Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Tough audience
Tonight I went to our absolute hardest event of the week - the one that was for people without faith. I can deal with people of any faith so much better than people who think it's stupid to believe in anything.
First this student talked about the ways she's felt let down by religion and religious people. And the big questions that dog us all, theodicy and all that. But it sounds like this poor woman never had anyone with half a brain helping her with this stuff. I felt so terrible for her. I just wanted to wrap my arms around her and tell her that I was so sorry. I did have the opportunity to talk later and I told her she'd been failed and I was sorry and I felt terrible about it. I started thinking that just like J wants to work with students at Christian college to teach them not all Christians are stupid, I want to work with students at secular college towards the same end.
Then a professor gave a talk on agnosticism but really it was just about how stupid faith is. I saw before me that stereotypical liberal hate-spewing kind of academic who just absolutely believes he is so far above anyone who'd deign to have a belief. It was so annoying. He was just like, the Enlightenment happened, Darwin disproved the need for God, so that's it - anyone who believe in God is completely a superstitious idiot.
I didn't want to fight him, but later when I told J about it he came up with some really wonderful things I could have said. Being a philosopher, he's so good at using the Socratic method to get people to break down their own arguments until they realize they're out of ideas. He's good at getting at the kernel behind big statements.
My method of apologetics has always been just living my life. I don't really like to use words. I just preach by living.
But here I was in this room, all these people who adore this professor, all these kids who are so geniunely confused and quite obviously being brainwashed. I started to actually feel pretty scared for academia. I understand now this liberal academic snottiness that people refer to. Ew! He was just so full of himself.
And it hurts the kids, which pisses me off. I love those kids. I don't like people lying to them, or worse, making them feel bad or stupid because they long for God. That's evil.
Anyway, right before I left, one professor (different guy) asked how can any intellectual person who is reasonable actually believe in God (he'd never met one - only people who compartmentalize and turn off their brains when they go to church). I tried to say something about knowing a lot of philosophers who do and that they are a better bunch when you're looking for reasonable faith than, say, a scientist or even a theologian. I recommended USC's own Dallas Willard.
Then a student asked me, in all honesty, how I could possibly be so sure. And I just simpered something about the rituals touching me deeply and connecting me to something greater than myself that I believe is God. But I told them, I don't know the answers, and I'm not perfect. I can't pretend to know it all.
I felt actually pretty good about it (esp when the Rabbi affirmed by answer to the theodicy problem - which was that free will matters too much to let God control everything - but again J told me about what CS Lewis says in the Problem of Pain and it was so much smarter than what I said).
But I got in the car and I just started crying uncontrollably. I felt so terrible for these kids. I felt terrible that I was the only person there to represent faith. What a messed up rep I am! My heart is just broken because I don't know if I said anything right at all, and J knew so much more than me and could have done such a better job.
I guess I have to study harder and be more sure of myself. I'm not good at being on the spot like that. I'm not instant-answer girl. I have to work things out over time in a relationship.
I don't know how I did. I just pray that God took my mumbles and stumbles and somehow made sense of them. All I want is for these students to know that having a desire for spirituality is OKAY. It is not stupid to believe in something greater. And gadzillions of people from all faiths throughout history, many of them really really smart, have believed.
Damn Enlightenment. Why is it so terrible if we were to go back to before when God was an integral part of the worldview? I mean, it's not like it was the total dark ages - people like Plato and Aristotle still form the basis of so much of our thought and ethics, and they were pre-modernism! Why is it like nobody knew anything until the Victorian era? And then, according to this dude, for the last hundred years we've been backsliding into pre-Enlightenment ignorance (which he defines as "the Middle Ages" - with that sneer like it was somehow just the worst time in all history) that defines our country as a bunch of faith-filled nincompoops.
Well anyway I don't have an answer. I'm just really, really shaken up. Not because I feel challenged. But because I don't think - I don't know if I want to - argue with these people
shit! Lost is on!
First this student talked about the ways she's felt let down by religion and religious people. And the big questions that dog us all, theodicy and all that. But it sounds like this poor woman never had anyone with half a brain helping her with this stuff. I felt so terrible for her. I just wanted to wrap my arms around her and tell her that I was so sorry. I did have the opportunity to talk later and I told her she'd been failed and I was sorry and I felt terrible about it. I started thinking that just like J wants to work with students at Christian college to teach them not all Christians are stupid, I want to work with students at secular college towards the same end.
Then a professor gave a talk on agnosticism but really it was just about how stupid faith is. I saw before me that stereotypical liberal hate-spewing kind of academic who just absolutely believes he is so far above anyone who'd deign to have a belief. It was so annoying. He was just like, the Enlightenment happened, Darwin disproved the need for God, so that's it - anyone who believe in God is completely a superstitious idiot.
I didn't want to fight him, but later when I told J about it he came up with some really wonderful things I could have said. Being a philosopher, he's so good at using the Socratic method to get people to break down their own arguments until they realize they're out of ideas. He's good at getting at the kernel behind big statements.
My method of apologetics has always been just living my life. I don't really like to use words. I just preach by living.
But here I was in this room, all these people who adore this professor, all these kids who are so geniunely confused and quite obviously being brainwashed. I started to actually feel pretty scared for academia. I understand now this liberal academic snottiness that people refer to. Ew! He was just so full of himself.
And it hurts the kids, which pisses me off. I love those kids. I don't like people lying to them, or worse, making them feel bad or stupid because they long for God. That's evil.
Anyway, right before I left, one professor (different guy) asked how can any intellectual person who is reasonable actually believe in God (he'd never met one - only people who compartmentalize and turn off their brains when they go to church). I tried to say something about knowing a lot of philosophers who do and that they are a better bunch when you're looking for reasonable faith than, say, a scientist or even a theologian. I recommended USC's own Dallas Willard.
Then a student asked me, in all honesty, how I could possibly be so sure. And I just simpered something about the rituals touching me deeply and connecting me to something greater than myself that I believe is God. But I told them, I don't know the answers, and I'm not perfect. I can't pretend to know it all.
I felt actually pretty good about it (esp when the Rabbi affirmed by answer to the theodicy problem - which was that free will matters too much to let God control everything - but again J told me about what CS Lewis says in the Problem of Pain and it was so much smarter than what I said).
But I got in the car and I just started crying uncontrollably. I felt so terrible for these kids. I felt terrible that I was the only person there to represent faith. What a messed up rep I am! My heart is just broken because I don't know if I said anything right at all, and J knew so much more than me and could have done such a better job.
I guess I have to study harder and be more sure of myself. I'm not good at being on the spot like that. I'm not instant-answer girl. I have to work things out over time in a relationship.
I don't know how I did. I just pray that God took my mumbles and stumbles and somehow made sense of them. All I want is for these students to know that having a desire for spirituality is OKAY. It is not stupid to believe in something greater. And gadzillions of people from all faiths throughout history, many of them really really smart, have believed.
Damn Enlightenment. Why is it so terrible if we were to go back to before when God was an integral part of the worldview? I mean, it's not like it was the total dark ages - people like Plato and Aristotle still form the basis of so much of our thought and ethics, and they were pre-modernism! Why is it like nobody knew anything until the Victorian era? And then, according to this dude, for the last hundred years we've been backsliding into pre-Enlightenment ignorance (which he defines as "the Middle Ages" - with that sneer like it was somehow just the worst time in all history) that defines our country as a bunch of faith-filled nincompoops.
Well anyway I don't have an answer. I'm just really, really shaken up. Not because I feel challenged. But because I don't think - I don't know if I want to - argue with these people
shit! Lost is on!
Very very good
God is really quite good. I'm still a little bowled over at how sunny it was yesterday. I haven't prayed like that in a long time. But I also felt a bit guilty, praying for something so inane as sun. I mean, it wasn't entirely selfish (a few hundred people were involved), but it wasn't a life-threatening situation either. Still, God came through, and it was so nice that I have the sunburn to prove it.
How about that? 100% chance of rain, and I walk away with a sunburn. That's God's sense of humor for you.
So today begins Lent. I'm going to try some fasting this year. I'm much too addicted to food. I have a picture of a 2-year-old in Malawi who weighs 12 pounds. I'm going to carry her with me and look at her when I think I'm hungry. Food has just become such a comfort thing for me, and I do feel like it's damaging my reliance on God for my needs. So out it goes!
I'm also going to try to do morning prayer every day. This means getting up 1/2 hour earlier than usual. But come on, that shouldn't be too difficult. And besides, it's more important than any school work I could be doing. I got some guilt from spending the weekend with the rabbinical students - they are so devoted to their prayers - and theirs take a really long time and they are in Hebrew! So who am I to complain?
