. Mott (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate), the World Missionary Conference was held. The main goal of the conference was to address concerns regarding missionary work. Competition and divisiveness between Christians created distrust among non-Christians about the validity of the Gospel. So, western Christian missionaries needed to find ways to cooperate in order to fulfill their mission. Ultimately, the World Missionary Conference and other international ecumenical efforts came together in the form of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Similarly, the Federal Council of Churches formed in 1908 and became the National Council of Churches of Christ in 1950. These along with several other ecumenical manifestations continue the work of unifying the body of Christ.
Contemporary evangelicalism receives its heritage through various streams of influence (the Reformation, Pietism, Puritan movements, Restoration movements). However, the primary division between Evangelical and Mainline or Liberal denominations in America emerged in the early part of the 20th Century and largely over issues of biblical authority. Robert Webber describes the early fundamentalism--which gave birth to evangelicalism--as anti-ecumenical. Indeed, Billy Graham was heavily criticized on the right by religious leaders who opposed his cooperation with other religious groups. However, by mid-century, signs of an emerging evangelical ecumenism appeared in the formation of the National Evangelical Association, the publication of Christianity Today and the opening of Fuller Seminary (Webber).
Today at least two ecumenical streams flow through America. One stream takes in the older ecumenism represented in the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, Churches Uniting in Christ and other smaller communities and manifestations that are organized on the broadest terms possible. The other stream involves those more explicitly evangelical churches and denominations represented in things like the conservative political activism, the men's movement Promise Keepers, the publication of “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration,” (produced by the Committee on Evangelical Unity) and a host of parachurch organizations. While each of these streams continues to foster cooperation, articulate shared faith affirmations and cooperate in mission and service, the world waits to see if these two streams will ever flow together.
The mythical façade of a culture war, which ostensibly separates a moderate to progressive broad ecumenism from the political conservative evangelical ecumenism, represents nothing more than the inconsistencies between message and practice that created yesterday's divisions. A friend of mine laments the fact that some liberal Christians rush toward the opportunity to converse with people of other faiths but cannot stand to speak to more conservative members of their own faith. Similarly, conservative Christians have often preferred to work with secular political conservatives than to engage in conversation with their more liberal sisters and brothers in Christ. In short, with regard to contemporary divisions in the church, each of us has unclean lips and lives among people of unclean lips. Since we at least have that in common, perhaps we could confess our sin and revive our commitment to the whole gospel.
Ecumenical efforts tend to serve four purposes. These purposes often overlap and ought not be considered mutually exclusive. First, ecumenical manifestations (organizations, events, relationships) form in order to discuss and forge theological expressions of shared affirmations. Often these efforts seek to remove barriers that prevent full communion and cooperation. For example, a working agreement between nine denominations called Churches Uniting in Christ (the successor to COCU) seeks to aims at the mutual recognition of membership and ministry, removing some barriers that have been in place for centuries.
Similarly, some ecumenical manifestations gather to examine a shared history and to seek to reconcile branches of a movement history has divided. Both Methodists and Presbyterians reunited after divisions caused by the Civil War. Among Restorationists (churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ and Independent Christian) signs of cooperation and dialogue have also emerged.
Third, churches of different denominations often cooperate in order to fulfill a shared purpose or mission. We see this in local ecumenical organizations that create assistance programs for the poor, fund community hospital chaplaincies, organize community-wide worship services and other public religious events. Revival efforts and evangelistic crusades often work within cities through an ecumenical collection of churches. National and International ecumenical organizations have always sought to work in shared mission along with engaging in theological discussion. The World Council of Churches' latest initiative “Decade to Overcome Violence” gathers the ecumenical resources of an historic organization to move toward the global effort at peace keeping. Similarly, Church World Service which seeks to alleviate poverty and hunger world-wide emerged out of the National Council of Churches (? World Council of Churches?).
Finally, and perhaps most controversially, ecumenical efforts often form around particular political issues. Political activism among religious leaders often exacerbates divisions. Martin Marty explains, “Evangelical leaders protested all through the sixities against mainline and liberal denominations, the National Council of Church, and the World Council of Churches, for ‘meddling’ in politics, particularly on subjects of racial change and protest against the Vietnam War. Religion was to be a private affair, a matter of soul-saving and not world-changing” (Marty, pp. 472-473). The Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. was perhaps the most significant and effective ecumenical and interfaith effort in the 20th Century. More recently evangelical ecumenism has developed around abortion, prayer in school, protesting gay marriage and other issues popularly categorized as “family values.”
