http://www.civitatedei.com/2011/09/tim-kellers-subtle-contextualization/
In the last ten years I have become jaded about the word "contextualization" the way I used to be jaded (and still am) about "community". "Community" is one of those buzzwords used by people who are out to sell you something, namely their particular idea of community. I have written elsewhere on this blog about how much of what passes for "community" in Christian circles does not constitute community but alliance.
Much that passes for contextualization is tangential appropriation. Now let's be fair to post-internet preachers, it's not as though pastors didn't scour newspaper headlines for sometimes dubious sermon illustrations before Al Gore invented the internet. Cartoons depicting pastors desperately trying to form the acronym SUPERBOWL in sermon illustrations pre-date the internet. Christians in America are nothing if not eager to over-explain themselves. Thus the Wittenburg Door could publish a classic little one panel strip where a Christian singer songwriter is tuning his guitar and says, "Let me tell you a fifteen minute story about how God inspired me to write this three minute song." As Dan put it over on City of God, sorta, contextualization is what you do when you're not busy talking about doing it.
Much as I love brothers and sisters in Christ over at Mars Hill let me ask a leading question here, who is engaging culture and moving upstream to influence culture more, Driscoll when he rants about Avatar and Twilight or Andrew Stanton making movies like Finding Nemo and WALL-E? Someone seems quite a bit further upstream and engaging cultural concerns from within a Christian perspective and if I had to pick between Mark Driscoll and Andrew Stanton then Stanton seems like the person further upstream and more directly engaging culture. After all those Mars Hill members who listened to three months of Peasant Princess got busy and spawned babies odds are pretty good that their progeny are going to get exposed to exponentially more hours of Pixar films than Driscoll sermons. And this, really, is at it should be, but it also means that "engaging culture" and "influencing culture" are the things that are busy being done by people who rarely announce that this is what they're doing, they just go do it. Actually do it, not just talk about how Christians should aspire to do this.
A few years ago I wrote that the only real danger in any contextualization is the simple question of WHAT is being contextualized. Are you contextualizing "the Gospel" or contextualizing yourself? Contextualizing the Gospel would be discussing the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the apostles, the Triune God, and Christ as come in the flesh and risen from the dead in a way that touches upon a time and place. The moment of appropriation is present in any case of contextualization. Paul quotes Hellenistic poets and shares what they get right before proceeding to discuss who Jesus is.
But Paul quotes the Hellenistic poets as a pretext as much as a gesture of mutual understanding. The pretext is to move on to the Gospel itself, which interrupts and subverts the culture that is being engaged. Paul says "This and this you have are true but it is not adequate to a proper understanding of the true person and nature of God." To the extent that old-schoolers like MacArthur say that we should not contextualize the Gospel I agree when this means that the core doctrines of the faith don't change and we don't need to diverge from that.
Yet Francis Schaeffer's criticism of evangelicalism remains, "If Jesus is the answer, what is the question?" I am no longer sure that the "never contextualize" folks will ever care about this because they see that everything comes down to sin and there's nothing new or interesting about neurobiology, theory of mind, or anything else to discuss because there is nothing new under the sun and that means we don't have to study too long to figure out that whatever is going on today is just more of the same old heresy. Well ... kinda. But, for instance, not all stripes of Montanism are the same, just as not all stripes of church/state equivalency are the same. Reformed Christians who would denounce papists for a conflation of church and state concerns didn't seem to mind backing the Confederacy in a way that made them the pot calling the kettle black. If I may go so far as to say Anabaptists have one good idea it's proposing that the historical nexus of church with state power is always a bad one. It is, ironically, one thing a lot of American Christians have assimilated (and credobaptism) while explicitly rejecting all kinds of other things. But I digress again.
I've heard more than a few Keller sermons by now and when Keller provides an illustration or a contextualization moment it has a particular character. In a sermon on Christian friendship he cites C. S. Lewis' The Four Loves. Keller notes Lewis' observation that ours is an era that lionizes eros and that our literature is not full of famous friendships, or popular culture does not have friendships as famous as the names of famous lovers. Romeo and Juliet,, Antony and Cleopatra, these we know.
I would say that for anyone steeped in cartoons and childrens' stories there is another side to this. Don't we "all" know about Batman and Robin, Charlie Brown & Snoopy, Calvin & Hobbes, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble? Then there's Wallace & Gromit. Shaggy and Scooby Doo. Consider Bart Simpson and Milhouse. For that matter, moving further along, there's Kyle, Stan, Cartman and Kenny. Under the noses of most so-called "adult" story-telling cartoons have been trafficking in stories of friendship for generations but we have, as a culture, often felt that there is a need to graduate from kid-fare into "adult" entertainment. Not THAT kind of adult entertainment, the other kinds. Still, Lewis, and by extension Keller, have a point, romances are more dominant in our culture than friendships.
Moving on, when Keller discusses friendship in ancient literature, Christian and otherwise, his stops on the road of literature and philosophy emphasize friendship within the sermon. They are not digressions but necessary elements in the presentation on how Christians can and should think about friendship both within the history of Christian reflection itself and within the broader context of human experience. In this way a contextualizing episode contextualizes ideas that relate to a Christian teaching about a topic in the scriptures in a way that permits reference to historic application.
At the risk of still using Driscoll as a negative example, most of the contraversies that have brewed up about the guy have had to do with digressionary rants within sermons that are far better known than the actual sermons in which they appeared. Who out there in the general populace heard that Driscoll preached a sermon on spiritual warfare in his Luke series? Anyone? No? Well, what about the bit how Avatar is the most satanic movie Mark has ever seen? Ah, a few people heard that. What biblical text and subject was Driscoll discussing when he had that soundbite about how video games are stupid because they are the pursuit of vicarious victories that don't matter and aren't building a legacy? Anyone remember which sermon that was?
Now I'll put my cards on the table here, I'm PCA for a number of reasons and I'm not going to hide my preference for Keller style contextualization over Driscoll style contextualization. Keller brings up cultural, literary, and philosophical aspects as a way to discuss things related to biblical texts. The connection is thematic rather than purely exegetical but there's an observable connection. So if Keller talks about how the Back to the Future movies give us a message that the future is entirely in our hands so we must make it a good one in contrast to movies that discuss destiny and fate, his thread is to show that popular culture cannot resolve the question of determinism and free will and that with respect to the life of the individual believer we can't say that the Bible gives us a clear cut resolution of the question of determinism via God's sovereignty and our responsibility for our actions. The pop cultural trivia become a point from which to observe that if Christians have not resolved the freedom/determinism question how much less has the world? You remember the illustration but you also remember the point for which the illustration was brought up to begin with.
I'm afraid Driscoll is often not that far along in his skill as an orator. In the last few years Driscoll's sermon digressions have become tidal waves of personal punditry that obliterate the relevance of his actual pastoral points. This is probably due far more to the people who put soundbites and video clips of him in Mars Hill media than Driscoll's actual hour-long sermons. That is also, unfortunately, generally immaterial because the little fracases describe themselves. When Driscoll discusses Avatar as the most satanic movie he's ever seenin a sermon on spiritual warfare he's contextualizing ... but by making the focal point of his contextualizing episode what HE thinks of Avatar what he ends up contextualizing is not a scriptural teaching on, say, friendship in light of what Christians and pagans have historically thought about friendship. What Driscoll ends up contextualizing in his rants against Avatar or video games is simply himself and his opinions about cultural trends that rarely need to be brought up in the setting of an allegedly expository sermon that is just discussing what is in a biblical text.
Now I have a friend who used to be a Christian and within the last ten years one of the things he has admitted to finding insufferable about a lot of preachers, particularly in some youth pastors, is a desperate appropriation of pop culture. He heard a youth pastor say of Aragorn after Return of the King hit theaters that Aragorn was a type of Christ. Superman, somewhat famously, has been described as being a type of Christ but this just gets at how meaningless the appropriation has become. To say that so and so is like Jesus simply means that the person or thing is so famous and unobjectionable as to not be worthy of scabrous attacks within the confines of an increasingly secular civic pseudo-religion. Anyone can say these days that they respect the real Jesus but reject Christianity.
A lot of what is passed off as "contextualization" is going to be more revealing of your Netflix queue as it is any indication of whether or not you even read the Bible. More is revealed by a person attempting to say that Optimus Prime or Superman or Jack Bauer are Christ-types than is ever revealed by the stories of those three characters as manifestations of American pop culture. Sure, there may be cosmetic resemblances between three characters and stories about Jesus but as skeptics have been pointing out for millenia, there are all sorts of fascinating similarities between early Christian tales and pagan mystery religions. The atheist and the skeptic could ask whether or not these Christians who see Superman, Jack Bauer, or Optimus Prime as Christ types are seeing Jesus in those characters or whether they are seeing those characters in their own custom-built versions of Jesus.
There are, for that matter, some Christians who are more careful about getting things right with the timeline for the Star Wars expanded universe than have paid attention to the significance of Rehoboam's first major decision as king in the wake of Solomon's death. There are people who are more alert to whether Greedo shot first than to what the significance might be of Micaiah being shown by God to tell Ahab a lying spirit had been sent to Ahab's prophets. No, I'm not going to give you chapter and verse because my point is to demonstrate that if you don't already know the tale and you can keep track of all the plot twists and character arcs on Lost you're revealing where your priorities have been. I haven't even seen a whole episode of Lost. I confess my nerdiness is already well-attested and accounted for.
It's okay to know a lot about nerdy stuff if you're a Christian but if you remember episodes of Family Guy or score listings for baseball games or things like that more readily than you can grasp the history of Israel as part of the history of Christ relating to His Creation then, well, I can't really make you fix that but I can urge you to consider what stuff is being contextualized for the sake of what. If there is any tragic flaw in the way some pastors "contextualize" it's that they do not impart for their church members a zeal for the scriptures themselves but a willingness to defend their pastors ultimately forgettable digressions on pop culture. Don't defend your pastor's cultural trivial pursuits, don't defend your pastor's rabbit trails into personal and cultural anecdotes. What will last are not the stories about the pastor's kids or the movies or books or video games or restaurants your pastor does or doesn't like. When your pastor (or mine) stands before the throne of Christ what's going to matter is what the pastor said about Him.