Finally, as is my usual tradition thanks to my previous priest Christopher, I will be doing the "discipline of stuff." Every year, we go through our "stuff" and pare it down to the essentials (which of course can include things with sentimental value). Usually that means I get rid of about half my clothes (no joke). Here's how it works:
You visit your closet, garage, storage space, etc. You look at an item. You ask, "Could a poor person use this more than me?" If the answer is yes, it goes to Goodwill. If it's no (which is usually the case with your old bowling trophy - please don't overburden the poor!) then you keep it.
It's incredible how you realize what you don't need as much as someone else. And the way it's phrased helps - it's not about what you want or need, it's about what someone else could use. And that changes the whole scenario.
I've even found myself rooting through my pantry and supplying my church with lots of canned stuff and beans, etc. I know this year my vegetarian shirt, which will never fit anyway, is going to my vegan activist friend. She'll enjoy it much more than me. See it doesn't even always have to be about the poor - it can be about brightening the day of someone you already know and love.
Anyway, I must get on with my life. Today's the first so there are plenty of bills to pay. Bless God, we've got a really nice tax refund coming. We actually paid exactly the right amount of tax (we got a refund of exactly 1 dollar from California, which will go to breast cancer research), but thanks to the lifetime learning credit, we got a little bonus. And quite honestly, we need it to pay tuition, and we've been paying so much tax these last couple years that I think we really deserve it!! When you faithfully pay honestly, even when it hurts (and believe me, it's been hurting to pay something that we could easily have gotten away with not paying), it comes around eventually (when you quit your job so your income halves - ha!).
I guess that's what Earl calls Karma. :-)
How about that? 100% chance of rain, and I walk away with a sunburn. That's God's sense of humor for you.
So today begins Lent. I'm going to try some fasting this year. I'm much too addicted to food. I have a picture of a 2-year-old in Malawi who weighs 12 pounds. I'm going to carry her with me and look at her when I think I'm hungry. Food has just become such a comfort thing for me, and I do feel like it's damaging my reliance on God for my needs. So out it goes!
I'm also going to try to do morning prayer every day. This means getting up 1/2 hour earlier than usual. But come on, that shouldn't be too difficult. And besides, it's more important than any school work I could be doing. I got some guilt from spending the weekend with the rabbinical students - they are so devoted to their prayers - and theirs take a really long time and they are in Hebrew! So who am I to complain?
Finally, as is my usual tradition thanks to my previous priest Christopher, I will be doing the "discipline of stuff." Every year, we go through our "stuff" and pare it down to the essentials (which of course can include things with sentimental value). Usually that means I get rid of about half my clothes (no joke). Here's how it works:
You visit your closet, garage, storage space, etc. You look at an item. You ask, "Could a poor person use this more than me?" If the answer is yes, it goes to Goodwill. If it's no (which is usually the case with your old bowling trophy - please don't overburden the poor!) then you keep it.
It's incredible how you realize what you don't need as much as someone else. And the way it's phrased helps - it's not about what you want or need, it's about what someone else could use. And that changes the whole scenario.
I've even found myself rooting through my pantry and supplying my church with lots of canned stuff and beans, etc. I know this year my vegetarian shirt, which will never fit anyway, is going to my vegan activist friend. She'll enjoy it much more than me. See it doesn't even always have to be about the poor - it can be about brightening the day of someone you already know and love.
Anyway, I must get on with my life. Today's the first so there are plenty of bills to pay. Bless God, we've got a really nice tax refund coming. We actually paid exactly the right amount of tax (we got a refund of exactly 1 dollar from California, which will go to breast cancer research), but thanks to the lifetime learning credit, we got a little bonus. And quite honestly, we need it to pay tuition, and we've been paying so much tax these last couple years that I think we really deserve it!! When you faithfully pay honestly, even when it hurts (and believe me, it's been hurting to pay something that we could easily have gotten away with not paying), it comes around eventually (when you quit your job so your income halves - ha!).
I guess that's what Earl calls Karma. :-)
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
They done good
Well, I have to give props to the emerging church group. They made a distinction between "Gen-X" churches and what's developed into "emerging", and they got the latter right. It's definitely much more a philosophy than an actual way of doing things. And there are some inherent contradictions, such as them wanting to encourage people to get out of the church building into the community, but they offer amenities at the church building most nights (granted, they are "hip" amenities such as yoga). Also they are all about empowering the people in the church to use their gifts and take ownership, but the majority of them really are stuck as personality cults. I know the leaders don't like it, but that's just usually how it winds up.
I think it's definitely got merit, and churches such as cota who still do liturgy while being indigenous to their surroundings and offering a true community experience (including several people living at the church and in group houses) are probably on to the next wave of what the church needs to become so it won't die.
I am bothered, though, by the idea that the laity can run things better than the clergy, and that liturgy should be dropped as much as possible in favor of "experience," and that church buildings/hierarchy/Christianity-as-religion somehow automatically equals bad. All of these things, in their proper context, with humility and in moderation, are extremely helpful in building up the body of Christ. That's probably why they've been around 2000 years, as has this faith. I don't like it when people just want to drop something that's proven its worth. That's a shallow view of history and dangerous to the church. There is a reason our rituals work - they affect us on a deep level, because (I believe) they were inspired (just as much as Scripture!!!). ACK! The heresy police are knocking at m'door!
Actually, speaking of heresies, what is up with this doctrine of "oneness"?? There was a presentation on Pentecostalism today and they talked about how at least one branch, PAW, believes this oneness thing which essentially sounds like Unitarianism. Definitely they deny the Trinity. And I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but I really gotta ask why are these people allowed at Fuller? I mean, the Trinity is a creedal statement. It's not like it's some weird offshoot doctrine. It's pretty darn central to the church from almost the very beginning.
So you tell me, why can a person who doesn't believe this foundational part of most branches of Christianity get to come to Fuller but a person born gay can't????
I mean, gee, I might as well stop believing Jesus is the son of God, or in the existence of the Holy Spirit! Sure couldn't get me kicked out of my school!!
However, I piss people off constantly for intimating that the sacraments are somehow central to the Christian life, or that they were instituted by God as Her way of reaching out to us. Naw, I should forget about Eucharist and Baptism - what really counts is speaking in tongues, right?!? Hell, if the HS has manifested in me and I yell out a bunch of gibberish nobody (even myself) can understand, that makes me way more a true Christian than someone who believes some crazy notion like the triunity of the Godhead!
I tell ya. Sometimes the things we come up with....we're just weird.
I think it's definitely got merit, and churches such as cota who still do liturgy while being indigenous to their surroundings and offering a true community experience (including several people living at the church and in group houses) are probably on to the next wave of what the church needs to become so it won't die.
I am bothered, though, by the idea that the laity can run things better than the clergy, and that liturgy should be dropped as much as possible in favor of "experience," and that church buildings/hierarchy/Christianity-as-religion somehow automatically equals bad. All of these things, in their proper context, with humility and in moderation, are extremely helpful in building up the body of Christ. That's probably why they've been around 2000 years, as has this faith. I don't like it when people just want to drop something that's proven its worth. That's a shallow view of history and dangerous to the church. There is a reason our rituals work - they affect us on a deep level, because (I believe) they were inspired (just as much as Scripture!!!). ACK! The heresy police are knocking at m'door!
Actually, speaking of heresies, what is up with this doctrine of "oneness"?? There was a presentation on Pentecostalism today and they talked about how at least one branch, PAW, believes this oneness thing which essentially sounds like Unitarianism. Definitely they deny the Trinity. And I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but I really gotta ask why are these people allowed at Fuller? I mean, the Trinity is a creedal statement. It's not like it's some weird offshoot doctrine. It's pretty darn central to the church from almost the very beginning.
So you tell me, why can a person who doesn't believe this foundational part of most branches of Christianity get to come to Fuller but a person born gay can't????
I mean, gee, I might as well stop believing Jesus is the son of God, or in the existence of the Holy Spirit! Sure couldn't get me kicked out of my school!!
However, I piss people off constantly for intimating that the sacraments are somehow central to the Christian life, or that they were instituted by God as Her way of reaching out to us. Naw, I should forget about Eucharist and Baptism - what really counts is speaking in tongues, right?!? Hell, if the HS has manifested in me and I yell out a bunch of gibberish nobody (even myself) can understand, that makes me way more a true Christian than someone who believes some crazy notion like the triunity of the Godhead!
I tell ya. Sometimes the things we come up with....we're just weird.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Say it isn't so! My weather email came today predicting ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance of rain tomorrow! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Tomorrow is the MultiFaith Fair that I've been planning for months! It's my hugest thing of my internship and the thing I was completely in charge of. And it is outside. And if it rains, there's no backup plan, it just gets cancelled. That's it! Kaput!!