From my perspective, how we manage religiously motivated political differences is the thorniest challenge facing contemporary ecumenism. Religiously motivated progressive deeply believe that the Kingdom of God is a kingdom of equality, justice and peace. Racism, sexism, bigotry based on sexual preference, poverty, war and environmental neglect all stand in the way of God’s vision for the oikoumenē. Religiously motivated conservatives deeply believe that God calls us to a life of purity, integrity and commitment to biblical principles. The elimination of publicly displayed religious symbols and expressions, abortion and the legalization of licentiousness all detract from this mission. My prayer is that “all would be convinced in their own mind” but not allow political differences to deny the presence of Christ in each other. People of radically opposed political viewpoints shared in the first commemoration of Christ’s death in bread and cup. Imagine a zealot and tax collector and ten others standing somewhere in the continuum between the two receiving the meal Christ first gave and gives to us. Who but Christ could unite such diversity? I say only Christ. And Christ is who we have, who we proclaim and who we follow and who calls us to be one.
What specifically needs to change? First, I think we need to learn the principles of ethical argumentation and debate. This requires that we learn to summarize the positions we disagree with in terms that their adherents find acceptable. All too often, we caricature those we disagree with setting up straw figures and knocking them down. We gain much by learning to express the positions we find problematic at their most intelligent and then delineating our disagreements with those positions.
Second, we must humanize our political disagreements. The culture war metaphor deceives us into treating those who hold differences of opinion as “enemies.” And everyone knows you don’t fraternize with the enemy. Yet, in Christ we are different members of the same body and members of a common family. Disagreements seen through these lenses are handled quite differently. They are addressed over dinner, in face to face dialogue, instead of through newspaper columns, talk radio shows, and demonstration lines.
Finally, we must keep before us the vision that ultimately we are working toward that which unites us. When I have said that to some particularly entrenched culture war veterans they have often responded by saying, “Yes, but we must unite around the truth.” By that they have implied that we unite through agreement on a set of propositions. However, biblically speaking truth is not a set of propositions it is a person—Jesus Christ. When we acknowledge the Christ that resides in each one who confesses him as Lord and Savior of the World, we create the right context for discussions of other differences.
When I asked my friend Ginger if I could use her in this article, she reminded me of her friend’s name—Hope. Hope is a vision of tomorrow’s story that involves a greater manifestation of God’s grace than we see today. It is my hope that the ecumenical momentum we gained in the 20th century will continue through the 21st century. And it is my prayer that we will learn to prioritize our political differences in relation to our unity in Christ.
Arndt, William, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; a Translation and Adaptation of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wèorterbuch Zu Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Èubringen Urchristlichen Literatur, 4th Rev. And Augm. Ed., 1952. Chicago,: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Marty, Martin E. Pilgrims in Their Own Land : 500 Years of Religion in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1985.
Webber, Robert. The Younger Evangelicals : Facing the Challenges of the New World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002.
Kind of Ecumenical
On her way out of church, Ginger introduced me to a guest. Her guest was a younger lady—probably in her 40’s. Ginger is 82. Her friend was of a different ethnic background. “This is my friend,” she said, “She’s visiting with us today and next week I’ll be going to her church. Just to see how each other worship, you know. That’s kind of ecumenical, isn’t it?” The brief conversation took place in that hectic, right after worship shake people out the door time. I didn’t have time to respond. Yet these two women sharing in each other’s worship services—across generational, religious and cultural lines—epitomize the vision of ecumenism.
The words “ecumenism” and “ecumenical” derive from a Greek word oikoumenē which gets translated in the New Testament usually as “world” but has more the sense of all the people of the world (Arndt et al.). It also relates to a cluster of words connected to the management of a household. Ecumenism focuses our attention on the whole church’s stewardship of the whole human household.
To speak of the ecumenical movement is somewhat of a misnomer as we have inherited several ecumenical efforts. I define the ecumenical movement as the collective efforts of Christians to make visible in the world the unity Christians have in Christ. This definition has several parts. First, ecumenism is a Christian movement. Interfaith dialogue between Christians and non-Christians is vitally important (now more so than ever) but, the theological vocabulary and motivations of Christian ecumenism begin and end with Christ—his prayer that we be united (John 17) and the vision of unity inspired by the gospel. Second, ecumenism calls us to unity. Unity does not necessarily mean organizational merger. At its most basic level unity calls us to mutual recognition and respect. We may think that we are long past the days when Christians condemned one another to hell; however, religious animosity and distrust persist between believing groups. Today, this seems to break down more between religiously and politically conservatives and liberals than between certain denominations, but divisiveness is divisiveness no matter which way it slices you. Hopefully, unity progresses to more concrete forms of shared ministry. Finally, ecumenical unity is a unity achieved by Christ and is not a human work. In Christ, we have been made one (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:11-22). That is Christ’s achievement. His achievement calls us to visibly manifest this unity as authentically as we can.