What if you, as a pastor, stood before Jesus' throne and Jesus asked you if you ever used the pulpit as a pretext for making fun of things you don't like? What would you say? You'd have to plead guilty, first of all, and second you'd have to consider whether or not the use of the pulpit and the privilege of expounding the scriptures to those who need to hear the words of life was worth taking that liberty. Now I'm not hiding my frequent disagreement with a guy like John MacArthur but I'm willing to say that on this particular subject he and I are probably in some agreement.
But there are two edges to this blade. Jesus can look at you and ask if you preached only Him or if you also preached Jack Bauer or golf or whatever other things you liked. But Jesus can also ask if you preached only His words instead of preaching against your dislike of The Simpsons or Family Guy or Desperate Housewives or light beer or vegetarians or Republicans or Democrats. As David Martyn Lloyd-Jones put it half a century ago, there will come a point where your being opposed to communism will not prove that you are in any way actually a follower of Christ. Being opposed to "contextualization" is the same way. My salvation and yours does not depend, thank God, on whether or not the words of so many forgettable and forgotten preachers went this way or that. He must become greater and greater and we must become less and less.
Then again I'm not a pastor, hope never to be, and perhaps don't know what I'm talking about.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Confident in competence
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/09/on-quitting-my-job.html#comments
My friend Wendy posted this recently and it reminded me of a discussion on her blog earlier this year. A few people suggested that men derive a sense of worth from their professions while women find their worth in things like relationships and family. Some women (rightly) objected that this is far too simplistic a take on things. The simplification is problematic not because there are no women who measure their worth as wives and mothers in contrast to women who measure their worth as professionals or theologians; the simplification is problematic because it does not go far enough.
Our confidence in worldly terms sooner or later comes down to our competence. To cast this in utterly high school stereotypes the jock boasts in his athletic ability and the nerd boasts in his academic ability but both ground themselves in a competence. The pretty cheerleader who isn't much of a scholar but who is beautiful and well-liked and knows how to get along with the important people in the social structure grounders herself in competence. The teacher's pet does the same thing, as does the rebellious loner. In the course of our lives we weigh and balance what competencies seem most likely to give us the kind of life we want. The world does this at length and Christians are no different ... except that we often spiritualize our pursuit of competence in theological terms like "vocation" and "honoring the Lord" and "leaving a legacy." Certainly those three things are precious and valuable, but we can still end up defining ourselves by what we believe our competencies are.
It may be helpful to consider the following things. When Isaiah wrote to the barren woman and the eunuch he was telling them that the Lord was going to bring about a reversal. Those who entrust themselves to God will receive God Himself as their heritage, inheritance, and legacy even though by the measures of even the godly people of that age they had nothing and were nothing. They as individuals didn't matter and their names would not endure. When Qoholeth surveyed all the things he built he considered it meaningless. He had amassed a mountain of wealth someone else would receive after his death. He built many great things and yet these things would inevitably crumble and fall. He built himself a great legacy but saw it was vain.
Now traditionally Solomon is considered to be the author but even if we assume for the sake of discussion (and not even all conservative scholars agree that Solomon wrote the book) notice something about this book Ecclesiastes if Solomon was the author--the book is written in such a way as to deflect our attention away from anything that would make Solomon unique. Solomon never comes out and says "I'm Solomon and I wrote this book." Consider how self-effacing it is if one of the greatest kings in Israel who is credited with a library of songs and attached his name to the book of Proverbs and had his name attached to Song of Songs to, say, write Ecclesiastes but deliberately avoid even naming himself. Of course this could mean Solomon didn't write the book of Ecclesiastes but if he did then we overlook an obvious point if we focus on Solomonic authoriship as a point for scriptural authority and not at Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes as a take-down of the validity of Solomon's own legacy.
If Solomon refused to identify himself in any direct way and said the end of the matter is to fear God this means that this takes precedent over Solomon's own legacy. Kings and Chronicles do not suggest in any clear way that Solomon ever repented of his legions of sinful habits, though, and though it's nice to think that Solomon repented and wrote Ecclesiastes the warnings of Kings and Chronicles and Ecclesiastes do not stand or fall only on Solomonic authorship. The competency the author gained in being wise turns out to have been a trap. He sees that with increased knowledge comes increased misery and that the wise and the fool both die anyway, so what was gained in becoming so very wise? Something, to be sure, but something that will be lost at death.
To the extent that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and withheld his name we can see this as a kind of abnegation of his unique competence as being the foundation for his observations. Iain Provan mentions in his commentary on 1 & 2 Kings that the author talks about David considering Solomon's wisdom and we see Solomon asked for wisdom. There is a dramatic tension in the narrative in which we are invited to figure out whose wisdom Solomon is operating within when he makes this decision or that, the wisdom from Yahweh or his own wisdom. By the end of Solomon's life recounted in Kings and Chronicles it becomes tragically apparent which sort of wisdom dominated. It is good to gain wisdom and it is good to gain competence but these can be, in their own ways, snares. You and I will eventually and inevitably be forgotten as everyone will be. Jesus said to not store up treasures here on earth that will rot and rust but to store up treasures in heaven. It is good to be skilled and to be competent. The scriptures say that a man who is skilled in his labor will stand before kings and will not serve obscure and unknown men. That's true ... but it's also true, as Qoholeth noted so grimly, that great and wise men of all kinds are forgotten after they die, just like all the idiots who helped create the problems that great and wise men had to figure out how to solve! Death is the fate of everyone and the living take this to heart.
A Christian's struggle is not merely in vocation to be productive and helpful to others, though that is important, a Christian must remember he or she is saved not by self-possessed or self-acquired competence. Our competence will not always save us, no matter how much of it we have. The Lord is our provider and sometimes, truly, the Lord lets us suffer to the point of shed blood or some other kind of death. To deny this is to deny what the scriptures teach. In him we live and move and have our being as Paul shared at Areogapus, but he also said that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Whether we live or die it is to the Lord. Just because Jesus makes up my dying bed doesn't mean dying is ever fun but if Jesus makes up my dying bed it is He who raises me. It is His omnicompetence and not my competence or imcompetence that is the foundation of hope.
My friend Wendy posted this recently and it reminded me of a discussion on her blog earlier this year. A few people suggested that men derive a sense of worth from their professions while women find their worth in things like relationships and family. Some women (rightly) objected that this is far too simplistic a take on things. The simplification is problematic not because there are no women who measure their worth as wives and mothers in contrast to women who measure their worth as professionals or theologians; the simplification is problematic because it does not go far enough.
Our confidence in worldly terms sooner or later comes down to our competence. To cast this in utterly high school stereotypes the jock boasts in his athletic ability and the nerd boasts in his academic ability but both ground themselves in a competence. The pretty cheerleader who isn't much of a scholar but who is beautiful and well-liked and knows how to get along with the important people in the social structure grounders herself in competence. The teacher's pet does the same thing, as does the rebellious loner. In the course of our lives we weigh and balance what competencies seem most likely to give us the kind of life we want. The world does this at length and Christians are no different ... except that we often spiritualize our pursuit of competence in theological terms like "vocation" and "honoring the Lord" and "leaving a legacy." Certainly those three things are precious and valuable, but we can still end up defining ourselves by what we believe our competencies are.
It may be helpful to consider the following things. When Isaiah wrote to the barren woman and the eunuch he was telling them that the Lord was going to bring about a reversal. Those who entrust themselves to God will receive God Himself as their heritage, inheritance, and legacy even though by the measures of even the godly people of that age they had nothing and were nothing. They as individuals didn't matter and their names would not endure. When Qoholeth surveyed all the things he built he considered it meaningless. He had amassed a mountain of wealth someone else would receive after his death. He built many great things and yet these things would inevitably crumble and fall. He built himself a great legacy but saw it was vain.
Now traditionally Solomon is considered to be the author but even if we assume for the sake of discussion (and not even all conservative scholars agree that Solomon wrote the book) notice something about this book Ecclesiastes if Solomon was the author--the book is written in such a way as to deflect our attention away from anything that would make Solomon unique. Solomon never comes out and says "I'm Solomon and I wrote this book." Consider how self-effacing it is if one of the greatest kings in Israel who is credited with a library of songs and attached his name to the book of Proverbs and had his name attached to Song of Songs to, say, write Ecclesiastes but deliberately avoid even naming himself. Of course this could mean Solomon didn't write the book of Ecclesiastes but if he did then we overlook an obvious point if we focus on Solomonic authoriship as a point for scriptural authority and not at Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes as a take-down of the validity of Solomon's own legacy.
If Solomon refused to identify himself in any direct way and said the end of the matter is to fear God this means that this takes precedent over Solomon's own legacy. Kings and Chronicles do not suggest in any clear way that Solomon ever repented of his legions of sinful habits, though, and though it's nice to think that Solomon repented and wrote Ecclesiastes the warnings of Kings and Chronicles and Ecclesiastes do not stand or fall only on Solomonic authorship. The competency the author gained in being wise turns out to have been a trap. He sees that with increased knowledge comes increased misery and that the wise and the fool both die anyway, so what was gained in becoming so very wise? Something, to be sure, but something that will be lost at death.
To the extent that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and withheld his name we can see this as a kind of abnegation of his unique competence as being the foundation for his observations. Iain Provan mentions in his commentary on 1 & 2 Kings that the author talks about David considering Solomon's wisdom and we see Solomon asked for wisdom. There is a dramatic tension in the narrative in which we are invited to figure out whose wisdom Solomon is operating within when he makes this decision or that, the wisdom from Yahweh or his own wisdom. By the end of Solomon's life recounted in Kings and Chronicles it becomes tragically apparent which sort of wisdom dominated. It is good to gain wisdom and it is good to gain competence but these can be, in their own ways, snares. You and I will eventually and inevitably be forgotten as everyone will be. Jesus said to not store up treasures here on earth that will rot and rust but to store up treasures in heaven. It is good to be skilled and to be competent. The scriptures say that a man who is skilled in his labor will stand before kings and will not serve obscure and unknown men. That's true ... but it's also true, as Qoholeth noted so grimly, that great and wise men of all kinds are forgotten after they die, just like all the idiots who helped create the problems that great and wise men had to figure out how to solve! Death is the fate of everyone and the living take this to heart.