ARRRRRRGHHHHH!
This is not allowed! We've worked too hard - and it was going to be so cool! With Mardi Gras theme and we bought all these beads and masks and fun stuff. And I got all these people to perform and sit at tables explaining their religion. It was going to be so much fun!
Surely, between the 15 or 20 faiths represented, SOMEBODY has got to have some pull with the Almighty!!
Of course, our Secular Alliance will be able to have a big laugh at all of us. :-)
And I'm sure Pat Robertson would say it's because we are glorifying false religions.
This SUCKS! Pray for sun!!! I know God can do it!!!!
Tomorrow is the MultiFaith Fair that I've been planning for months! It's my hugest thing of my internship and the thing I was completely in charge of. And it is outside. And if it rains, there's no backup plan, it just gets cancelled. That's it! Kaput!!
ARRRRRRGHHHHH!
This is not allowed! We've worked too hard - and it was going to be so cool! With Mardi Gras theme and we bought all these beads and masks and fun stuff. And I got all these people to perform and sit at tables explaining their religion. It was going to be so much fun!
Surely, between the 15 or 20 faiths represented, SOMEBODY has got to have some pull with the Almighty!!
Of course, our Secular Alliance will be able to have a big laugh at all of us. :-)
And I'm sure Pat Robertson would say it's because we are glorifying false religions.
This SUCKS! Pray for sun!!! I know God can do it!!!!
It won't go away
I don't know if it's kismet or fate (are they the same thing?) or God or what, but the whole situation of Africa simply will not leave my life. And that's a good thing. I'm going to keep preaching on here about it until more of us are signed on to help. Because it's completely ridiculous what's happening over there considering our resources.
I met another person intimately involved with a group over there, and this time I am really excited because the group is not only concerning AIDS and Africa but also is Interfaith! Wow! What a great connection. It's the Global AIDS Interfaith Alliance, and I met one of the board members and we're striking up a tentative acquaintance (based originally, actually, on his art collection, which is the coolest). Here is a newsletter that describes some of his work over there. With a healthy baby niece and nephew of my own, I cannot imagine the horrors this family is going through:
http://www.thegaia.org/news/archives/august2004.htm
We are indeed blessed.
So yeah, Africa keeps calling. I'm trying to listen. I'm just opening my ears to every call around me and spreading as much of the word as I can.
Re: Palestine, today I found a class that I really, really want to take that's during the same week as the trip. So that pretty much seals the deal on that one. Which is fine - I'd rather the final reason be academic, since that's truly my vocation at the moment.
And besides, as horrible as I feel about the situation in the Holy Land, the true cry of my heart is for Africa and AIDS. And hey, while we're at it, what's up with The Constant Gardener not being nominated for Best Picture??? (all I can figure is it came out too early and lost steam - but seriously, I enjoyed it, and Walk the Line and The New World more than any of the 5 nominated films. Sigh...someday they'll learn their place and hire me to give out awards)
Oops, see how I can devolve into caring about the stupidest American shit? But that's what makes me a well-rounded person, right? (quite literally)
Anyway, I overslept (which is a great thing - I've been sick so I needed it!) so I've got to get my butt in gear for class. Today I get to go listen to presentations on, among other things, the emerging church. Gee, I wonder which emerging church they will pick? The one that's based completely on artifice (candles, hip music, and stations=emergent! Oh, and of course a reference to the Matrix) or the one that's about radical indigenous community (like our buddies at cota). We shall see. I noticed them with Dan Kimball's book, so my money's on Door #1.
I gotta finish my cota movie and spread the word about the real way to do this!!
I met another person intimately involved with a group over there, and this time I am really excited because the group is not only concerning AIDS and Africa but also is Interfaith! Wow! What a great connection. It's the Global AIDS Interfaith Alliance, and I met one of the board members and we're striking up a tentative acquaintance (based originally, actually, on his art collection, which is the coolest). Here is a newsletter that describes some of his work over there. With a healthy baby niece and nephew of my own, I cannot imagine the horrors this family is going through:
http://www.thegaia.org/news/archives/august2004.htm
We are indeed blessed.
So yeah, Africa keeps calling. I'm trying to listen. I'm just opening my ears to every call around me and spreading as much of the word as I can.
Re: Palestine, today I found a class that I really, really want to take that's during the same week as the trip. So that pretty much seals the deal on that one. Which is fine - I'd rather the final reason be academic, since that's truly my vocation at the moment.
And besides, as horrible as I feel about the situation in the Holy Land, the true cry of my heart is for Africa and AIDS. And hey, while we're at it, what's up with The Constant Gardener not being nominated for Best Picture??? (all I can figure is it came out too early and lost steam - but seriously, I enjoyed it, and Walk the Line and The New World more than any of the 5 nominated films. Sigh...someday they'll learn their place and hire me to give out awards)
Oops, see how I can devolve into caring about the stupidest American shit? But that's what makes me a well-rounded person, right? (quite literally)
Anyway, I overslept (which is a great thing - I've been sick so I needed it!) so I've got to get my butt in gear for class. Today I get to go listen to presentations on, among other things, the emerging church. Gee, I wonder which emerging church they will pick? The one that's based completely on artifice (candles, hip music, and stations=emergent! Oh, and of course a reference to the Matrix) or the one that's about radical indigenous community (like our buddies at cota). We shall see. I noticed them with Dan Kimball's book, so my money's on Door #1.
I gotta finish my cota movie and spread the word about the real way to do this!!
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Did Jesus attribute any importance to his death?
That is the question I have to write a 4-6 page paper on today. 4-6! This is a dissertation topic!
I think I'm going to focus it on the words of institution at the Last Supper - you know, get my little liturgical theology kicks. Of course it's not going to be exhaustive - but with a 4-6 page limit, you can't possibly look at all the support for a yea or nay answer to this question.
Anyway, I had a few initial thoughts that aren't going to wind up in the paper because I've taken this new tack (and actually, I think the evidence is against them - they're just what I think, but apparently the Bible disagrees. Damn. Hate it when that happens). Since they won't go in the paper, what better place to put them than on here? So here's some food for thought at 8:40 on a Saturday morning!
Did Jesus attribute any importance to his death? Yes, but. He saw it as a necessary end to his mission. But he didn't recognize it alone as the only reconciling act of God to humanity.
Did Jesus think his death was important? Yes, because of what it would cause to happen. Because it would open the way for a new understanding between humans and God, a relationship based on love and communion, on giving of Godself, over old sacrificial ways. Jesus' life, more than his death, was important. Jesus' incarnation was probably the most important moment of all.
To say that Jesus went to Jerusalem specifically to die is a somewhat defeatist position, relying too heavily on his death as being the primary action of his earthly ministry. Surely there was more to the Incarnation of God than a plan to be killed by people (no matter how much that dying might accomplish).
So we may indeed say that Jesus attributed importance to his death, and certainly knew it was a likely possibility if not inevitable based upon his radical reorientation of societal norms.
However, we must qualify these statements by refraining from making death Jesus' only - or even primary - aim in living. The importance Jesus attributed to his death had to do with what he knew this inevitable act would excite in his followers. His death, ironically, would provide them with the necessary push to move the global mission forward. His resurrection especially would provide impetus for forward motion of the new covenant of God with humanity. Had Jesus no purpose other than to die, his disciples would not have had much to go on in creating a world changing movement. His goal was first to teach, to train, to make apostles - and then, to push them out of the nest with the radical act of allowing his own death (with the subsequent miracle of resurrection).
I think I'm going to focus it on the words of institution at the Last Supper - you know, get my little liturgical theology kicks. Of course it's not going to be exhaustive - but with a 4-6 page limit, you can't possibly look at all the support for a yea or nay answer to this question.
Anyway, I had a few initial thoughts that aren't going to wind up in the paper because I've taken this new tack (and actually, I think the evidence is against them - they're just what I think, but apparently the Bible disagrees. Damn. Hate it when that happens). Since they won't go in the paper, what better place to put them than on here? So here's some food for thought at 8:40 on a Saturday morning!
Did Jesus attribute any importance to his death? Yes, but. He saw it as a necessary end to his mission. But he didn't recognize it alone as the only reconciling act of God to humanity.
Did Jesus think his death was important? Yes, because of what it would cause to happen. Because it would open the way for a new understanding between humans and God, a relationship based on love and communion, on giving of Godself, over old sacrificial ways. Jesus' life, more than his death, was important. Jesus' incarnation was probably the most important moment of all.
To say that Jesus went to Jerusalem specifically to die is a somewhat defeatist position, relying too heavily on his death as being the primary action of his earthly ministry. Surely there was more to the Incarnation of God than a plan to be killed by people (no matter how much that dying might accomplish).