At every stage of Christian history, divisions have emerged. With each division, certain Christians have worked against disharmony and worked toward reconciliation and unity. Patrick of Ireland, though he lived before the days of real denominational divisions, did much to connect the apparent barbarians of the north with the larger church in continental Europe. During the Magisterial Reformation, Martin Bucer, former Dominican turned reformer, sought to bridge the divides between Luther and Zwingli, Protestants and Catholics and even influenced Cranmer in the production of The Book of Common Prayer. During the second Awakening of the 19th century, revivalists like Barton Stone brought together Christians from Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and restorationist Christian heritages. Peacemakers like Patrick, Bucer and Stone have much to teach us as we look to the present experience of ecumenical work.
Contemporary ecumenism is largely the product of early 20th Century efforts. Building on the foundation of 19th Century cooperative efforts, a significant step toward Christian unity emerged in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1910. There, under the leadership of John R. Mott (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate), the World Missionary Conference was held. The main goal of the conference was to address concerns regarding missionary work. Competition and divisiveness between Christians created distrust among non-Christians about the validity of the Gospel. So, western Christian missionaries needed to find ways to cooperate in order to fulfill their mission. Ultimately, the World Missionary Conference and other international ecumenical efforts came together in the form of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Similarly, the Federal Council of Churches formed in 1908 and became the National Council of Churches of Christ in 1950. These along with several other ecumenical manifestations continue the work of unifying the body of Christ.
Contemporary evangelicalism receives its heritage through various streams of influence (the Reformation, Pietism, Puritan movements, Restoration movements). However, the primary division between Evangelical and Mainline or Liberal denominations in America emerged in the early part of the 20th Century and largely over issues of biblical authority. Robert Webber describes the early fundamentalism--which gave birth to evangelicalism--as anti-ecumenical. Indeed, Billy Graham was heavily criticized on the right by religious leaders who opposed his cooperation with other religious groups. However, by mid-century, signs of an emerging evangelical ecumenism appeared in the formation of the National Evangelical Association, the publication of Christianity Today and the opening of Fuller Seminary (Webber).
Today at least two ecumenical streams flow through America. One stream takes in the older ecumenism represented in the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, Churches Uniting in Christ and other smaller communities and manifestations that are organized on the broadest terms possible. The other stream involves those more explicitly evangelical churches and denominations represented in things like the conservative political activism, the men's movement Promise Keepers, the publication of “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration,” (produced by the Committee on Evangelical Unity) and a host of parachurch organizations. While each of these streams continues to foster cooperation, articulate shared faith affirmations and cooperate in mission and service, the world waits to see if these two streams will ever flow together.
The mythical façade of a culture war, which ostensibly separates a moderate to progressive broad ecumenism from the political conservative evangelical ecumenism, represents nothing more than the inconsistencies between message and practice that created yesterday's divisions. A friend of mine laments the fact that some liberal Christians rush toward the opportunity to converse with people of other faiths but cannot stand to speak to more conservative members of their own faith. Similarly, conservative Christians have often preferred to work with secular political conservatives than to engage in conversation with their more liberal sisters and brothers in Christ. In short, with regard to contemporary divisions in the church, each of us has unclean lips and lives among people of unclean lips. Since we at least have that in common, perhaps we could confess our sin and revive our commitment to the whole gospel.
Ecumenical efforts tend to serve four purposes. These purposes often overlap and ought not be considered mutually exclusive. First, ecumenical manifestations (organizations, events, relationships) form in order to discuss and forge theological expressions of shared affirmations. Often these efforts seek to remove barriers that prevent full communion and cooperation. For example, a working agreement between nine denominations called Churches Uniting in Christ (the successor to COCU) seeks to aims at the mutual recognition of membership and ministry, removing some barriers that have been in place for centuries.
Similarly, some ecumenical manifestations gather to examine a shared history and to seek to reconcile branches of a movement history has divided. Both Methodists and Presbyterians reunited after divisions caused by the Civil War. Among Restorationists (churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ and Independent Christian) signs of cooperation and dialogue have also emerged.