A Christian's struggle is not merely in vocation to be productive and helpful to others, though that is important, a Christian must remember he or she is saved not by self-possessed or self-acquired competence. Our competence will not always save us, no matter how much of it we have. The Lord is our provider and sometimes, truly, the Lord lets us suffer to the point of shed blood or some other kind of death. To deny this is to deny what the scriptures teach. In him we live and move and have our being as Paul shared at Areogapus, but he also said that to live is Christ and to die is gain. Whether we live or die it is to the Lord. Just because Jesus makes up my dying bed doesn't mean dying is ever fun but if Jesus makes up my dying bed it is He who raises me. It is His omnicompetence and not my competence or imcompetence that is the foundation of hope.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
James MacDonald disagrees with people who think T. D. Jakes is a modalist
I learned of this bit of trivia by way of the Boar's Head Tavern resident Matthew Johnson
http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=9055
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/09/is-nicene-christianity-that-im.php
Among other things James MacDonald wrote the following:
... I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.
So he affirms the doctrine of the Trinity as he finds it in Scripture. He believes it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. Nothing should be clarified that is left opaque.
So does this mean that MacDonald is seriously laying out a precedent through his public teaching and blogging in which it is more crucial to agree with him that, say, congregational rule is Satanic and most be spoken out against more vociferously than, say, Nestorianism? Or Docetism? Is the Satanic nature of congregational polity that clearly spelled out in Scripture in comparison to say the fully divine and human nature of Christ? If you don't get things nailed down along the lines of the Nicene Creed about the Trinity, well, hey, no biggie. But you better be sure you're not advocating congregational ecclesiology or suggesting that multi-site church preaching and sacramentology might have some long-term short-comings. Yeah, that, uh, is really reassuring there, man. For a second I would have thought that the Trinity and how we formulate it and understand it is nothing less than a make or break issue in the Christian faith. But what do I know? I only sat through the 2008 Doctrine series Mark Driscoll preached.
For the record, going through 10 of 27 books of the NT doesn't prove a person has any competence as an exegete or biblical scholar. Sorry, but it's true. A preacher can go through the whole book of Romans one verse at a time but if he's a Jehovah's Witness it's washed up.
What people say and think about the Trinity matters astronomically more than whether or not they'll agree with James MacDonald that congregational church leadership is from Satan or that multi-site churches constitute a basis from which MacDonald can keep Mark Dever from finishing more than a single sentence. MacDonald can say that the Trinity is a big deal and we know this is because it is true. But just the idea that not being informed by a creedal approach about the Trinity while sticking up for the idea that congregational rule is of Satan ... that's just something I don't get. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=9055
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/09/is-nicene-christianity-that-im.php
Among other things James MacDonald wrote the following:
... I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.
So he affirms the doctrine of the Trinity as he finds it in Scripture. He believes it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. Nothing should be clarified that is left opaque.
So does this mean that MacDonald is seriously laying out a precedent through his public teaching and blogging in which it is more crucial to agree with him that, say, congregational rule is Satanic and most be spoken out against more vociferously than, say, Nestorianism? Or Docetism? Is the Satanic nature of congregational polity that clearly spelled out in Scripture in comparison to say the fully divine and human nature of Christ? If you don't get things nailed down along the lines of the Nicene Creed about the Trinity, well, hey, no biggie. But you better be sure you're not advocating congregational ecclesiology or suggesting that multi-site church preaching and sacramentology might have some long-term short-comings. Yeah, that, uh, is really reassuring there, man. For a second I would have thought that the Trinity and how we formulate it and understand it is nothing less than a make or break issue in the Christian faith. But what do I know? I only sat through the 2008 Doctrine series Mark Driscoll preached.
For the record, going through 10 of 27 books of the NT doesn't prove a person has any competence as an exegete or biblical scholar. Sorry, but it's true. A preacher can go through the whole book of Romans one verse at a time but if he's a Jehovah's Witness it's washed up.
What people say and think about the Trinity matters astronomically more than whether or not they'll agree with James MacDonald that congregational church leadership is from Satan or that multi-site churches constitute a basis from which MacDonald can keep Mark Dever from finishing more than a single sentence. MacDonald can say that the Trinity is a big deal and we know this is because it is true. But just the idea that not being informed by a creedal approach about the Trinity while sticking up for the idea that congregational rule is of Satan ... that's just something I don't get. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
I think ... I think ...
I think I may be making the breakthroughs I need in a couple of projects now. :) I've made some important discoveries about how to approach my final fugue in my cycle thanks to Bach and Beethoven (duh, should have thought of this earlier).
I've also made a serendipitous discovery dusting off G. K. Chesterton that is going to be (probably) a vital new element in my forthcoming series at Mockingbird about Batman: the animateed series. Yep, Chesterton ... and C. S. Lewis, but chiefly Chesterton.
I've also made a serendipitous discovery dusting off G. K. Chesterton that is going to be (probably) a vital new element in my forthcoming series at Mockingbird about Batman: the animateed series. Yep, Chesterton ... and C. S. Lewis, but chiefly Chesterton.
Monday, September 26, 2011
a bit more from DG Hart on The Gospel Coalition
http://oldlife.org/2011/09/the-problem-of-sappy-evangelicals/
... Which is why it is possible that the problem afflicting the evangelicals at the Gospel Coalition is one of sentimentality. That is, they value feelings more than doctrine. This is what Ken Myers called orthopathy instead of orthodoxy. This does not mean that the folks at TGC ignore doctrine. Obviously, they promote it. But they never let it function in a way that might make leaders, readers, or bloggers uncomfortable — that is, doctrine will never be offensive, especially to the co-allies. But they seem to have no problem patrolling the Christian world for incorrect emotions.
This would apparently explain why the bloggers at TGC have yet to mention the two six hundred pound gorillas in the TGC parlor — C. J. Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. The former has at the very least created a ruckus about the kind of pastoral leadership within SGM circles, which would seem to undermine TGC’s commitment to promoting gospel-centered churches. And then there is Dricoll’s clairvoyance which in sixteenth-century Geneva would have gotten him drowned. I understand that these situations are delicate and that friends want to stand by friends. But to call Calvinists — yet again — angry when TGC has its own image problems is well nigh remarkable unless, that is, you remember the importance of feelings, affections, passions, and hedonism. A co-ally may not be able to spot Mahaney’s or Driscoll’s errors but can FEEL their pain.
***
I've seen rows of comments deleted from articles at the Gospel Coalition. One of the more memorable ones was an interview with Driscoll where he explained that 1,000 members left Mars Hill because they ramped up their doctrinal requirements. They didn't, I was there and they didn't ramp up doctrinal requirements in any meaningful way. What they did do was insist that members of long-standing had to renew their membership and said (but did not enforce) the new policy was renewing members had to sign off that they agreed with all the new by-laws circa 2007. I didn't renew because I didn't see the point of having to renew membership on the condition of saying I agreed to a pile of by-laws I was not allowed to have any input or say about. It's not a matter of some populist democratic impulse, it's a matter that the previous three to four times I renewed my membership I wasn't given this new requirement. Some friends and family renewed their memberships and never even SAW the by-laws.
The ridiculousness of setting up a criteria that was never even enforced got to be a bit much for me. And then this is sidelined and the "real" reason for a loss of members is an increased doctrinal stress? Sorry, I wish that were actually the case but nothing changed. Now if Mars Hill doctrine specifically repudiated both postmillenialism and premillenialism on the grounds that theonomistic reconstructionism and Rapture-expectant apocalypticism do harm to the spiritual health of congregants THAT would have been a truly brave and more demanding stance on doctrine!
Even something as simple as telling paedobaptists to go find another church would be braver but I have known any number of closeted paedobaptists who have been at Mars Hill, some of whom baptised their kids at home in lieu of any hope that the church would accept that. Wanna guess how many paedobaptists are members or serving in paid positions at Mars Hill? I have no idea but I know there are probably at least a few more of them there than are willing to attempt teaching on the subject in a community group.
The clairvoyence of Driscoll is something I'll tackle later, God willing. The problem D. G. Hart may be roughly pointing out is something that other Christians have pointed out with varying degrees of anger or equanimity, which is that the new Calvinists may be very soft on touching the subject of double predestination but are even softer on the subject of whether or not there is a double standard in when they believe they are justified in using polemics vs whether there is any justification for a polemic against a position or practice they stake out (or don't, for that matter). Doctrine exists for "me" to make "you" uncomfortable about a failure on your part to truly love Jesus. And pertinent to what the GC doesn't address ...
http://oldlife.org/2011/09/shooting-fish-in-a-barrel/comment-page-1/#comment-37149
That tallies up to Pat Robertson, Rob Bell, and angry Calvinists as all worthy of Gospel Coalition opposition. If I do my math aright, that means that TGC is against extremism and for moderation (read: nice). My calculations may be off. But I’m reasonably confident of my findings.
Robertson, Bell, and "angry Calvinists" do all seem to be fish in the same barrel. They are not risky targets because one of these targets has been the subject of worldly mockery for two decades and if the Wittenburg Door mentioned a guy at all in the past THREE DECADES that means a young, hip neo-Calvinist gains nothing by criticizing a crazy old man.
Rob Bell may just be another post-modern emergent sort of the type who a lot of people don't pay attention to but this lack of person-of-interest states cuts in several directions. I know a few Christians who will rhetorically ask "Who is John Piper?" To that I say "self-appointed Calvinist Baptist pope, maybe?" But unloading a few shots at Bell for his ideas about Hell seems easy. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have possibly been done, I guess. I don't think N. T. Wright was just wasting time writing his book on the Resurrection or replying to various claims made by people on the Jesus Seminar. The Body has different members locally and globally that do different things. But where Piper's "farewell Rob Bell" tweet may have had any relevance to me is not that he bid farewell to Rob Bell as though this were some big deal about Bell's ideas but that it was "farewell" at all. On what basis did Piper ever consider Rob Bell to be anything remotely close to being on the same team about anything? When were Bell and Piper under the same standard about anything anyway?