So we may indeed say that Jesus attributed importance to his death, and certainly knew it was a likely possibility if not inevitable based upon his radical reorientation of societal norms.
However, we must qualify these statements by refraining from making death Jesus' only - or even primary - aim in living. The importance Jesus attributed to his death had to do with what he knew this inevitable act would excite in his followers. His death, ironically, would provide them with the necessary push to move the global mission forward. His resurrection especially would provide impetus for forward motion of the new covenant of God with humanity. Had Jesus no purpose other than to die, his disciples would not have had much to go on in creating a world changing movement. His goal was first to teach, to train, to make apostles - and then, to push them out of the nest with the radical act of allowing his own death (with the subsequent miracle of resurrection).
Friday, February 24, 2006
Interfaith Impediments
Can one participate in interfaith work while still believing in truth?
This is a question that I'm dealing with. One of our students has begun feeling uncomfortable in the group because she's conservative (politically) and believes her religion is best. That's perfectly okay with the rest of us. In fact, we purposely look for students who are strong in their beliefs because they can teach the rest of us the most about their tradition, and also will usually find their faith strengthened by being part of our council.
Our hard and fast rule is that nobody is there to convert anybody. However, the students do tend to relax their ideas about exclusive truth claims. I've found my own ideas about ultimate truth challenged and about how God relates to humanity expanded. It's very hard to sit across the table from a devout practicioner of another religion, week after week, and still be able to say that person has no access to God or is fooling him or herself. You do start to wonder if maybe God has reached into the world in a few different ways...maybe still believing your way is best, but also being unable to deny not only the devotion but also the fruits in these others' lives.
But by the nature of the group mostly liberal (politically) students join up in the first place. And mostly they do not represent Christianity. Other proselytizing religions come - Muslim, Jewish - but the Christians pretty much stay away. We have only 2 Roman Catholics and an LDS purely representing Christianity. We also have a Christian guy who is there representing a spiritual exploration group, and another who was raised in a Muslim/Christian household (so obviously he knows how to straddle the line). We lost our Episcopalian to a study-abroad program, and our two Presbyterians to busy schedules. We never had an Evangelical, despite my fervent attempts to recruit someone.
I don't know how we can be more friendly to more conservative religions. I'm sure it's very hard for our LDS rep who is about the only conservie in the group these days (although the Baha'i and Muslim faiths are also pretty conservative). Recently a few students met with our Religious Directors (clergy/etc who help run the student groups) and they were asked how they deal with conflicting truth claims. Our Jewish rep was saying how they're all pretty liberal and open to other beliefs, but the LDS girl stopped him and said that she believed in truth and believed her religion had it. Which is the kind of lovely moment that we hope for when we have these students on the council, but I think it made her feel like a weirdo.
Nobody should be made to feel that way for simply trusting in their faith. That's quite unfair.
So I'm wrestling with this. We're losing more conservative people and maybe that's just the nature of the beast. But at least the Catholics and Muslims will sit at table with the rest of us - the Evangelicals won't even show up! They refuse to participate in our multi-faith events, as if they could somehow be tainted by contact with other religions.
I do sense a reluctance, even in my Fuller colleagues, to engage other faiths in dialogue. I don't know if people are scared or what. Maybe they fear becoming like me. :)
I've only had great experiences with people from other faiths and they have taught me so much. It's those of my own tradition that I have trouble with.
But I do also bear some blame for helping to create this atmosphere that is intolerant of intolerance. The plain fact is, everyone has a place at our table and in practice it does come off as everyone's opinion/belief being equally valid. That's threatening. And we think the students can handle it but I'm watching one crumble under the weight of it and that breaks my heart.
What should I do? What would you do? What would Jesus do?
(ha ha couldn't resist)
Actually now that I think about it, our group is really a motley crew. We have:
a Zen Catholic
a Hindu interested in Buddhism and Christianity
another person raised Hindu who now leads an nonsectarian meditation group
a spiritual explorer who was raised Catholic
a Jew raised Catholic/Jewish
a Christian raised Christian/Muslim
a Buddhist who is also Episcopalian
an Episcopalain who is also Buddhist
an athiest raised Christian
a Christian who's representing a multifaith spiritual exploration group
and a Baha'i, and they consider all religions equally valid.
The only straight up one thing people we have are the LDS, Muslim, and the other Catholic.
This is it people - this is what religion looks like on a college campus today. These students have been raised with mixed notions and they are seeking even more ways to be spiritual. Rather than one way, most go with several to see what works best. Christians bemoan this state of affairs. But I wonder....
Should we let ourselves be threatened? Or should we find a way to work within it?
By not showing up to the table, Evangelicals are giving up their voice. They are losing the opportunity to be one among many paths that a student can choose. Now perhaps they have no interest in being one among many - it's my way or the highway. But the reality is, you can't really think that way anymore. Not in our global pluralist culture. You don't have to say the others are right, but it wouldn't hurt to at least offer your option too.
That's what I think anyway. I wish Christians would at least stand up and say yes, we're a choice too!
This is a question that I'm dealing with. One of our students has begun feeling uncomfortable in the group because she's conservative (politically) and believes her religion is best. That's perfectly okay with the rest of us. In fact, we purposely look for students who are strong in their beliefs because they can teach the rest of us the most about their tradition, and also will usually find their faith strengthened by being part of our council.
Our hard and fast rule is that nobody is there to convert anybody. However, the students do tend to relax their ideas about exclusive truth claims. I've found my own ideas about ultimate truth challenged and about how God relates to humanity expanded. It's very hard to sit across the table from a devout practicioner of another religion, week after week, and still be able to say that person has no access to God or is fooling him or herself. You do start to wonder if maybe God has reached into the world in a few different ways...maybe still believing your way is best, but also being unable to deny not only the devotion but also the fruits in these others' lives.
But by the nature of the group mostly liberal (politically) students join up in the first place. And mostly they do not represent Christianity. Other proselytizing religions come - Muslim, Jewish - but the Christians pretty much stay away. We have only 2 Roman Catholics and an LDS purely representing Christianity. We also have a Christian guy who is there representing a spiritual exploration group, and another who was raised in a Muslim/Christian household (so obviously he knows how to straddle the line). We lost our Episcopalian to a study-abroad program, and our two Presbyterians to busy schedules. We never had an Evangelical, despite my fervent attempts to recruit someone.
I don't know how we can be more friendly to more conservative religions. I'm sure it's very hard for our LDS rep who is about the only conservie in the group these days (although the Baha'i and Muslim faiths are also pretty conservative). Recently a few students met with our Religious Directors (clergy/etc who help run the student groups) and they were asked how they deal with conflicting truth claims. Our Jewish rep was saying how they're all pretty liberal and open to other beliefs, but the LDS girl stopped him and said that she believed in truth and believed her religion had it. Which is the kind of lovely moment that we hope for when we have these students on the council, but I think it made her feel like a weirdo.
Nobody should be made to feel that way for simply trusting in their faith. That's quite unfair.
So I'm wrestling with this. We're losing more conservative people and maybe that's just the nature of the beast. But at least the Catholics and Muslims will sit at table with the rest of us - the Evangelicals won't even show up! They refuse to participate in our multi-faith events, as if they could somehow be tainted by contact with other religions.
I do sense a reluctance, even in my Fuller colleagues, to engage other faiths in dialogue. I don't know if people are scared or what. Maybe they fear becoming like me. :)
I've only had great experiences with people from other faiths and they have taught me so much. It's those of my own tradition that I have trouble with.
But I do also bear some blame for helping to create this atmosphere that is intolerant of intolerance. The plain fact is, everyone has a place at our table and in practice it does come off as everyone's opinion/belief being equally valid. That's threatening. And we think the students can handle it but I'm watching one crumble under the weight of it and that breaks my heart.
What should I do? What would you do? What would Jesus do?
(ha ha couldn't resist)
Actually now that I think about it, our group is really a motley crew. We have:
a Zen Catholic
a Hindu interested in Buddhism and Christianity
another person raised Hindu who now leads an nonsectarian meditation group
a spiritual explorer who was raised Catholic
a Jew raised Catholic/Jewish
a Christian raised Christian/Muslim
a Buddhist who is also Episcopalian
an Episcopalain who is also Buddhist
an athiest raised Christian
a Christian who's representing a multifaith spiritual exploration group
and a Baha'i, and they consider all religions equally valid.
The only straight up one thing people we have are the LDS, Muslim, and the other Catholic.
This is it people - this is what religion looks like on a college campus today. These students have been raised with mixed notions and they are seeking even more ways to be spiritual. Rather than one way, most go with several to see what works best. Christians bemoan this state of affairs. But I wonder....