Third, churches of different denominations often cooperate in order to fulfill a shared purpose or mission. We see this in local ecumenical organizations that create assistance programs for the poor, fund community hospital chaplaincies, organize community-wide worship services and other public religious events. Revival efforts and evangelistic crusades often work within cities through an ecumenical collection of churches. National and International ecumenical organizations have always sought to work in shared mission along with engaging in theological discussion. The World Council of Churches' latest initiative “Decade to Overcome Violence” gathers the ecumenical resources of an historic organization to move toward the global effort at peace keeping. Similarly, Church World Service which seeks to alleviate poverty and hunger world-wide emerged out of the National Council of Churches (? World Council of Churches?).
Finally, and perhaps most controversially, ecumenical efforts often form around particular political issues. Political activism among religious leaders often exacerbates divisions. Martin Marty explains, “Evangelical leaders protested all through the sixities against mainline and liberal denominations, the National Council of Church, and the World Council of Churches, for ‘meddling’ in politics, particularly on subjects of racial change and protest against the Vietnam War. Religion was to be a private affair, a matter of soul-saving and not world-changing” (Marty, pp. 472-473). The Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. was perhaps the most significant and effective ecumenical and interfaith effort in the 20th Century. More recently evangelical ecumenism has developed around abortion, prayer in school, protesting gay marriage and other issues popularly categorized as “family values.”
From my perspective, how we manage religiously motivated political differences is the thorniest challenge facing contemporary ecumenism. Religiously motivated progressive deeply believe that the Kingdom of God is a kingdom of equality, justice and peace. Racism, sexism, bigotry based on sexual preference, poverty, war and environmental neglect all stand in the way of God’s vision for the oikoumenē. Religiously motivated conservatives deeply believe that God calls us to a life of purity, integrity and commitment to biblical principles. The elimination of publicly displayed religious symbols and expressions, abortion and the legalization of licentiousness all detract from this mission. My prayer is that “all would be convinced in their own mind” but not allow political differences to deny the presence of Christ in each other. People of radically opposed political viewpoints shared in the first commemoration of Christ’s death in bread and cup. Imagine a zealot and tax collector and ten others standing somewhere in the continuum between the two receiving the meal Christ first gave and gives to us. Who but Christ could unite such diversity? I say only Christ. And Christ is who we have, who we proclaim and who we follow and who calls us to be one.
What specifically needs to change? First, I think we need to learn the principles of ethical argumentation and debate. This requires that we learn to summarize the positions we disagree with in terms that their adherents find acceptable. All too often, we caricature those we disagree with setting up straw figures and knocking them down. We gain much by learning to express the positions we find problematic at their most intelligent and then delineating our disagreements with those positions.
Second, we must humanize our political disagreements. The culture war metaphor deceives us into treating those who hold differences of opinion as “enemies.” And everyone knows you don’t fraternize with the enemy. Yet, in Christ we are different members of the same body and members of a common family. Disagreements seen through these lenses are handled quite differently. They are addressed over dinner, in face to face dialogue, instead of through newspaper columns, talk radio shows, and demonstration lines.
Finally, we must keep before us the vision that ultimately we are working toward that which unites us. When I have said that to some particularly entrenched culture war veterans they have often responded by saying, “Yes, but we must unite around the truth.” By that they have implied that we unite through agreement on a set of propositions. However, biblically speaking truth is not a set of propositions it is a person—Jesus Christ. When we acknowledge the Christ that resides in each one who confesses him as Lord and Savior of the World, we create the right context for discussions of other differences.
When I asked my friend Ginger if I could use her in this article, she reminded me of her friend’s name—Hope. Hope is a vision of tomorrow’s story that involves a greater manifestation of God’s grace than we see today. It is my hope that the ecumenical momentum we gained in the 20th century will continue through the 21st century. And it is my prayer that we will learn to prioritize our political differences in relation to our unity in Christ.
Arndt, William, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; a Translation and Adaptation of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wèorterbuch Zu Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Èubringen Urchristlichen Literatur, 4th Rev. And Augm. Ed., 1952. Chicago,: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Marty, Martin E. Pilgrims in Their Own Land : 500 Years of Religion in America. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1985.
Webber, Robert. The Younger Evangelicals : Facing the Challenges of the New World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Outliners, Cardfiles and Mind Mapping Software
Back in high school, preparation for a speech or research paper usually included the creation of note cards. Each card would be linked to a source, it would have a fact or figure or quotation or explanation (supporting material for the writing or speaking project). From time to time, I have searched for technological versions of the same thing. As I write sermons, I need a place to keep the random thoughts and reflections as well as research I find on the sermon topic. I am an avid WordPerfect user as well I use EndNote which is a database bibliography creator. EndNote was an answer to prayer several years ago. It is extremely valuable and very helpful. I highly recommend it. However, I needed something that would work quickly to store random thoughts and then allow me to organize those random thoughts.