And last and lest "angry Calvinists". For Arminians and Lutherans and various other people who are not identified as "evangelical" Calvinist Baptists can be considered pretty angry. Various members of the Gospel Coalition writing about anything could be considered above the risk of "angry Calvinist" only on the basis of a generous sliding curve.
I've had friends run stuff by me that's at the Gospel Coalition and, well ...meh. It's just not quite my interest. I care about actual theological disagreements amongst sincere Christians. I also care about the disagreements and disputes over which Christians decide to start throwing around the word "heresy" because, as Carl Trueman put it, these were the kinds of differences about which self-professing Christians started killing each other over the last millenia. This is why a diet of polemic or "medicine" reveals itself in the end to be no diet at all for sustained life. It's not that there is never a place for it but there are a lot of Christians (and I have often seen how I am one of them) for whom polemic provides a kind of identity. I saw this a lot in the earliest days of Mars Hill but didn't recognize it for what it was because it was (and arguably still is) one of my weak spots. But it is why, quaintly enough, I fit in so very, very well there.
... Which is why it is possible that the problem afflicting the evangelicals at the Gospel Coalition is one of sentimentality. That is, they value feelings more than doctrine. This is what Ken Myers called orthopathy instead of orthodoxy. This does not mean that the folks at TGC ignore doctrine. Obviously, they promote it. But they never let it function in a way that might make leaders, readers, or bloggers uncomfortable — that is, doctrine will never be offensive, especially to the co-allies. But they seem to have no problem patrolling the Christian world for incorrect emotions.
This would apparently explain why the bloggers at TGC have yet to mention the two six hundred pound gorillas in the TGC parlor — C. J. Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. The former has at the very least created a ruckus about the kind of pastoral leadership within SGM circles, which would seem to undermine TGC’s commitment to promoting gospel-centered churches. And then there is Dricoll’s clairvoyance which in sixteenth-century Geneva would have gotten him drowned. I understand that these situations are delicate and that friends want to stand by friends. But to call Calvinists — yet again — angry when TGC has its own image problems is well nigh remarkable unless, that is, you remember the importance of feelings, affections, passions, and hedonism. A co-ally may not be able to spot Mahaney’s or Driscoll’s errors but can FEEL their pain.
***
I've seen rows of comments deleted from articles at the Gospel Coalition. One of the more memorable ones was an interview with Driscoll where he explained that 1,000 members left Mars Hill because they ramped up their doctrinal requirements. They didn't, I was there and they didn't ramp up doctrinal requirements in any meaningful way. What they did do was insist that members of long-standing had to renew their membership and said (but did not enforce) the new policy was renewing members had to sign off that they agreed with all the new by-laws circa 2007. I didn't renew because I didn't see the point of having to renew membership on the condition of saying I agreed to a pile of by-laws I was not allowed to have any input or say about. It's not a matter of some populist democratic impulse, it's a matter that the previous three to four times I renewed my membership I wasn't given this new requirement. Some friends and family renewed their memberships and never even SAW the by-laws.
The ridiculousness of setting up a criteria that was never even enforced got to be a bit much for me. And then this is sidelined and the "real" reason for a loss of members is an increased doctrinal stress? Sorry, I wish that were actually the case but nothing changed. Now if Mars Hill doctrine specifically repudiated both postmillenialism and premillenialism on the grounds that theonomistic reconstructionism and Rapture-expectant apocalypticism do harm to the spiritual health of congregants THAT would have been a truly brave and more demanding stance on doctrine!
Even something as simple as telling paedobaptists to go find another church would be braver but I have known any number of closeted paedobaptists who have been at Mars Hill, some of whom baptised their kids at home in lieu of any hope that the church would accept that. Wanna guess how many paedobaptists are members or serving in paid positions at Mars Hill? I have no idea but I know there are probably at least a few more of them there than are willing to attempt teaching on the subject in a community group.
The clairvoyence of Driscoll is something I'll tackle later, God willing. The problem D. G. Hart may be roughly pointing out is something that other Christians have pointed out with varying degrees of anger or equanimity, which is that the new Calvinists may be very soft on touching the subject of double predestination but are even softer on the subject of whether or not there is a double standard in when they believe they are justified in using polemics vs whether there is any justification for a polemic against a position or practice they stake out (or don't, for that matter). Doctrine exists for "me" to make "you" uncomfortable about a failure on your part to truly love Jesus. And pertinent to what the GC doesn't address ...
http://oldlife.org/2011/09/shooting-fish-in-a-barrel/comment-page-1/#comment-37149
That tallies up to Pat Robertson, Rob Bell, and angry Calvinists as all worthy of Gospel Coalition opposition. If I do my math aright, that means that TGC is against extremism and for moderation (read: nice). My calculations may be off. But I’m reasonably confident of my findings.
Robertson, Bell, and "angry Calvinists" do all seem to be fish in the same barrel. They are not risky targets because one of these targets has been the subject of worldly mockery for two decades and if the Wittenburg Door mentioned a guy at all in the past THREE DECADES that means a young, hip neo-Calvinist gains nothing by criticizing a crazy old man.
Rob Bell may just be another post-modern emergent sort of the type who a lot of people don't pay attention to but this lack of person-of-interest states cuts in several directions. I know a few Christians who will rhetorically ask "Who is John Piper?" To that I say "self-appointed Calvinist Baptist pope, maybe?" But unloading a few shots at Bell for his ideas about Hell seems easy. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have possibly been done, I guess. I don't think N. T. Wright was just wasting time writing his book on the Resurrection or replying to various claims made by people on the Jesus Seminar. The Body has different members locally and globally that do different things. But where Piper's "farewell Rob Bell" tweet may have had any relevance to me is not that he bid farewell to Rob Bell as though this were some big deal about Bell's ideas but that it was "farewell" at all. On what basis did Piper ever consider Rob Bell to be anything remotely close to being on the same team about anything? When were Bell and Piper under the same standard about anything anyway?
And last and lest "angry Calvinists". For Arminians and Lutherans and various other people who are not identified as "evangelical" Calvinist Baptists can be considered pretty angry. Various members of the Gospel Coalition writing about anything could be considered above the risk of "angry Calvinist" only on the basis of a generous sliding curve.
I've had friends run stuff by me that's at the Gospel Coalition and, well ...meh. It's just not quite my interest. I care about actual theological disagreements amongst sincere Christians. I also care about the disagreements and disputes over which Christians decide to start throwing around the word "heresy" because, as Carl Trueman put it, these were the kinds of differences about which self-professing Christians started killing each other over the last millenia. This is why a diet of polemic or "medicine" reveals itself in the end to be no diet at all for sustained life. It's not that there is never a place for it but there are a lot of Christians (and I have often seen how I am one of them) for whom polemic provides a kind of identity. I saw this a lot in the earliest days of Mars Hill but didn't recognize it for what it was because it was (and arguably still is) one of my weak spots. But it is why, quaintly enough, I fit in so very, very well there.
Carl Trueman: Video multisite and a possible end of the Reformation
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/09/is-the-reformation-over.php
Time was that the megachurch was not highly thought of by those who claimed the name Reformed or looked to the Reformation for their historical inspiration. This was consistent with two basic concerns which had high priority for the Reformers: as opposition to things such as pluralities (ministers holding multiple appointments) and absenteeism (ministers not actually ever being where they ministered); and the fear of turning leaders into fetishes.
... The lack of pastoral care such multi-sites engender is common knowledge. Further, the whole idea seems clearly to turn certain preachers into fetishes. Medieval Catholics liked to obtain the body, or even just a fragment, of a saint for their church building in order to make it an authentic church, or a better church than the one in the neighbouring town (see. the undignified fight for the corpse of St. Anthony of Padua; today we need a virtual piece of a famous preacher in our locale to have access to the magic.
Carl Trueman mentions that the contemporary multi-site megachurch encourages to habits in pastoral leadership that were focal points for criticism of the Roman church by the Reformers. It was too easy for a priest to have a series of appointments and to not be at many of those appointed places. A megachurch multi-site pastor may rationalize that a video feed or a week-delay DVD rebroadcast of his sermon is reaching more people for Jesus. The videology argument has it that more people are reached for Jesus and most people won't be seeing the pastor anyway.
It's one of those ironies of history that neo-Calvinists are embracing a kind of ecclesiology that may be embodying at every level precisely the sort of ecclesiology that the Reformers believed was part of the corruption of the Roman church. At a multi-site church it's possible for a member to never attend more than a few times a year and no one, literally no one, will notice. A multi-site church rebroadcasting the lead teaching pastor's content a week later at all the other churches/satellites/campuses transforms the lead teaching pastor into a functional archbishop in a surreptitious episcopate (mind you, those of you who are in episcopates I'm not dogging that church government system, I'm just speaking here about megachurch multi-site systems who are living in denial about their true ecclesiological nature. The churches that have regional bishops and arch-bishops aren't the ones who are somehow in denial about what's actually going on!
Delegating pastoral care to campus pastors and saying that campuses are churches can mean that some actual pastoral care can happen, ideally, but the pastor who does the lion's share of the preaching at these campuses is preaching to people he'll never meet whose lives he has no connection to. As a certain pastor used to put it, this means the pastor is a denominational top dog who works in some office in some other state who never has any interaction with the actual people he is supposedly shepherding in the church yet gets to make decisions about what leaders at that distant church can do or say and whether or not they work there. For some of the new Calvinists, though, it would appear that so long as that office hundreds of miles from churches that spiritual leader oversees is in the pastor's own house that's okay. It's only really a problem and a temptation to OTHER churches that have the cajones to describe themselves as actually being denominations. ;)
Time was that the megachurch was not highly thought of by those who claimed the name Reformed or looked to the Reformation for their historical inspiration. This was consistent with two basic concerns which had high priority for the Reformers: as opposition to things such as pluralities (ministers holding multiple appointments) and absenteeism (ministers not actually ever being where they ministered); and the fear of turning leaders into fetishes.