Should we let ourselves be threatened? Or should we find a way to work within it?
By not showing up to the table, Evangelicals are giving up their voice. They are losing the opportunity to be one among many paths that a student can choose. Now perhaps they have no interest in being one among many - it's my way or the highway. But the reality is, you can't really think that way anymore. Not in our global pluralist culture. You don't have to say the others are right, but it wouldn't hurt to at least offer your option too.
That's what I think anyway. I wish Christians would at least stand up and say yes, we're a choice too!
Bleh
So my body decided to give out a couple weeks early this term. Usually it waits at least until finals week. But now maybe I will be well for finals and spring break. That would be a treat.
It's just a cold. Yesterday I felt like utter kaka but today I'm a bit better. I'll tell you, I never got sick so much when I had (good) health insurance. It's like Murphy's law.
Of course my body is working against me. What's the one thing I need? Rest. What happened last night? Total insomnia. No sleep. Even took 2 halves of my Trazadone and nuthin'. Yet somehow right now, though I don't exactly feel refreshed per se, I feel at least alert enough to sit here wasting time talking to you instead of doing my homework!
I can trace this thing right to the culprits, too - the person who I sat next to in Gospels on Tuesday and my internship supervisor with whom I spent the rest of the day Tuesday. Both were very much in the middle of a cold. And they shared.
But I have to admit that I haven't been exercising (had to quit Curves b/c they raised our rent), nor is my pre-finals menu of mostly fries and beer probably helping much.
Still.
Unclog my nose
Say I'm breathing again
Undo this cold you caused
when you wiped your nose
then you touched my hand
Unclog my head
I couldn't breathe all night
Unclog my nose....my nose....
It's just a cold. Yesterday I felt like utter kaka but today I'm a bit better. I'll tell you, I never got sick so much when I had (good) health insurance. It's like Murphy's law.
Of course my body is working against me. What's the one thing I need? Rest. What happened last night? Total insomnia. No sleep. Even took 2 halves of my Trazadone and nuthin'. Yet somehow right now, though I don't exactly feel refreshed per se, I feel at least alert enough to sit here wasting time talking to you instead of doing my homework!
I can trace this thing right to the culprits, too - the person who I sat next to in Gospels on Tuesday and my internship supervisor with whom I spent the rest of the day Tuesday. Both were very much in the middle of a cold. And they shared.
But I have to admit that I haven't been exercising (had to quit Curves b/c they raised our rent), nor is my pre-finals menu of mostly fries and beer probably helping much.
Still.
Unclog my nose
Say I'm breathing again
Undo this cold you caused
when you wiped your nose
then you touched my hand
Unclog my head
I couldn't breathe all night
Unclog my nose....my nose....
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Carnival
***********************
Get ready for this week's Progressive Faith Carnival!
This week's carnival is hosted by Pearlbear. Submit your links to ProgFaithCarnival - at - yahoo.com.
We also need volunteers to host the Carnival for upcoming weeks.
****************
Get ready for this week's Progressive Faith Carnival!
This week's carnival is hosted by Pearlbear. Submit your links to ProgFaithCarnival - at - yahoo.com.
We also need volunteers to host the Carnival for upcoming weeks.
****************
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Unprayed Answers
Hey, it's better than unanswered prayers, right?
So I floated the idea of TA'ing for my favorite professor today and he was really into it! In fact, next quarter (yikes - one month from now) he's teaching a class I've taken and thinks I might be able to do that one. Wowsa. It would be such an honor...and actually something I think I could do very well. Of course it's pretty good for my career, too, especially if it winds up being academic, which is feeling more and more right these days.
Yesterday I chatted with my internship supervisor about the ordination process, which she is very good about bugging me about. She suggested I talk directly to the people who were on my committee rather than waiting to hear back from the church staff. Not to go behind their backs or anything, just to say Hi and see if these people are still interested in pursuing the discernment thing with me. I know how busy the ministers are and they probably just don't have time to deal with me right now. It feels good to have something proactive to do about it, instead of just waiting for other people to help me.
And finally last night I was meeting with the powers-that-be at USC Religious Life and the Dean mentioned a rabbinical student had contacted her about a paid internship with their office. She was running the idea past my supervisor, and fortunately Elizabeth said, "Well if we pay anyone it should be Stasi!" And Rabbi Susan hadn't even thought of that but thought it was a great idea. So they have this huge national Interfaith Conference next year, and they are going to see if there's a way to hire me to work on it part-time!! Either as a consultant a few hours a week or maybe even half-time which means full benefits. Oh, how I miss my USC benefits! And what a treat to work on this conference. It's so up my alley.
Anyway, good stuff is happening. I can't even get all that freaked out about my last couple weeks' overwhelming workload because things are just dropping out of the sky and saying Hello! Be happy!
May God also answer your prayers you don't think - or dare - to pray.
So I floated the idea of TA'ing for my favorite professor today and he was really into it! In fact, next quarter (yikes - one month from now) he's teaching a class I've taken and thinks I might be able to do that one. Wowsa. It would be such an honor...and actually something I think I could do very well. Of course it's pretty good for my career, too, especially if it winds up being academic, which is feeling more and more right these days.
Yesterday I chatted with my internship supervisor about the ordination process, which she is very good about bugging me about. She suggested I talk directly to the people who were on my committee rather than waiting to hear back from the church staff. Not to go behind their backs or anything, just to say Hi and see if these people are still interested in pursuing the discernment thing with me. I know how busy the ministers are and they probably just don't have time to deal with me right now. It feels good to have something proactive to do about it, instead of just waiting for other people to help me.
And finally last night I was meeting with the powers-that-be at USC Religious Life and the Dean mentioned a rabbinical student had contacted her about a paid internship with their office. She was running the idea past my supervisor, and fortunately Elizabeth said, "Well if we pay anyone it should be Stasi!" And Rabbi Susan hadn't even thought of that but thought it was a great idea. So they have this huge national Interfaith Conference next year, and they are going to see if there's a way to hire me to work on it part-time!! Either as a consultant a few hours a week or maybe even half-time which means full benefits. Oh, how I miss my USC benefits! And what a treat to work on this conference. It's so up my alley.
Anyway, good stuff is happening. I can't even get all that freaked out about my last couple weeks' overwhelming workload because things are just dropping out of the sky and saying Hello! Be happy!
May God also answer your prayers you don't think - or dare - to pray.
Movie to see
I've been meaning to tell you that I watched the best movie over the weekend - Millions. Most people haven't heard of it (in my recommending it to profs, that is), but it's outstanding and I recommend it very highly. It's completely appropriate for families with pre-teen or teenage kids. I think it would hold the attention of teens, yet it has no explosions! Imagine!
Yes, it's very good, I even loved the kid actors in it - not annoying. So go find it and watch it!
Yes, it's very good, I even loved the kid actors in it - not annoying. So go find it and watch it!
Hail Geekdom
Well, I've been running into a lot of scholarly geekiness lately. Yesterday my prof was telling us all about the inside jokes in several indices of NT scholars' books (like EP Sanders referencing the blank pages in another book, and another person's rebuttal which is a bit complicated to explain here). Reminds me of the stuff people look for in movies - the little references in Pixar films to their other projects, continuity mistakes, etc etc.
Anyway a friend forwarded me a couple very geeky posts. But since I'm a little bit geeky, and I'm guessing a few of you are, I thought I'd share, risking being banned from the cool kids' table forever. Oh well, it would be nothing new.
The theology of kissing
The philosophy of kissing
And while we're being amused, this set me off in uncontrollable giggles and has completely taken me away from the chapters I'm supposed to be reading this morning. It's Landover Baptist's movie guide! Now I will say that it's pretty raw and not for everyone - and can be quite mean-spirited towards Christians. Clearly some haters wrote parts of this site.
Nonetheless, the way they can find a homosexual agenda behind every single movie Hollywood releases is pretty damn funny (you know, because "Kong" rhymes with "Dong"). Or check out the Return of the King review, which had me in tears. I wonder if I know the Baptist mole at New Line? It's quite possible.
Anyway, I leave you with this, from the review of a very popular Pixar film:
"Instead of running around looking for a little fish named Nemo, why don't you try finding Jesus? You unsaved morons!"
Anyway a friend forwarded me a couple very geeky posts. But since I'm a little bit geeky, and I'm guessing a few of you are, I thought I'd share, risking being banned from the cool kids' table forever. Oh well, it would be nothing new.
The theology of kissing
The philosophy of kissing
And while we're being amused, this set me off in uncontrollable giggles and has completely taken me away from the chapters I'm supposed to be reading this morning. It's Landover Baptist's movie guide! Now I will say that it's pretty raw and not for everyone - and can be quite mean-spirited towards Christians. Clearly some haters wrote parts of this site.