- Cardfiles and Outliners
CorelCentral Cardfile–The cardfile program that came with WordPerfect Office Suite functions like a small database. Folders can be created with specific fields that belong to each card. Plus card specific fields can be added. The cards are sorted alphabetically and cannot be re-ordered in outline format. The cards to not insert into wordprocessors easily even though it happens to come in a wordprocessor office suite. - AZZ Cardfile–AZZ Cardfile replaces the old Microsoft Cardfile. It was easy to add notes randomly. However, the notes are stored alphabetically. It would allow for graphics to be added to each note as well, the notes could be formatted (with bold, outline, etc). www.azzcardfile.com
- WhizNotes–WhizNotes is a free cardfile program that can be downloaded from http://www.yestersoft.com./ It is quick and simple. The cards cannot be formatted. It does not allow for graphics to be added. It does cut and paste in and out quickly. It is very basic.
WhizFolders–WhizFolders Pro replaced WhizNotes. It is much more versatile. Each card can be formatted. They can contain graphics. The notes themselves can be easily organized into an outline form. The individual cards and the whole outlines can be imported into a wordprocessor easily. So far, it seems to do everything I was looking for a card file to do. www.whizfolders.com - TexNotes–TexNotes is the most attractive and colorful of the notecard/outline programs I have looked at. It has a lot of functionality. But, in some ways I think it has too much functionality. It could easily replace your wordprocessor but that makes it less convenient for making quick and easy notes. www.gemx.com
- MaxThink–MaxThink is essentially an outline. It did seem to have some functionality that doesn’t come with the built-in outline functions in Word or WordPerfect but did not come with the card function that I was looking for. www.maxthink.com
- NoteMap–NoteMap by Casesoft is an outlining program designed specifically for lawyers (as all of Casesofts software is). As an outliner it is exceptional but it did not come with the card function I was looking for. http://www.casesoft.com/
- Keynote–Keynote is a freeware software program from http://www.tranglos.com/ It has a good functionality. It allows for the creation of cards and the cards can be outlined within the program. However, once the outlined structure is created it takes a bit of work to export it into a word processor. It allows for limited types of graphic files to be entered. .btm, .gif, etc. The look is fairly straightforward.
Mind Mapping Software
Mind mapping software create mind schemas or maps. Again, think about writing class in Jr. High or High School The central topic is placed on a page and then nodes are drawn from it. There are several programs which do this. These are helpful brainstorming tools. The key is to have enough keyboard shortcuts to make the process of brainstorming as quick as it is supposed to be. I looked at these a couple of years ago and decided to purchase Microsoft Visio instead of any of the programs explicitly dedicated to mind-mapping. Like most things Microsoft, Visio does a lot of things but its broad versatility means it doesn’t do specific functions as quickly or as complexly as I’d like.
- Inspiration–Inspiration is targeted for kids writing programs; however, there is a whole community of folk who use it for business application. www.inspiration.com
- Mindgenius– www.mindgenius.com
- Mindmanager–Like most of the other brainstorming, mind-mapping software, Mindmanager is primarily geared for business applications. It seemed to be the most versatile in terms of project management though not necessarily the best if you wanted to produce interesting mind-maps with pictures and the like www.mindjet.com
- ConceptDraw–Concept Draw comes with a project organizer, a draw program and a mind map program that work well with each other. www.conceptdraw.com
Ultimately, I decided that the programs I really found most useful Mindgenius and Mindmanager were both prohibitively expensive.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
On the Subject of Language
I recently cut the following paragraph out of a sermon. The sermon was on Galatians 2:1-10. The thesis statement of the sermon was, “We are defined more as Christians by the free choices we make than by the set rules we follow.” Looking at the text, I came to believe that I needed to emphasize choices concerning the poor Galatians 2:10. So, while the paragraph expressed the concept it wasn’t terribly germane to the biblical text. But, I’m fond enough of the paragraph to include it here.