... The lack of pastoral care such multi-sites engender is common knowledge. Further, the whole idea seems clearly to turn certain preachers into fetishes. Medieval Catholics liked to obtain the body, or even just a fragment, of a saint for their church building in order to make it an authentic church, or a better church than the one in the neighbouring town (see. the undignified fight for the corpse of St. Anthony of Padua; today we need a virtual piece of a famous preacher in our locale to have access to the magic.
Carl Trueman mentions that the contemporary multi-site megachurch encourages to habits in pastoral leadership that were focal points for criticism of the Roman church by the Reformers. It was too easy for a priest to have a series of appointments and to not be at many of those appointed places. A megachurch multi-site pastor may rationalize that a video feed or a week-delay DVD rebroadcast of his sermon is reaching more people for Jesus. The videology argument has it that more people are reached for Jesus and most people won't be seeing the pastor anyway.
It's one of those ironies of history that neo-Calvinists are embracing a kind of ecclesiology that may be embodying at every level precisely the sort of ecclesiology that the Reformers believed was part of the corruption of the Roman church. At a multi-site church it's possible for a member to never attend more than a few times a year and no one, literally no one, will notice. A multi-site church rebroadcasting the lead teaching pastor's content a week later at all the other churches/satellites/campuses transforms the lead teaching pastor into a functional archbishop in a surreptitious episcopate (mind you, those of you who are in episcopates I'm not dogging that church government system, I'm just speaking here about megachurch multi-site systems who are living in denial about their true ecclesiological nature. The churches that have regional bishops and arch-bishops aren't the ones who are somehow in denial about what's actually going on!
Delegating pastoral care to campus pastors and saying that campuses are churches can mean that some actual pastoral care can happen, ideally, but the pastor who does the lion's share of the preaching at these campuses is preaching to people he'll never meet whose lives he has no connection to. As a certain pastor used to put it, this means the pastor is a denominational top dog who works in some office in some other state who never has any interaction with the actual people he is supposedly shepherding in the church yet gets to make decisions about what leaders at that distant church can do or say and whether or not they work there. For some of the new Calvinists, though, it would appear that so long as that office hundreds of miles from churches that spiritual leader oversees is in the pastor's own house that's okay. It's only really a problem and a temptation to OTHER churches that have the cajones to describe themselves as actually being denominations. ;)
PsyBlog: the problem with narcissistic leaders
http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/09/the-problem-with-narcissistic-leaders.php
...
One job of a leader is to help the members of a group communicate with each other. If information is flowing between group members, then better decisions can be made. So, what do narcissists do to information flow amongst group members?
What Nevicka et al.'s study found was that narcissistic leaders actually reduced information sharing among groups, which led to worse group performance.
Crucially, though, this wasn't the perception of the group. The groups thought the narcissists were doing a good job, when actually they weren't (as measured by task performance). This perception is probably dynamic:
"It is possible that over time, group members’ positive impressions of narcissistic leaders decrease. Indeed, previous research has shown that although people’s impressions of narcissists are positive at first, they decline over time (Paulhus, 1998)." (emphasis added)
But by then we're stuck with them.
***
Well, maybe, but sometimes underperforming narcissistic leaders actually get the boot depending on how much accountability they have for job performance. Depending on what organization you're in there are ways to opt out. In employment settings, yes, you're stuck with a narcissist but in voluntary associations (i.e. clubs, churches, etc.) you can go somewhere else.
It can certainly turn out that a narcissist gives an impression of being very competent and accomplished in the short run and then it is possible to surmise that the person isn't even close to being as good as he or she thinks he or she is. I suppose to put it in absurd comic book lingo, the Riddler can think he's the best and smartest criminal out there and that he can't be figured out but we know Batman will work things out sooner or later. Riddler's narcissistic pursuit of proving his individual glory doesn't beat Batman's willingness to cooperate to solve a problem.
There is a point where the sentiment "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is a realistic skepticism about herd tendencies but there is another point at which the sentiment "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is a reflection of a narcissism that proposes that the individual transcends the huddled masses of the stupid, the average, and the pedestrian. I have been reviewing a bunch of Batman: the animated series episodes lately and so I trust you'll just overlook my reflexive tying things to Batman cartoons. I'm still struggling to work out a whole bunch of ideas about themes and character arcs in this series for Mockingbird.
...
One job of a leader is to help the members of a group communicate with each other. If information is flowing between group members, then better decisions can be made. So, what do narcissists do to information flow amongst group members?
What Nevicka et al.'s study found was that narcissistic leaders actually reduced information sharing among groups, which led to worse group performance.
Crucially, though, this wasn't the perception of the group. The groups thought the narcissists were doing a good job, when actually they weren't (as measured by task performance). This perception is probably dynamic:
"It is possible that over time, group members’ positive impressions of narcissistic leaders decrease. Indeed, previous research has shown that although people’s impressions of narcissists are positive at first, they decline over time (Paulhus, 1998)." (emphasis added)
But by then we're stuck with them.
***
Well, maybe, but sometimes underperforming narcissistic leaders actually get the boot depending on how much accountability they have for job performance. Depending on what organization you're in there are ways to opt out. In employment settings, yes, you're stuck with a narcissist but in voluntary associations (i.e. clubs, churches, etc.) you can go somewhere else.
It can certainly turn out that a narcissist gives an impression of being very competent and accomplished in the short run and then it is possible to surmise that the person isn't even close to being as good as he or she thinks he or she is. I suppose to put it in absurd comic book lingo, the Riddler can think he's the best and smartest criminal out there and that he can't be figured out but we know Batman will work things out sooner or later. Riddler's narcissistic pursuit of proving his individual glory doesn't beat Batman's willingness to cooperate to solve a problem.
There is a point where the sentiment "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is a realistic skepticism about herd tendencies but there is another point at which the sentiment "none of us is as dumb as all of us" is a reflection of a narcissism that proposes that the individual transcends the huddled masses of the stupid, the average, and the pedestrian. I have been reviewing a bunch of Batman: the animated series episodes lately and so I trust you'll just overlook my reflexive tying things to Batman cartoons. I'm still struggling to work out a whole bunch of ideas about themes and character arcs in this series for Mockingbird.
found a new blog, thanks to commenter chris e
http://oldlife.org/2011/09/echo-chamber/#comments
Commenter chris e introduced me to a theological blog I had not encountered before. Well, maybe I encountered it before but forgot about it and didn't post anything about an entry as I had planned. I think I did come across the "Driscoll has some `splaining to do" months back but there's nothing like having an uncle die, having some medical problems with eyes come up, and having some beloved friends marry to make a person forget something as mundane as even a good theological blog! Anyway, a portion of an entry I recently read where I highlight some things that struck me.
But what is curious about Keller’s concession that polemics is necessary as a form of medicine is whether the folks at TGC think that what they are doing through the coalition is offering a well-rounded diet. Keller says, “Polemics is medicine, not food. Without medicine we will surely die—we can’t live without it. This is why polemical theology must be a required part of every theological curriculum. Yet we cannot live on medicine.” [emphasis mine] I understand this. And it can also be said of candy, except that candy isn’t nearly as beneficial as medicine, nor is it the case that we could not live without it. Still, as I’ve asked before, what does TGC do that churches do not already do? The churches have the recipes and ingredients for a healthy spiritual diet. And sometimes they engage in polemics with those institutions that offer up prepackaged-food as the wholesome article.
So perhaps the folks at TGC need to look in the mirror and ask whether they are doing something that instigates polemics. In which case, it wouldn’t be a personality defect of Calvinists to disagree with and point out the weaknesses of a project such as TGC.
Commenter chris e introduced me to a theological blog I had not encountered before. Well, maybe I encountered it before but forgot about it and didn't post anything about an entry as I had planned. I think I did come across the "Driscoll has some `splaining to do" months back but there's nothing like having an uncle die, having some medical problems with eyes come up, and having some beloved friends marry to make a person forget something as mundane as even a good theological blog! Anyway, a portion of an entry I recently read where I highlight some things that struck me.
But what is curious about Keller’s concession that polemics is necessary as a form of medicine is whether the folks at TGC think that what they are doing through the coalition is offering a well-rounded diet. Keller says, “Polemics is medicine, not food. Without medicine we will surely die—we can’t live without it. This is why polemical theology must be a required part of every theological curriculum. Yet we cannot live on medicine.” [emphasis mine] I understand this. And it can also be said of candy, except that candy isn’t nearly as beneficial as medicine, nor is it the case that we could not live without it. Still, as I’ve asked before, what does TGC do that churches do not already do? The churches have the recipes and ingredients for a healthy spiritual diet. And sometimes they engage in polemics with those institutions that offer up prepackaged-food as the wholesome article.
So perhaps the folks at TGC need to look in the mirror and ask whether they are doing something that instigates polemics. In which case, it wouldn’t be a personality defect of Calvinists to disagree with and point out the weaknesses of a project such as TGC.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
writing and more writing
I know, I know. I keep writing about writing and not necessarily writing here. I have been struggling with some material that is important in the newest series for Mockingbird. I am also struggling with a couple of future series to write about the DC animated universe as well. Been thinking about a couple of themes and contrasts to explore down the road but also waiting to see if I can get help for a medical procedure I need that I don't have the money to pay for. I am also still unemployed and have little money.
By the providential kindness of the Lord I have a roof over my head and am well-fed (in fact I need to exercise off some of the not-starving parts of me). I have scrounged up just enough funds that, Lord willing, by the time I finish a couple of little free-lance projects I shall at least be able to keep a roof over my head through to next year but that means I have to work my tail off.
I am also working diligently on my 24 preludes and fugues for solo guitar. By now I suppose I make no secret (not that anyone would necessarily have a reason to care) that one of my goals in composing preludes and fugues for solo guitar is to create music that can be useful in liturgical settings. I have even been able, thanks to support from church musicians and pastors, present a few of my works from the cycle during offering and communion. I am covering the stylistic and regional waterfront. Some of the preludes and fugues owe much to Luigi Legnani or Haydn. Still others owe everything to J. S. Bach. Still others are inspired by Shostakovich, Bartok, Hindemith, Durufle, even Messiaen. Ellington, Brubeck, and Monk have been inspirations. The closing prelude and fugue of the entire cycle is an homage to the pavans and sacred choral music of William Byrd. I've littered hymns throughout the cycle, sometimes in obvious ways, at other times in deliberately light-hearted ways.