Nonetheless, the way they can find a homosexual agenda behind every single movie Hollywood releases is pretty damn funny (you know, because "Kong" rhymes with "Dong"). Or check out the Return of the King review, which had me in tears. I wonder if I know the Baptist mole at New Line? It's quite possible.
Anyway, I leave you with this, from the review of a very popular Pixar film:
"Instead of running around looking for a little fish named Nemo, why don't you try finding Jesus? You unsaved morons!"
Monday, February 20, 2006
Another Case Study
For this reflection paper, imagine you are the senior pastor of the congregation you consider to be your church home.
Rachel and Dan are a couple in their mid 20s in your church. They are faithful members and have a dynamic faith in Christ. They have announced their engagement and have approached you to officiate their wedding. You have met with them regularly for pre-marital counseling and to plan the wedding. As you begin finalizing details of the wedding two months before the ceremony, they go to a friend’s wedding and return with an idea for their ceremony: they would like you to serve them communion after they take their vows, but think that the size of the congregation (over 200) for the wedding would prevent everyone from receiving without it taking too long. In other words, they want to commune only, not open it to the entire congregation.
How do you respond? What are the historical and theological precedents for this practice? How does this square with the theology of the Lord’s Supper in your own tradition? How does the fact that a wedding is worship service in your church play into your response? If you respond without granting their request, what pastoral approaches do you take in your approach?
Does it matter if the bride’s mother is the church chair? The groom’s father a new Christian?
If you require communion for all, how do you fence the table? (that is, who is allowed to commune?)
I'll post my answer in a couple days.
Rachel and Dan are a couple in their mid 20s in your church. They are faithful members and have a dynamic faith in Christ. They have announced their engagement and have approached you to officiate their wedding. You have met with them regularly for pre-marital counseling and to plan the wedding. As you begin finalizing details of the wedding two months before the ceremony, they go to a friend’s wedding and return with an idea for their ceremony: they would like you to serve them communion after they take their vows, but think that the size of the congregation (over 200) for the wedding would prevent everyone from receiving without it taking too long. In other words, they want to commune only, not open it to the entire congregation.
How do you respond? What are the historical and theological precedents for this practice? How does this square with the theology of the Lord’s Supper in your own tradition? How does the fact that a wedding is worship service in your church play into your response? If you respond without granting their request, what pastoral approaches do you take in your approach?
Does it matter if the bride’s mother is the church chair? The groom’s father a new Christian?
If you require communion for all, how do you fence the table? (that is, who is allowed to commune?)
I'll post my answer in a couple days.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
More about Initation rites
I was just having an interesting conversation with J about initiation. I'm reading a chapter from James White about historical beliefs on fencing the Eucharist table, and in discussing the communing of children he brought up the issue of mental capacity. At what point do churches with believer's baptism and requirements for cognitive understanding prior to communing allow those with mental disabilities to participate in these activities? It's one thing if you're a child who'll eventually grow up and understand. What if you'll never advance developmentally past the point of 7 or 4 or even 2 years old? Are you out of the body of Christ? Is it not important or possibly to be baptized or to take communion? What does this say about our ecclesiology - and our inclusion? What about Jesus' work - he would frequently forgive sins prior to healing physical disabilities. Does this have implications on the discussion?
Anyway that got us talking about our own initiations, and I realized that mine actually included an additional step beyond baptism, confirmation, and first communion: praying the Sinner's Prayer or prayer of conversion. In my life, they happened in this order: 3 or 4 years old, prayer of conversion ("ask Jesus into your heart"). 8 or 9, baptism. Junior High, confirmation. And I don't remember when I first took communion, but it was probably after baptism. I think that was part of our belief system, to be baptized first. Hard to remember now. And I may have those years off (if someone who remembers is reading, correct me).
And that seems to be the pretty typical case in many of my friends' children's lives. Somehow this prayer of conversion is allowed - even encouraged - years before anyone would remotely consider baptizing these children. So what is that about? How can you supposedly be a Christian for several years prior to baptism and communion? (I guess it's a lot less important when those are "ordinances" not "sacraments") As best as I can remember, there was something about a private confession just between you & God (or Jesus), and only when you were ready for public profession of faith did you get baptized.
But J was really taken aback that I wasn't immediately baptized when I prayed the prayer. He said at his church, Southern Baptist, your prayer wouldn't "count" unless you were willing to get up and publicly confess your faith. Thus, the two always went together. Which is at least a bit more consistent. And I guess in his church, you wouldn't be encouraged to pray the prayer until you were at an appropriate age for baptism, which is defined as an age with cognitive understanding of the faith. I think his prayer/baptism was at 5 or 6 years old.
Anyway, I'm now questioning whether I like my friends telling their children to ask Jesus into their hearts. I got a letter from a friend rejoicing that their son, who is probably 3 or 4, had done so. But I don't know if it's really a very good idea. Seems like it causes confusion. For one thing, there's no external thing to point to to say for sure whether it was done or effective. This is why most people I know pray the conversion prayer several times throughout their lives, especially during high school at youth camps when the pressure's on, but really any time one feels one may be drifting. If salvation is based on a private prayer only, it's nerve-wracking to think you may have done it wrong, or how could you possibly have done it right when you could barely talk at 3 years old??
I remember a friend who did it every year at Vacation Bible School so she could get whatever prize they were awarding that summer. That's so funny to me now.
But seriously, that's why baptism and/or confirmation and/or first communion are better - they are public, they are ritual, they require external signs and circumstances. They are recorded and witnessed by other people. You can point to them and say Yes, it happened, and I know it was done right.
Anyway, those are a few more thoughts. I never thought about the Sinner's Prayer as an initiation rite before. What do you think?
Anyway that got us talking about our own initiations, and I realized that mine actually included an additional step beyond baptism, confirmation, and first communion: praying the Sinner's Prayer or prayer of conversion. In my life, they happened in this order: 3 or 4 years old, prayer of conversion ("ask Jesus into your heart"). 8 or 9, baptism. Junior High, confirmation. And I don't remember when I first took communion, but it was probably after baptism. I think that was part of our belief system, to be baptized first. Hard to remember now. And I may have those years off (if someone who remembers is reading, correct me).
And that seems to be the pretty typical case in many of my friends' children's lives. Somehow this prayer of conversion is allowed - even encouraged - years before anyone would remotely consider baptizing these children. So what is that about? How can you supposedly be a Christian for several years prior to baptism and communion? (I guess it's a lot less important when those are "ordinances" not "sacraments") As best as I can remember, there was something about a private confession just between you & God (or Jesus), and only when you were ready for public profession of faith did you get baptized.
But J was really taken aback that I wasn't immediately baptized when I prayed the prayer. He said at his church, Southern Baptist, your prayer wouldn't "count" unless you were willing to get up and publicly confess your faith. Thus, the two always went together. Which is at least a bit more consistent. And I guess in his church, you wouldn't be encouraged to pray the prayer until you were at an appropriate age for baptism, which is defined as an age with cognitive understanding of the faith. I think his prayer/baptism was at 5 or 6 years old.
Anyway, I'm now questioning whether I like my friends telling their children to ask Jesus into their hearts. I got a letter from a friend rejoicing that their son, who is probably 3 or 4, had done so. But I don't know if it's really a very good idea. Seems like it causes confusion. For one thing, there's no external thing to point to to say for sure whether it was done or effective. This is why most people I know pray the conversion prayer several times throughout their lives, especially during high school at youth camps when the pressure's on, but really any time one feels one may be drifting. If salvation is based on a private prayer only, it's nerve-wracking to think you may have done it wrong, or how could you possibly have done it right when you could barely talk at 3 years old??
I remember a friend who did it every year at Vacation Bible School so she could get whatever prize they were awarding that summer. That's so funny to me now.
But seriously, that's why baptism and/or confirmation and/or first communion are better - they are public, they are ritual, they require external signs and circumstances. They are recorded and witnessed by other people. You can point to them and say Yes, it happened, and I know it was done right.
Anyway, those are a few more thoughts. I never thought about the Sinner's Prayer as an initiation rite before. What do you think?
Stuff we've recently said
"The solution to liturgical abuse is always education not reformation."
(John McAteer)
"The strongest evangelical statement I've made has frequently been 'I don't know.'"
(me)
(John McAteer)
"The strongest evangelical statement I've made has frequently been 'I don't know.'"
(me)
Baptism Case Study
I'm going to go ahead and post my paper now, since it's long turned in. Those of you who are Episcopalian, hope I did right (please be gentle!) - note that the point was to talk about my personal theology of baptism and not only my denomination's. And thanks for all your helpful suggestions, some of which made it in. I really liked the idea about the Easter Vigil rubric but it came too late to be incorporated into the paper.