Several years ago, people debated political correctness. Do you remember that? People wanted us to learn new terminology–less abrasive, less historically tainted and derogatory terminology. On the one side of the debate stood those who said, certain terms and images that we have used to describe certain groups are offensive. We ought to change those terms to be less offensive. On the other side of the debate stood those who insisted that we could not make rules and certainly could not make laws governing a person’s speech. I seemed to hear more from the opponents of political correctness than I did from the proponents of political correctness. There were spoofs like Political Correct Bedtime Stories that retold familiar fairy tales using exaggerated politically correct monikers. I’ll admit that for practical purposes I agree with the second group. We cannot legislate what people say or how they say it. But I always had a problem with the tone that this group took. Their tone implied that it shouldn’t matter. They said, in effect, we ought to call another group whatever we feel like calling them because we are free to do so. My opinion is that because we are free, we ought to use our freedom in the most constructive manner possible. Because we are free, our speech does not reflect the rules we follow but the values we hold. If you believe that people are irrelevant, if you believe that their backgrounds and histories do not matter, if you believe that people’s lifestyles, ethnicity or gender disqualifies them from respect, then by all means please continue use bigoted, racist and sexist language because the rest of us would like to know where you’re coming from. If, on the other hand, you truly value the basic dignity of each human person, you might want to consider the way your language reflects that value.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Example of the Power of Dialogue
In a recent Atlantic Monthly article www.theatlantic.com, Stephen Budiansky writes about a particular interrogator named Sherwood Moran.
Moran 1: "
Moran 1: "
Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran, the report's author, noted that despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subjects. They were nice to them.
Moran was writing in 1943, and he was describing his own, already legendary methods of interrogating Japanese prisoners of war. More than a half century later his report remains something of a cult classic for military interrogators. The Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (MCITTA), a group of active-duty and retired Marine intelligence personnel, calls Moran's report one of the "timeless documents" in the field and says it has long been "a standard read" for insiders."
Monday, May 09, 2005
Patience--Dialogue Part 3
Patience in dialogue refers to patience with the dialogue process. If a person commits to dialogue, they commit to humbly learning from their dialogue partner. Such learning takes time. To begin with, we must learn how a person thinks. Each of us learned to think in certain ways. Mechanics learn to think in ways germane to mechanics. Poets learn to think in ways germane to poetry. These two ways of thinking are not the same. Even if the mechanic and the poet speak to one another about something other than their area of expertise--say religion or politics--they continue to speak as a mechanic or as a poet. Since they are following different rules of thought, they may not initially understand one another. For them to truly enter into dialogue. They must either learn to think as the other does. The poet must learn the rules of thought which the mechanic follows. OR they must learn a new way of thinking that is particular to their subject matter.
I see this frequently in religious work. Ministry involves learning to think according rules of theology, biblical studies, pastoral care, ethics, and practical theology. Each of these sub-disciplines have their own assumptions and rules and they have difficulty speaking to each other sometimes. For a minister who has attended seminary, some of these patterns of thinking become second nature. But we work in churches where we do not communicate often with people who share these patterns of thinking.
Once we've learned to share patterns of thinking with our dialogue partners, then we must learn about the actual subject at hand. For example, I may know the rules of theological thinking but if someone wants to discuss the writings of Paul Tillich with me, I'll have to learn about Paul Tillich. Patience is required to both learn and re-learn patterns of thinking and then processing the actual material.
Another place where patience is required is in the area of persuasion. Ethical persuasion is committed to persuading people on the merits of argument. It is very hard to truly persuade someone. It is much easier to manipulate or coerce people than to persuade them. In manipulation, a person intentionally uses social-psychological cues the induce behavior. For example, when buying a car, the car dealer will attempt to get your own car key from you as quickly as possible. This becomes a subconscious cue that you are relinquishing your car to them and getting a new one. Even before you have been persuaded to buy a new car, they try to manipulate you to buying a car--the actual number of manipulative techniques used by car sales people is too large to catalogue here. People resort to manipulation and coercion because they lack patience with persuasion.
In the first instance, we cultivate the patience to learn OR patience with ourselves and how quickly we can come to understand things. In the second place, we cultivate patience with other and how quickly we can influence them. There is of course a final context in which patience is involved. Patience with the relationship. Just as we are trying to learn, our dialogue partners are trying to learn. Just as we are trying to influence them, they are trying to influence us. Dialogue requires a mutual willingness to expose ourselves both to learning and teaching, persuading and being persuaded. Or as in the line from the Peace Prayer by St. Francis, "To be understood as to understand." Along the way, we risk becoming angry, getting hurt, mishandling intimacy and a host of other things that can go wrong in relationships. Impatient people take one mistake as unacceptable and withdraw from dialogue. Patient people know that dialogue may take several wrong turns before reaching the hoped for destination. Obviously, there are relationship which simply need to end. They become mutually destructive beyond repair. But more often than not, patience in dialogue will yield a fruitful outcome.
I see this frequently in religious work. Ministry involves learning to think according rules of theology, biblical studies, pastoral care, ethics, and practical theology. Each of these sub-disciplines have their own assumptions and rules and they have difficulty speaking to each other sometimes. For a minister who has attended seminary, some of these patterns of thinking become second nature. But we work in churches where we do not communicate often with people who share these patterns of thinking.