I am planning on writing some more guest posts in a few other settings, which requires some attention. Meanwhile, I wait to find out how things will go for cataract removal surgery. It's grimly amusing that I have only ever needed major eye surgery at points in my life when I'm unemployed with no money!
There are so many things I would have liked to have written about by now but I realize that a mixture of joblessness with depression can kill the writing impulse. I had hoped by now to have read quite a bit more of Schlatter's commentary on Romans than I have! I had hoped by now to have written at some length about contemporary critical (that is to say negative) reactions to Haydn's music and the significance I see in this on the subject of changing musical forms and styles.
I believe that for contemporary composers so many people have broken rules and forms and styles that Leo Brouwer is correct to say the next big musical revolution we will see is fusion. This would not even be the first time such a consolidation of styles has occurred. In the West the old style and new style in the Baroque era eventually gave way to style gallant, roccoco, and all that stuff that was eventually synthesized into the Classic style proper.
The trouble I find with a lot of music and musical approaches is not so much that there's no good music. There's all sorts of wonderful music now. I admit I haven't listened to pop music with much attention since, oh, the last Portishead album and before that Weezer's Maladroit and before that Bjork's Vespertine (her last good album, in my opinion). There's a lot, historically speaking, that has not particularly changed about popular music in a lot of ways since, really, Tin Pan Alley. I think that's a good thing, but the rate of stylistic change is perceived as being so much faster than it actually is that a lot of taste-dividing issues become cultural rather than strictly musical. Why should I listen to "new country" when I can listen to "old rock and roll" (no, not the Bob Seger kind!)? But I ramble ... .
I am working on compiling a whole bunch of thoughts on biblical texts and on charismatic/cesssationist debates and why I increasingly find both views to be problematic. There's a great deal of polemic made in bad faith by both sides. Now in terms of practice and advocacy I can't say I'm "charismatic" at all now but I don't see cessationism as viable and a lot of the problems have to do with what I consider to be gross misrepresentations and question-begging on the part of both sides about certain offices and gifts. Since the blogosphere has erupted with ruminations about Driscoll's claims to spiritual superpowers I want to eventually address that and concerns I have about that stuff. But I need more time to compile and organize my thoughts on those subjects--I should say here that my concerns are not strictly about Driscoll alone but will represent my reservations about lay Christian counselors in general (i.e. people with no competencies in psychological research or training). I don't think the Team Pyro sort of screed is a useful contribution to such a discussion because lazy prooftexting seems to be what MacArthur fans are good at. I'll grudgingly grant MacArthur himself can exposit biblical texts but as an amillenial partial preterist I'll probably never got on board with his dispensationalism. But I ramble.
Particularly alert readers with long memories will notice I haven't gotten back to that project about Hell, either.
In the midst of all this I am trying to see what I can scrounge up for job leads, attending church (which should be more often these days than I've been actually accomplishing), and tackling all sorts of "real world" concerns. One of those concerns is getting everything in order for my first published composition. Lord willing, by year's end, I'll be a published composer. It's a modest achievement at every level but a special one to me since I have been playing guitar for some twenty-one years and have been composing as a hobby for nearly that long.
A few of you readers and lurkers have sent me links to a few things that I have found enjoyable, interesting, or exasperating. I will see if I can at times muster up the will-power to write about some of that stuff. :)
By the providential kindness of the Lord I have a roof over my head and am well-fed (in fact I need to exercise off some of the not-starving parts of me). I have scrounged up just enough funds that, Lord willing, by the time I finish a couple of little free-lance projects I shall at least be able to keep a roof over my head through to next year but that means I have to work my tail off.
I am also working diligently on my 24 preludes and fugues for solo guitar. By now I suppose I make no secret (not that anyone would necessarily have a reason to care) that one of my goals in composing preludes and fugues for solo guitar is to create music that can be useful in liturgical settings. I have even been able, thanks to support from church musicians and pastors, present a few of my works from the cycle during offering and communion. I am covering the stylistic and regional waterfront. Some of the preludes and fugues owe much to Luigi Legnani or Haydn. Still others owe everything to J. S. Bach. Still others are inspired by Shostakovich, Bartok, Hindemith, Durufle, even Messiaen. Ellington, Brubeck, and Monk have been inspirations. The closing prelude and fugue of the entire cycle is an homage to the pavans and sacred choral music of William Byrd. I've littered hymns throughout the cycle, sometimes in obvious ways, at other times in deliberately light-hearted ways.
I am planning on writing some more guest posts in a few other settings, which requires some attention. Meanwhile, I wait to find out how things will go for cataract removal surgery. It's grimly amusing that I have only ever needed major eye surgery at points in my life when I'm unemployed with no money!
There are so many things I would have liked to have written about by now but I realize that a mixture of joblessness with depression can kill the writing impulse. I had hoped by now to have read quite a bit more of Schlatter's commentary on Romans than I have! I had hoped by now to have written at some length about contemporary critical (that is to say negative) reactions to Haydn's music and the significance I see in this on the subject of changing musical forms and styles.
I believe that for contemporary composers so many people have broken rules and forms and styles that Leo Brouwer is correct to say the next big musical revolution we will see is fusion. This would not even be the first time such a consolidation of styles has occurred. In the West the old style and new style in the Baroque era eventually gave way to style gallant, roccoco, and all that stuff that was eventually synthesized into the Classic style proper.
The trouble I find with a lot of music and musical approaches is not so much that there's no good music. There's all sorts of wonderful music now. I admit I haven't listened to pop music with much attention since, oh, the last Portishead album and before that Weezer's Maladroit and before that Bjork's Vespertine (her last good album, in my opinion). There's a lot, historically speaking, that has not particularly changed about popular music in a lot of ways since, really, Tin Pan Alley. I think that's a good thing, but the rate of stylistic change is perceived as being so much faster than it actually is that a lot of taste-dividing issues become cultural rather than strictly musical. Why should I listen to "new country" when I can listen to "old rock and roll" (no, not the Bob Seger kind!)? But I ramble ... .
I am working on compiling a whole bunch of thoughts on biblical texts and on charismatic/cesssationist debates and why I increasingly find both views to be problematic. There's a great deal of polemic made in bad faith by both sides. Now in terms of practice and advocacy I can't say I'm "charismatic" at all now but I don't see cessationism as viable and a lot of the problems have to do with what I consider to be gross misrepresentations and question-begging on the part of both sides about certain offices and gifts. Since the blogosphere has erupted with ruminations about Driscoll's claims to spiritual superpowers I want to eventually address that and concerns I have about that stuff. But I need more time to compile and organize my thoughts on those subjects--I should say here that my concerns are not strictly about Driscoll alone but will represent my reservations about lay Christian counselors in general (i.e. people with no competencies in psychological research or training). I don't think the Team Pyro sort of screed is a useful contribution to such a discussion because lazy prooftexting seems to be what MacArthur fans are good at. I'll grudgingly grant MacArthur himself can exposit biblical texts but as an amillenial partial preterist I'll probably never got on board with his dispensationalism. But I ramble.
Particularly alert readers with long memories will notice I haven't gotten back to that project about Hell, either.
In the midst of all this I am trying to see what I can scrounge up for job leads, attending church (which should be more often these days than I've been actually accomplishing), and tackling all sorts of "real world" concerns. One of those concerns is getting everything in order for my first published composition. Lord willing, by year's end, I'll be a published composer. It's a modest achievement at every level but a special one to me since I have been playing guitar for some twenty-one years and have been composing as a hobby for nearly that long.
A few of you readers and lurkers have sent me links to a few things that I have found enjoyable, interesting, or exasperating. I will see if I can at times muster up the will-power to write about some of that stuff. :)
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Neuhaus 20 years ago on how theonomistic right is like the progressive left
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2011/09/14/a-surprising-critique-of-domionism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Benedictionblogsoncom+%28Benedictionblogson.com%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/08/002-why-wait-for-the-kingdom-the-theonomist-temptation-38
The final consummation of history in the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule in the right ordering of all things is an article of faith for all orthodox Christians. For most Christians now and in the past two millennia, millennialism itself has not been that important. That is, the biblical references to a future millennium were viewed as an ambiguous metaphor for the eternal rule of Christ. From time to time, however, and usually along the margins of orthodoxy, there were Christians determined to cut through the ambiguity and read “the signs of the times” (Matthew 16) with greater specificity. The Puritan tradition, including such worthies as Jonathan Edwards, arguably America's greatest theologian, inclined toward a species of postmillennialism in which thoughtful people dared to believe that God was working out his purpose for the ages in the events to which they were party. The liberal Social Gospel movement that emerged in the latter part of the last century was emphatically postmillennial, and the afterglow of that movement is still discernible in sectors of oldline Protestantism. The kingdom is now, if we have the nerve for it, and when it is established Christ will be welcomed into his own. [emphasis added] Nor should we forget that species of Evangelicalism found on the left of the political spectrum (e.g., the Sojourners group) that is also convinced that there is in fact a “biblical politics” that can and should be implemented now by radically committed Christians.
Of course contemporary theonomists, who wish to think of themselves as conservative, resist the comparison with the liberal Social Gospel and with left-wing Evangelicals, not to mention liberation theology. But the analogies are inescapable. The policy specifics may be dramatically different, but the theological rationale is strikingly similar. [emphasis added] The different thing in theonomy is not its postmillennialism but its understanding of biblical law. Acts 15 describes the convening of what might be described as the first ecumenical council in order to answer the “Judaizers” among the early Christians who insisted that non-Jewish believers must be circumcised and instructed to keep the law of Moses, or else they would not be saved. That position was rejected by the apostles, who decided, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden that these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” The Judaizers of that time claimed that the gentiles, in order to be saved, must enter Judaism under Mosaic law; the theonomists of today claim that Mosaic law has departed Judaism in order to reconstruct, and thus save, the nations under the rule of “the saints.”