Those of you who aren't Episcopalian (or Christian), check out our funky ideas! Ha ha! We're wild and crazy! We like to dunk people in water then say they've been possessed by a spirit!
Seriously, my parents would just die if they read this. O how far we stray from the (mis)information of our youth.
Okay, enough. Here it is.
John and Maria plan to baptize their infant, and John has requested rebaptism due to personal faith renewal. In responding, it is important to affirm John’s spiritual journey, and the piety behind his request. As a church we are delighted that he has recovered a strong commitment to his faith. Indeed, his request for rebaptism shows that he grasps the significance of the sacrament as an act of incorporation into the church, union with Christ, and forgiveness of sin.[1] He is certainly on the right track. Pastorally, we may also recall the cautions of Tertullian, who believed infant baptism to be “unwise because the sponsor may not be able to fulfill their vows, and of course the child may grow up and denounce the faith.”[2] In John’s situation, his sponsors or his church community may have failed him, and we want to be sensitive to any healing that he is searching for by requesting this ritual.
From a theological standpoint, I would explain to John that baptism is a once-for-all act: “The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.”[3] In fact, it is the very act performed earlier in his life which has brought about the renaissance he’s recently experienced. The Holy Spirit came upon him at baptism, and has been working within him even during the years he felt distant from God. His spiritual reawakening is a direct result of his earlier baptism, an affirmation of his having received the Spirit at that event.[4] He is truly “living into his baptism.”
Fortunately for John and Maria, they’ve chosen a church with rich liturgical resources that can provide the experience John is looking for within the proper ritual and theological context. I would recommend a combined rite of baptism for baby and Reaffirmation for John.[5] The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer provides for Reaffirmation as part of the baptism service, making this an easy – and approved – combination to provide. The service is especially meaningful because it will allow John to make his affirmations both for himself and on behalf of his baby simultaneously, even as the entire congregation reaffirms their baptismal covenants, cementing their support of the new family in their life of faith. John would have sponsors from the church body, and he, Maria and Godparents would be acting as sponsors for the child.
It is only at the actual baptism and prayers over John that the rites will diverge, and these words make clear the difference between them. Baby is “sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism,” but to John we say, “John, may the Holy Spirit, who has begun a good work in you, direct and uphold you.[6] This prayer acknowledges the lifelong effects of baptism – John was sealed by the Holy Spirit, and now that same Spirit has rekindled his passion for God.
In preparation for Reaffirmation and baby’s baptism, John (with Maria and sponsors) would undergo a truncated catechumenate process – not as lengthy as that for an adult convert, but a series of classes nonetheless that explain the promises and sign-acts of the ritual. John will learn that the primary action taking place in any sacrament is God's. Yet we are not without responsibility: we must accept God’s offer of relationship by participating in the sacrament. This is undertaken with utmost seriousness on the part of clergy, candidate, sponsors, and congregation, which is particularly crucial when the one baptized is an infant (as John may know from good or bad experience).
John will also learn about the symbolism and history of baptism in his classes. For instance, when we anoint the baptizand’s forehead with oil in the sign of the cross, we are hearkening back to Jewish tradition, in which converts were marked with the Taw, a symbol of the name of God. “The sign is like a brand signifying ownership: the one baptized now belongs to God forever.”[7] The sacrament of Baptism is the moment when one becomes a member of the Body of Christ, and this was true for John (whether baptized as an infant or believer). Because of our American love affair with individualism, faith has mistakenly skewed towards individual commitment. The Anglican vision sees incorporation into the Church as vital to salvation; salvation is not a personal choice that gets one into heaven, but is sharing in the life of God. The Church is the Body of Christ; it affects and upholds an individual’s mystical union with God, inaugurated in baptism. What is foremost in John’s Reaffirmation is not his personal story but rather him reclaiming his rightful place in God’s cosmic story.
The only situations in which John’s initial baptism may be considered ineffective would be if it were done without water or without invoking the trinity. Once again, the Episcopal Church provides a liturgical solution to the problem:
If there is reasonable doubt that a person has been baptized with water, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (which are the essential parts of Baptism), the person is baptized in the usual manner, but this form of words is used
If you are not already baptized, John, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[8]
Apart from this (somewhat unlikely) possibility, the first baptism of John stands sufficient for his inclusion in the Body of Christ (with the attendant saving grace), and the appropriate step for his current faith journey would be a ritual Reaffirmation of Faith.
When I discussed this case study with an Episcopal priest, she pointed out to me that Confirmation may actually be the proper step for John, if he hadn’t been confirmed but only baptized as an infant. This is one area where his baptism being “believer’s” could make a difference in the situation, since frequently believer’s baptism does involve some kind of confirmation process. In a situation like this, we would have to find out about the baptism itself and also whether he’d been confirmed or not, and decide based on that information whether to Confirm or Reaffirm (or Receive). As I had already finished the paper above, I chose to add this additional note rather than get into all the “what-if’s” in the body of the paper.
One more reason why the separation of initiation rites proves troublesome!
[1] See White, James F., Introduction to Christian Worship 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 217ff.
[2] Lecture: “Initiation” (Johnson, CH 507).
[3] The Book of Common Prayer, 298.
[4] A belief based upon Jesus and believers receiving the Holy Spirit at some point in their initiation process: see the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism or baptism stories in Acts 8, 10, and 19.
[5] Note that special arrangements would need to be made as Reaffirmation is done by a bishop.
[6] BCP, 310.
[7] Webber, Christopher, A User's Guide to Morning Prayer and Baptism (Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1997), 41.
[8] BCP, 313.
Those of you who aren't Episcopalian (or Christian), check out our funky ideas! Ha ha! We're wild and crazy! We like to dunk people in water then say they've been possessed by a spirit!
Seriously, my parents would just die if they read this. O how far we stray from the (mis)information of our youth.
Okay, enough. Here it is.
Case Study #1: Baptism
John and Maria plan to baptize their infant, and John has requested rebaptism due to personal faith renewal. In responding, it is important to affirm John’s spiritual journey, and the piety behind his request. As a church we are delighted that he has recovered a strong commitment to his faith. Indeed, his request for rebaptism shows that he grasps the significance of the sacrament as an act of incorporation into the church, union with Christ, and forgiveness of sin.[1] He is certainly on the right track. Pastorally, we may also recall the cautions of Tertullian, who believed infant baptism to be “unwise because the sponsor may not be able to fulfill their vows, and of course the child may grow up and denounce the faith.”[2] In John’s situation, his sponsors or his church community may have failed him, and we want to be sensitive to any healing that he is searching for by requesting this ritual.
From a theological standpoint, I would explain to John that baptism is a once-for-all act: “The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble.”[3] In fact, it is the very act performed earlier in his life which has brought about the renaissance he’s recently experienced. The Holy Spirit came upon him at baptism, and has been working within him even during the years he felt distant from God. His spiritual reawakening is a direct result of his earlier baptism, an affirmation of his having received the Spirit at that event.[4] He is truly “living into his baptism.”
Fortunately for John and Maria, they’ve chosen a church with rich liturgical resources that can provide the experience John is looking for within the proper ritual and theological context. I would recommend a combined rite of baptism for baby and Reaffirmation for John.[5] The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer provides for Reaffirmation as part of the baptism service, making this an easy – and approved – combination to provide. The service is especially meaningful because it will allow John to make his affirmations both for himself and on behalf of his baby simultaneously, even as the entire congregation reaffirms their baptismal covenants, cementing their support of the new family in their life of faith. John would have sponsors from the church body, and he, Maria and Godparents would be acting as sponsors for the child.
It is only at the actual baptism and prayers over John that the rites will diverge, and these words make clear the difference between them. Baby is “sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism,” but to John we say, “John, may the Holy Spirit, who has begun a good work in you, direct and uphold you.[6] This prayer acknowledges the lifelong effects of baptism – John was sealed by the Holy Spirit, and now that same Spirit has rekindled his passion for God.
In preparation for Reaffirmation and baby’s baptism, John (with Maria and sponsors) would undergo a truncated catechumenate process – not as lengthy as that for an adult convert, but a series of classes nonetheless that explain the promises and sign-acts of the ritual. John will learn that the primary action taking place in any sacrament is God's. Yet we are not without responsibility: we must accept God’s offer of relationship by participating in the sacrament. This is undertaken with utmost seriousness on the part of clergy, candidate, sponsors, and congregation, which is particularly crucial when the one baptized is an infant (as John may know from good or bad experience).