Once we've learned to share patterns of thinking with our dialogue partners, then we must learn about the actual subject at hand. For example, I may know the rules of theological thinking but if someone wants to discuss the writings of Paul Tillich with me, I'll have to learn about Paul Tillich. Patience is required to both learn and re-learn patterns of thinking and then processing the actual material.
Another place where patience is required is in the area of persuasion. Ethical persuasion is committed to persuading people on the merits of argument. It is very hard to truly persuade someone. It is much easier to manipulate or coerce people than to persuade them. In manipulation, a person intentionally uses social-psychological cues the induce behavior. For example, when buying a car, the car dealer will attempt to get your own car key from you as quickly as possible. This becomes a subconscious cue that you are relinquishing your car to them and getting a new one. Even before you have been persuaded to buy a new car, they try to manipulate you to buying a car--the actual number of manipulative techniques used by car sales people is too large to catalogue here. People resort to manipulation and coercion because they lack patience with persuasion.
In the first instance, we cultivate the patience to learn OR patience with ourselves and how quickly we can come to understand things. In the second place, we cultivate patience with other and how quickly we can influence them. There is of course a final context in which patience is involved. Patience with the relationship. Just as we are trying to learn, our dialogue partners are trying to learn. Just as we are trying to influence them, they are trying to influence us. Dialogue requires a mutual willingness to expose ourselves both to learning and teaching, persuading and being persuaded. Or as in the line from the Peace Prayer by St. Francis, "To be understood as to understand." Along the way, we risk becoming angry, getting hurt, mishandling intimacy and a host of other things that can go wrong in relationships. Impatient people take one mistake as unacceptable and withdraw from dialogue. Patient people know that dialogue may take several wrong turns before reaching the hoped for destination. Obviously, there are relationship which simply need to end. They become mutually destructive beyond repair. But more often than not, patience in dialogue will yield a fruitful outcome.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Listening--Dialogue Part 2
Dialogue requires two sets of skills: Interpersonal skills and intellectual skills. The interpersonal skills make it possible for the relationship to be maintained in order for dialogue to occur. The intellectual skills are the cognitive abilities to engage the subject matter. Obviously these two set of skills overlap however, I think it’s helpful to divide them and discuss each set. The interpersonal skills I would identify are: listening, patience, authenticity, and inclusion.
Listening comes in different forms. We listen for different reasons and attend to different things. Empathic listening occurs when a person listens in order to offer support to another person. Much of the listening I do as a pastor is empathic listening. Frequently, when I make hospital calls someone will ask how the person I visited was doing. If they ask me to report too much of the medical data, they find I’m not a wealth of information. In these days of privacy, I don’t really like discussing another’s person’s medical condition anyway. But, truth be told, the listening I do at hospitals is not geared toward people’s physical condition. I am listening to see if they are feeling in control of their circumstances or feeling powerless. Powerlessness is a prominent feeling in hospitals. If it sets in, it can delay a person’s recovery and frustrate them long past the hospital stay. Similarly, I’m listening for the ways that the illness affects the person’s self-perception. For some people a hospital stay is a stark reminder or their mortality. Issues of life and death become important. For others, a hospital stay is a necessary means to an end. Still others find it a helpless intrusion on the plans they have made. My responses to a person have a lot to do with whether they are fearful, hopeful or frustrated (or any of the varying emotions a person may encounter in the hospital). The point is, empathic listening listens for the emotional and spiritual state a person is in.
Second, we listen for information. Listening for information occurs whenever we need to know something—directions on how to get somewhere, a customer’s orders, the material for the test. Empathic listening and listening for information can often interfere with each other. If I’m supposed to be listening empathically and I stress getting the facts straight, I’ll probably end up frustrating the person—people who are struggling are frequently incoherent with regard to facts. Similarly, if I’m concerned with the feelings of the person giving me an order for a purchase, I may end the conversation by having them repeat the information they gave me which will leave them feeling frustrated—prompting another round of empathic listening.
Finally, we listen to assess the legitimacy of a person’s ideas. This is called critical listening. Critical listening need not be adversarial. It doesn’t need to be combative. However, it does need to happen whenever someone seeks to persuade us. Stephen Toulmin, in his book Uses of Arguments indicates that an argument contains a claim (what the persuader is trying to get people to believe or do), data (the facts and/or generally accepted chunks of information) and warrant (the logical link between the claim and the data). Critical listening is listening to understand the claim being made, the data provided for the claim and the warrant connecting them. In practice, arguments contain several interlocking sets of claims, data and warrants. Similarly, people trying to persuade other people are not always clear about what is their claim or their data or their warrant. Critical listening seeks to identify each of these in the mind of the listener.