Now as a Protestant I differ in a few spots with where Neuhaus landed but as an amillenial partial preterist I agree with his critique of theonomistic thought and with the historical tendencies of postmillenialists in particular. A conservative theonomist in the 20th century and a liberal Protestant social gospel advocate from the 19th century both draw on postmillenialism as a rationale. Now of course they will cite that they have substantial differences on other theological issues and that would be true, but both sorts of Christians derive motivation from the conviction that they are called by God by dint of being the right kind of Christian to change the world for Jesus and, as it were, hand the world to Jesus at the end of the Age on a silver platter.
I'm in my later thirties and I have begun to notice that a lot of doctrinally conservative Christians my age and younger (not attempting to pick numbers here) have steadily leaned more toward a kind of libertarian position. They are in some ways less concerned about finding ways to compel the Christianisation of society than to check religious persecution or social injustice. As old school American conservative Protestants have been clucking, younger evangelicals have been embracing all this nonsense about "social justice" which is just old liberalism.
Neuhaus noted all the way back two decades ago that prominent Protestants such as John MacArthur and Charles Colson opposed Reconstructionist theology. If anyone was in a position to have some idea how the use of actual political power corrupts you'd think Colson would be the one, and his disagreement with Reconstructionism would seem relevant if not for a systematic theological perspective than for a "been there and done that" perspective. As Neuhaus put it, the failures of all attempts at a kind of Christian-engineered society of the sort Protestants have embraced should be instructive. J. I. Packer, in his lengthy presentation on the history of the Puritans available through Reformed Theological Seminary, said that the whole enterprise of the Puritans as a campaign to reform and improve the Anglican church was an endless failure (my paraphrase). That failure, however, spoke to the salience of their concerns.
There are movements within Christianity and Christian history that may be more important because they continually fail to obtain the earthly goals their advocates continually seek than because those goals were reached. As far as that goes (perhaps not far) I consider it useful to look at the other Calvinists of the past and consider how frequently "we" fail to accomplish the things many of our associates consider good things to pursue.
Our theological pedigree in Calvinism and fashioning a society is full of a lot of failures. If God providentially permits that all "our" experiments in creating a more Christian society have ended in abject failure you'd think that "we" would become more cautious in assuming a theological rationale for a social and cultural experiment which has led to failure so many times in the past. If theological conservatives think this means one is acquiescing to "liberalism" that may just mean that theonomistic conservative doesn't realize he (and it's almost always a "he" here) has a heart in common with the social gospel liberal who thinks that he's entitled to and obligated to on the basis of "good" theology to make a "Christian society" that reflects his own likeness. It's easy for a conservative to say that a liberal is pursuing an over-realized eschatological ideal while overlooking this same error in himself. He thinks the real difference is those dividing points of "liberal" and "conservative" but the way he treats his neighbor may show in the long run that the core eschatological error which is a risk inherent in postmillenialism isn't any different.
One of the biggest early scuffles at Mars Hill was after Driscoll became a Calvinist (he wasn't one until somewhere between 2001-2002 as best I can recall. Well, as the church became young, restless and semi-Reformed a lot of guys about Mark's age began to get the idea that to be "really" Reformed meant embracing theonomistic ideas. Some guys began to parrot the bromides about pessimillenialism (which has always been idiotic). Other guys began to argue that it was the really Reformed thing to do. Driscoll and the other pastors repeatedly rejected these ideas. Driscoll, per Driscoll, began to think of members who were previously vital to the life of the church as being dead weight because of these kinds of theological differences. That was Mark being the kind of jerk he frequently is (and probably will be until he dies). But having said that, I agreed with (and still agree with) he decision to reject theonomistic theology and the political implications of that. Driscoll and I may not agree with my proposal that the problem with the theonomistic movement and the ostentatious Religious Right is that they're unwittingly repeating all the motivational errors inherent in the old Religious Left but we would agree that the theonomistic campaign has been proven to fail so many times in the last millenia that it is best to avoid that whole line of pursuit. Our prayer is to the Father that His kingdom would come and His will be done. We are not the ones who usher in the Kingdom. When Jesus said the kingdom comes without our careful observation this should be seen as a corrective both to dispensationalist premillenials as well as theonomistic postmillenials.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/08/002-why-wait-for-the-kingdom-the-theonomist-temptation-38
The final consummation of history in the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule in the right ordering of all things is an article of faith for all orthodox Christians. For most Christians now and in the past two millennia, millennialism itself has not been that important. That is, the biblical references to a future millennium were viewed as an ambiguous metaphor for the eternal rule of Christ. From time to time, however, and usually along the margins of orthodoxy, there were Christians determined to cut through the ambiguity and read “the signs of the times” (Matthew 16) with greater specificity. The Puritan tradition, including such worthies as Jonathan Edwards, arguably America's greatest theologian, inclined toward a species of postmillennialism in which thoughtful people dared to believe that God was working out his purpose for the ages in the events to which they were party. The liberal Social Gospel movement that emerged in the latter part of the last century was emphatically postmillennial, and the afterglow of that movement is still discernible in sectors of oldline Protestantism. The kingdom is now, if we have the nerve for it, and when it is established Christ will be welcomed into his own. [emphasis added] Nor should we forget that species of Evangelicalism found on the left of the political spectrum (e.g., the Sojourners group) that is also convinced that there is in fact a “biblical politics” that can and should be implemented now by radically committed Christians.
Of course contemporary theonomists, who wish to think of themselves as conservative, resist the comparison with the liberal Social Gospel and with left-wing Evangelicals, not to mention liberation theology. But the analogies are inescapable. The policy specifics may be dramatically different, but the theological rationale is strikingly similar. [emphasis added] The different thing in theonomy is not its postmillennialism but its understanding of biblical law. Acts 15 describes the convening of what might be described as the first ecumenical council in order to answer the “Judaizers” among the early Christians who insisted that non-Jewish believers must be circumcised and instructed to keep the law of Moses, or else they would not be saved. That position was rejected by the apostles, who decided, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden that these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” The Judaizers of that time claimed that the gentiles, in order to be saved, must enter Judaism under Mosaic law; the theonomists of today claim that Mosaic law has departed Judaism in order to reconstruct, and thus save, the nations under the rule of “the saints.”
Now as a Protestant I differ in a few spots with where Neuhaus landed but as an amillenial partial preterist I agree with his critique of theonomistic thought and with the historical tendencies of postmillenialists in particular. A conservative theonomist in the 20th century and a liberal Protestant social gospel advocate from the 19th century both draw on postmillenialism as a rationale. Now of course they will cite that they have substantial differences on other theological issues and that would be true, but both sorts of Christians derive motivation from the conviction that they are called by God by dint of being the right kind of Christian to change the world for Jesus and, as it were, hand the world to Jesus at the end of the Age on a silver platter.
I'm in my later thirties and I have begun to notice that a lot of doctrinally conservative Christians my age and younger (not attempting to pick numbers here) have steadily leaned more toward a kind of libertarian position. They are in some ways less concerned about finding ways to compel the Christianisation of society than to check religious persecution or social injustice. As old school American conservative Protestants have been clucking, younger evangelicals have been embracing all this nonsense about "social justice" which is just old liberalism.
Neuhaus noted all the way back two decades ago that prominent Protestants such as John MacArthur and Charles Colson opposed Reconstructionist theology. If anyone was in a position to have some idea how the use of actual political power corrupts you'd think Colson would be the one, and his disagreement with Reconstructionism would seem relevant if not for a systematic theological perspective than for a "been there and done that" perspective. As Neuhaus put it, the failures of all attempts at a kind of Christian-engineered society of the sort Protestants have embraced should be instructive. J. I. Packer, in his lengthy presentation on the history of the Puritans available through Reformed Theological Seminary, said that the whole enterprise of the Puritans as a campaign to reform and improve the Anglican church was an endless failure (my paraphrase). That failure, however, spoke to the salience of their concerns.
There are movements within Christianity and Christian history that may be more important because they continually fail to obtain the earthly goals their advocates continually seek than because those goals were reached. As far as that goes (perhaps not far) I consider it useful to look at the other Calvinists of the past and consider how frequently "we" fail to accomplish the things many of our associates consider good things to pursue.
Our theological pedigree in Calvinism and fashioning a society is full of a lot of failures. If God providentially permits that all "our" experiments in creating a more Christian society have ended in abject failure you'd think that "we" would become more cautious in assuming a theological rationale for a social and cultural experiment which has led to failure so many times in the past. If theological conservatives think this means one is acquiescing to "liberalism" that may just mean that theonomistic conservative doesn't realize he (and it's almost always a "he" here) has a heart in common with the social gospel liberal who thinks that he's entitled to and obligated to on the basis of "good" theology to make a "Christian society" that reflects his own likeness. It's easy for a conservative to say that a liberal is pursuing an over-realized eschatological ideal while overlooking this same error in himself. He thinks the real difference is those dividing points of "liberal" and "conservative" but the way he treats his neighbor may show in the long run that the core eschatological error which is a risk inherent in postmillenialism isn't any different.
One of the biggest early scuffles at Mars Hill was after Driscoll became a Calvinist (he wasn't one until somewhere between 2001-2002 as best I can recall. Well, as the church became young, restless and semi-Reformed a lot of guys about Mark's age began to get the idea that to be "really" Reformed meant embracing theonomistic ideas. Some guys began to parrot the bromides about pessimillenialism (which has always been idiotic). Other guys began to argue that it was the really Reformed thing to do. Driscoll and the other pastors repeatedly rejected these ideas. Driscoll, per Driscoll, began to think of members who were previously vital to the life of the church as being dead weight because of these kinds of theological differences. That was Mark being the kind of jerk he frequently is (and probably will be until he dies). But having said that, I agreed with (and still agree with) he decision to reject theonomistic theology and the political implications of that. Driscoll and I may not agree with my proposal that the problem with the theonomistic movement and the ostentatious Religious Right is that they're unwittingly repeating all the motivational errors inherent in the old Religious Left but we would agree that the theonomistic campaign has been proven to fail so many times in the last millenia that it is best to avoid that whole line of pursuit. Our prayer is to the Father that His kingdom would come and His will be done. We are not the ones who usher in the Kingdom. When Jesus said the kingdom comes without our careful observation this should be seen as a corrective both to dispensationalist premillenials as well as theonomistic postmillenials.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Practical Theology for Women: Theology of Spiritual Abuse
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/09/theology-of-spiritual-abuse.html
My friend Wendy over at Practical Theology for Women has started writing a bit about spiritual abuse. She mentions that there is something afoot in evangelicalism now surrounding the misuse of authority. I basically agree. I would get more specific and point out (as other bloggers have already) that one focal point for scandals and controveries and bad blood surrounding the misuse of spiritual authority is the young, restless Reformed world. The most recent case would merely be Sovereign Grace Ministries but it's not the only case. People will remember the pastoral firing cases at Mars Hill in Seattle from 2007. Other people will remember the fracas about R. C. Sproul Jr and the allegations about tax identification number fraud and the allegation of abuse of spiritual authority over there.