John will also learn about the symbolism and history of baptism in his classes. For instance, when we anoint the baptizand’s forehead with oil in the sign of the cross, we are hearkening back to Jewish tradition, in which converts were marked with the Taw, a symbol of the name of God. “The sign is like a brand signifying ownership: the one baptized now belongs to God forever.”[7] The sacrament of Baptism is the moment when one becomes a member of the Body of Christ, and this was true for John (whether baptized as an infant or believer). Because of our American love affair with individualism, faith has mistakenly skewed towards individual commitment. The Anglican vision sees incorporation into the Church as vital to salvation; salvation is not a personal choice that gets one into heaven, but is sharing in the life of God. The Church is the Body of Christ; it affects and upholds an individual’s mystical union with God, inaugurated in baptism. What is foremost in John’s Reaffirmation is not his personal story but rather him reclaiming his rightful place in God’s cosmic story.
The only situations in which John’s initial baptism may be considered ineffective would be if it were done without water or without invoking the trinity. Once again, the Episcopal Church provides a liturgical solution to the problem:
If there is reasonable doubt that a person has been baptized with water, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (which are the essential parts of Baptism), the person is baptized in the usual manner, but this form of words is used
If you are not already baptized, John, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[8]
Apart from this (somewhat unlikely) possibility, the first baptism of John stands sufficient for his inclusion in the Body of Christ (with the attendant saving grace), and the appropriate step for his current faith journey would be a ritual Reaffirmation of Faith.
Additional Note:
When I discussed this case study with an Episcopal priest, she pointed out to me that Confirmation may actually be the proper step for John, if he hadn’t been confirmed but only baptized as an infant. This is one area where his baptism being “believer’s” could make a difference in the situation, since frequently believer’s baptism does involve some kind of confirmation process. In a situation like this, we would have to find out about the baptism itself and also whether he’d been confirmed or not, and decide based on that information whether to Confirm or Reaffirm (or Receive). As I had already finished the paper above, I chose to add this additional note rather than get into all the “what-if’s” in the body of the paper.
One more reason why the separation of initiation rites proves troublesome!
[1] See White, James F., Introduction to Christian Worship 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 217ff.
[2] Lecture: “Initiation” (Johnson, CH 507).
[3] The Book of Common Prayer, 298.
[4] A belief based upon Jesus and believers receiving the Holy Spirit at some point in their initiation process: see the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism or baptism stories in Acts 8, 10, and 19.
[5] Note that special arrangements would need to be made as Reaffirmation is done by a bishop.
[6] BCP, 310.
[7] Webber, Christopher, A User's Guide to Morning Prayer and Baptism (Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1997), 41.
[8] BCP, 313.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Sad news
My friend's dad died. Heart attack. She was so close to him. She's my age. He was young. It was sudden and unexpected.
My problems are so lame.
My problems are so lame.
I know what you did last weekend...
I went to a retreat with seminarians from Jewish and Catholic seminaries. I guess I was representing Protestantism, though I'm not really the best candidate for that.
I actually was kind of advanced for all of it - purely because I've spent so much time in real Inter-faith dialogue (I didn't really consider this group inter-FAITH) this year. The things that were amazing or difficult for others were things my kids taught me a long time ago. So it was all nice, but a little bit retread. And it kept bugging me how Christian/Jewish it was - no Eastern perspective, not even Muslim. It felt very exclusive. I mean, I guess it's cool if you've never met a Jewish person or a Catholic, but if you regularly dialogue with Swamis and Buddhist Monks, this group comes off as pretty tame - and very homogenous.
So anyway at one point I'm talking to this guy who's a catholic, and we're all about liturgy, and how great it is, and how much fun it is to be sacramental theologians. We're lightly ripping on the low church ideas about baptism, etc. - all in good fun, you know, just enjoying "our way" best.
At one point I said something about not being Catholic and working my way there, and he said Oh you're Anglican, you're close enough. Anglicans are fine.
But then somehow he made a distinction between Anglicans and American Episcopalians and I said well that's what I am and he stopped in his tracks.
You're Episcopal? You said you were Anglican!
I tried to explain, but from his body language and sudden change of tone I could see I had suddenly not become a Christian to him. He learned I was liberal and there went his opinion of me, down the toilet. He even chastised me for going to a conservative school like Fuller and told me I deserve whatever trouble I get there.
At one point, he even sneered, "Weren't you guys kicked out of the Anglican church?"
And I had to explain No, not the Episcopalians, the churches that split were kicked out because they voluntarily left the communion. Well they weren't even kicked out, they just left.
Which he argued with, telling me no, he was pretty sure we were kicked out.
And I said no, the Americans were chastised for moving forward with Robinson's ordination before the Communion was ready for it. And the Africans were chastised for taking our churches into their dioceses, which is against the rules of the communion. And both of us were asked to sit out of one meeting.
And we wrote a very well-done statement about why we did what we did.
But that interchange pretty much ruined the weekend for me. I already had enough trouble sleeping and was not in the best of moods. Then this little encounter happened and I just want to go home. Here's what I wrote in the throes of emoting:
I'm pretty much done with this whole experience. I feel crappy. I almost left the next session because I was on the verge of tears. Yet again, I don't belong, I'm not accepted, and my brand of Christianity doesn't count. When I tried to tell him that I care about the creeds and the Bible and I really wrestle to biblically explain my liberal social positions, he snorted: I'll bet you do.
What a jackass! He even said, rather sarcastically, "Well I guess I can still talk to you." This is not following the rules of civilized dialogue.
Well anyway thank God for the Jews, because they rescued the day. I had lunch with a great group of students from the University of Judaism, and they were so cool. I guess because they were, although from a conservative school, much closer to me politically and socially.
I don't think I'd go again, it just wasn't that valuable of an experience for me and would probably be better for someone else. That said, I'm really happy I met the people I did and I hope to stay in touch with them. It never hurts to have a rabbi in your pocket, right?
I actually was kind of advanced for all of it - purely because I've spent so much time in real Inter-faith dialogue (I didn't really consider this group inter-FAITH) this year. The things that were amazing or difficult for others were things my kids taught me a long time ago. So it was all nice, but a little bit retread. And it kept bugging me how Christian/Jewish it was - no Eastern perspective, not even Muslim. It felt very exclusive. I mean, I guess it's cool if you've never met a Jewish person or a Catholic, but if you regularly dialogue with Swamis and Buddhist Monks, this group comes off as pretty tame - and very homogenous.
So anyway at one point I'm talking to this guy who's a catholic, and we're all about liturgy, and how great it is, and how much fun it is to be sacramental theologians. We're lightly ripping on the low church ideas about baptism, etc. - all in good fun, you know, just enjoying "our way" best.
At one point I said something about not being Catholic and working my way there, and he said Oh you're Anglican, you're close enough. Anglicans are fine.
But then somehow he made a distinction between Anglicans and American Episcopalians and I said well that's what I am and he stopped in his tracks.
You're Episcopal? You said you were Anglican!
I tried to explain, but from his body language and sudden change of tone I could see I had suddenly not become a Christian to him. He learned I was liberal and there went his opinion of me, down the toilet. He even chastised me for going to a conservative school like Fuller and told me I deserve whatever trouble I get there.
At one point, he even sneered, "Weren't you guys kicked out of the Anglican church?"
And I had to explain No, not the Episcopalians, the churches that split were kicked out because they voluntarily left the communion. Well they weren't even kicked out, they just left.
Which he argued with, telling me no, he was pretty sure we were kicked out.
And I said no, the Americans were chastised for moving forward with Robinson's ordination before the Communion was ready for it. And the Africans were chastised for taking our churches into their dioceses, which is against the rules of the communion. And both of us were asked to sit out of one meeting.
And we wrote a very well-done statement about why we did what we did.
But that interchange pretty much ruined the weekend for me. I already had enough trouble sleeping and was not in the best of moods. Then this little encounter happened and I just want to go home. Here's what I wrote in the throes of emoting:
I'm pretty much done with this whole experience. I feel crappy. I almost left the next session because I was on the verge of tears. Yet again, I don't belong, I'm not accepted, and my brand of Christianity doesn't count. When I tried to tell him that I care about the creeds and the Bible and I really wrestle to biblically explain my liberal social positions, he snorted: I'll bet you do.
What a jackass! He even said, rather sarcastically, "Well I guess I can still talk to you." This is not following the rules of civilized dialogue.
Well anyway thank God for the Jews, because they rescued the day. I had lunch with a great group of students from the University of Judaism, and they were so cool. I guess because they were, although from a conservative school, much closer to me politically and socially.
I don't think I'd go again, it just wasn't that valuable of an experience for me and would probably be better for someone else. That said, I'm really happy I met the people I did and I hope to stay in touch with them. It never hurts to have a rabbi in your pocket, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)