Critical listening should ask more than, “Do I agree or disagree with the claim?” The best critical listening examines the quality of the data, the acceptability of the data and the logic that links the two. Several years ago, Apple computers were priced significantly higher than IBM compatible computers (this was during the day when we actually referred to computers as IBM compatible). I was shown two editorials—one in favor of Mac’s and one in favor of IBM clones. Both articles used the same data—Apple’s cost more than IBM’s et al. However, the one favoring the Macs said, “You get what you pay for.” While the other saw the price as being an argument against the Apple—same data, different claims, different warrants. The critical listener considers the merits of the whole argument.
We identify the type of listening that occurs in order to respond to each situation with sensitivity and effectiveness.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Ending Divisiveness Part 1
What’s to be done with the divisiveness in American politics and political discourse? One answer is to join the fight, steak out a claim and shout down one’s adversaries—fight fire with fire. Another answer is to simply accept that “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” and not engage. But another approach is the concept of discussion as a civil and healthy interaction of ideas. Discussion can take two forms: dialogue and debate.
In dialogue, people engage in a free-flow of ideas. With dialogue people can think aloud or may not completely believe in the idea that they express at any given point. The parties open themselves up to change their own minds. In debate, people assume fixed ideological positions and engage opposing viewpoints with refutation and rebuttal. They seek to influence the opinion of a listening audience.
People generally prefer the term dialogue. Debate sounds adversarial and it should. Debate is adversarial. Debate is not mean-spirited, disrespectful, undisciplined and irrational. So much of what occurs on the shout down shows and talk radio programs would not meet my definition of debate. In her helpful book, The Debate Culture, socio-linguist Deborah Tannen criticizes the mental constructs that seeks to turn every intellectual pursuit into a competitive exercise. Not every question has two sides. Some have more and some have less. Though I agree with many of her observations, I still think debate serves a useful function if people understand it.
The purpose of debate is to provide a rigorous examination of ideas so that an audience can make up their minds. True debaters—from high school debate tournament teams to advocates before the Supreme Court—are actors in a drama in pursuit of truth. Their positions are constructions. That’s not to say disingenuous or fabrications. But the conventions of debate involve people taking positions and holding those positions for the duration of the debate. The goal is to provide as intelligent an engagement of the ideas as possible allowing observers of the debate (juries, judges, audiences) to make up their minds about what to believe and how to act. Debate, it should be kept in mind, is an intellectual methodology. Debate is a performed act of dialectic.
The differences between dialogue and debate deserve consideration that I will not give here. I will assert that there are times for debate and times for dialogue and leave it at that. I’m more interested in what makes dialogue and debate possible—the prerequisites of genuine discussion.
In dialogue, people engage in a free-flow of ideas. With dialogue people can think aloud or may not completely believe in the idea that they express at any given point. The parties open themselves up to change their own minds. In debate, people assume fixed ideological positions and engage opposing viewpoints with refutation and rebuttal. They seek to influence the opinion of a listening audience.
People generally prefer the term dialogue. Debate sounds adversarial and it should. Debate is adversarial. Debate is not mean-spirited, disrespectful, undisciplined and irrational. So much of what occurs on the shout down shows and talk radio programs would not meet my definition of debate. In her helpful book, The Debate Culture, socio-linguist Deborah Tannen criticizes the mental constructs that seeks to turn every intellectual pursuit into a competitive exercise. Not every question has two sides. Some have more and some have less. Though I agree with many of her observations, I still think debate serves a useful function if people understand it.
The purpose of debate is to provide a rigorous examination of ideas so that an audience can make up their minds. True debaters—from high school debate tournament teams to advocates before the Supreme Court—are actors in a drama in pursuit of truth. Their positions are constructions. That’s not to say disingenuous or fabrications. But the conventions of debate involve people taking positions and holding those positions for the duration of the debate. The goal is to provide as intelligent an engagement of the ideas as possible allowing observers of the debate (juries, judges, audiences) to make up their minds about what to believe and how to act. Debate, it should be kept in mind, is an intellectual methodology. Debate is a performed act of dialectic.
The differences between dialogue and debate deserve consideration that I will not give here. I will assert that there are times for debate and times for dialogue and leave it at that. I’m more interested in what makes dialogue and debate possible—the prerequisites of genuine discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)