Still others will be mindful of Doug Wilson's alleged flip flop about how sexual predators should get the death penalty unless the convicted sex offender is someone he considers repentant and sufficiently valuable to keep in an important part of the Kirk. Then people got upset that it seemed Wilson was trying to have things both ways. If a person attempts to dismiss all of this as so much false accusation it's still perplexing that such a wide variety of groups in neo-Calvinist land seem able to land in controversy over even ALLEGATIONS of misuse of spiritual authority.
From Ezekiel 34
The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
The bad shepherd of God's people takes care of himself and his own interests. He eats the curds, clothes himself with the wool of the sheep, and slaughters the choice animals from the flock, but does not really take care of the flock. He does not strengthen the weak, heal the sick, or bind up the injured. He doesn't go bringing back the strays or looking for the lost. Those sheep are not valuable to him. He rules harshly and brutally and the sheep scatter because this shepherd is not really a shepherd and the scattered sheep then become food for wild animals.
This bad shepherd feeds off the milk and milk products of the sheep. He shears the sheep for wool with which to clothe himself. He slaughters the choice animals once in a while. But this metaphor seems too simple to stretch for application, doesn't it? It couldn't be that there are pastors who value church members because they tithe regularly and for little more than that. It couldn't be that there are pastors who keep track of who has been giving and only make a point of counseling and helping the "faithful" sheep. It's not really likely that in the midst of a dispute about the use of power or the direction of a church on doctrine or polity that a pastor would slaughter the choice sheep in the flock just to prove a point. It's not as though pastors exist who decide that when the best sheep in the flock leave by hundreds or even thousands that they're just bad sheep and they can just get more who are more useful. And it's not as though when this happens that they would just decide to tell themselves that those old sheep just didn't have what it took to live sacrificially enough to be of service to the church.
Now God does address bad sheep who destroy the soil and devour the grass, who muddy the waters so that other sheep cannot drink clean water, but this blog entry is chiefly (and obviously) concerned with what the Lord says through Ezekiel about shepherds. The wicked shepherd sees the flock as something to be used and from which to extract profit rather than a flock to be served.
A commenter named Luma pointed something out over at Wendy's blog, not all spiritual authority is misused in formal church settings. Another kind of misuse of spiritual authority happens in the home. If parents use their spiritual authority inherent in being parents in ways like the bad shepherd this is still a misuse of authority, too. Yet there are Christian parents who would be alert to the misuse of authority in someone else who don't think twice about pulling rank in the absence of a truly compelling position.
Conversely, there are churches where their leaders speak swiftly to address what they consider spiritually abusive uses of authority by the parents or family members of church members but do not observe that they themselves employ the same kinds of tactics. I know of counseling pastors who could confidently tell church members their families were spiritually abusive and yet thought nothing of pulling rank, refusing to explain things, and assuming the worst about people ... those things they considered spiritually abusive in people who weren't members of the church. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then if it's not a duck what is it? A spiritual authority who would say "a duck" for anyone else will, for himself, say that he's really a pheasant and that we must not misunderstand the reality of the God-given authority he has to serve us. Or so he may say.
A pastor once wrote that one of the peculiarities of sin in our lives is that an adulterer may denounce adultery in others yet rationalize his own philandering. There are kinds of Christians who would not hesitate to denounce a prosperity gospel in another preacher or teacher who think nothing of a de facto prosperity gospel in their own life and teaching. There are Christians who are keenly alert to a propensity to use authority (actual or presumed) as the basis from which to demean, belittle, denounce, and attack others coming from other Christians who habitually, even on an hour by hour basis, do the same kind of thing. This has been so commonplace that now the world expects every high profile minister who rails against perverted sex to be a sexual deviant himself. Ted Haggard was famous for speaking up against homosexual activity before he was caught with a male prostitute and purchasing drugs.
But one of the things that is not a scandal for conservative Protestants that should be a scandal is that we focus on sex scandals. Don't get me wrong, sex scandals and sexual sin are definitely bad ... but back in 2007 when the firing controversy happened a Christian once told me that at least the scandal wasn't one involving sex. True, but Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees was not that they were sexually immoral. He objected to their regard for money and the abuse of their power.
Power comes in a variety of forms and a form of power I hope to eventually address is the power of narrative. Yeah, no surprise there. If you know me and the brothers and sisters in Christ I've hung out with in the last ten years I'm keenly aware of the potential a narrative has to shape lives. I want to hold off on writing in detail about that until later. Leftists, Marxists, and their opponents all recognize the political and social power of a compelling story.
One of the things to keep in mind is that sometimes a misuse of power does not originate in any obvious political gaming but comes in the kind of story we tell about ourselves. In Jesus' harsh verbal confrontation with the Pharisees in John 8 this is the flashpoint, the Pharisees have lied to themselves about what the their true story is. Each step they take to affirm what they are certain their real story is Jesus confronts them about the lies they believe and they lies they have told themselves and others through their rejection of Him. The further they go in affirming that they are on the side of God and that God is on their side the more trenchantly Jesus declares that their real father is Satan.
I submit as some food for thought that misuse of spiritual authority among genuine Christians (and by extension all frauds) is a fraudulent narrative of the self and the self's group which becomes the basis for deceit, bullying, manipulation, and a consumeristic attitude toward the flock of the sort Ezekiel 34 denounces. We're in the "Great Recession" right now and now is not the best time for high profile pastors who have solid economic means to be saying anything about consumerism at all. Jesus condemned Pharisees for their love of money and their willingness to manipulate piety in a way to preclude helping impoverished family members. There may come a time when faithful Christian service is demonstrated by not tithing. I haven't tithed to a church in years because I've got no income. I've spared a few quarters and dimes, so to speak, but there are people in the church who are too poor to "give sacrificially" and if a church and pastoral leadership have no use for such people because they are not "faithful givers" or "good stewards" (i.e. because they're poor) then this is dangerously close to the consumeristic/abusive shepherd of Ezekiel 34.
But I've rambled enough on that topic for now.
My friend Wendy over at Practical Theology for Women has started writing a bit about spiritual abuse. She mentions that there is something afoot in evangelicalism now surrounding the misuse of authority. I basically agree. I would get more specific and point out (as other bloggers have already) that one focal point for scandals and controveries and bad blood surrounding the misuse of spiritual authority is the young, restless Reformed world. The most recent case would merely be Sovereign Grace Ministries but it's not the only case. People will remember the pastoral firing cases at Mars Hill in Seattle from 2007. Other people will remember the fracas about R. C. Sproul Jr and the allegations about tax identification number fraud and the allegation of abuse of spiritual authority over there.
Still others will be mindful of Doug Wilson's alleged flip flop about how sexual predators should get the death penalty unless the convicted sex offender is someone he considers repentant and sufficiently valuable to keep in an important part of the Kirk. Then people got upset that it seemed Wilson was trying to have things both ways. If a person attempts to dismiss all of this as so much false accusation it's still perplexing that such a wide variety of groups in neo-Calvinist land seem able to land in controversy over even ALLEGATIONS of misuse of spiritual authority.
From Ezekiel 34
The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
The bad shepherd of God's people takes care of himself and his own interests. He eats the curds, clothes himself with the wool of the sheep, and slaughters the choice animals from the flock, but does not really take care of the flock. He does not strengthen the weak, heal the sick, or bind up the injured. He doesn't go bringing back the strays or looking for the lost. Those sheep are not valuable to him. He rules harshly and brutally and the sheep scatter because this shepherd is not really a shepherd and the scattered sheep then become food for wild animals.
This bad shepherd feeds off the milk and milk products of the sheep. He shears the sheep for wool with which to clothe himself. He slaughters the choice animals once in a while. But this metaphor seems too simple to stretch for application, doesn't it? It couldn't be that there are pastors who value church members because they tithe regularly and for little more than that. It couldn't be that there are pastors who keep track of who has been giving and only make a point of counseling and helping the "faithful" sheep. It's not really likely that in the midst of a dispute about the use of power or the direction of a church on doctrine or polity that a pastor would slaughter the choice sheep in the flock just to prove a point. It's not as though pastors exist who decide that when the best sheep in the flock leave by hundreds or even thousands that they're just bad sheep and they can just get more who are more useful. And it's not as though when this happens that they would just decide to tell themselves that those old sheep just didn't have what it took to live sacrificially enough to be of service to the church.
Now God does address bad sheep who destroy the soil and devour the grass, who muddy the waters so that other sheep cannot drink clean water, but this blog entry is chiefly (and obviously) concerned with what the Lord says through Ezekiel about shepherds. The wicked shepherd sees the flock as something to be used and from which to extract profit rather than a flock to be served.
A commenter named Luma pointed something out over at Wendy's blog, not all spiritual authority is misused in formal church settings. Another kind of misuse of spiritual authority happens in the home. If parents use their spiritual authority inherent in being parents in ways like the bad shepherd this is still a misuse of authority, too. Yet there are Christian parents who would be alert to the misuse of authority in someone else who don't think twice about pulling rank in the absence of a truly compelling position.
Conversely, there are churches where their leaders speak swiftly to address what they consider spiritually abusive uses of authority by the parents or family members of church members but do not observe that they themselves employ the same kinds of tactics. I know of counseling pastors who could confidently tell church members their families were spiritually abusive and yet thought nothing of pulling rank, refusing to explain things, and assuming the worst about people ... those things they considered spiritually abusive in people who weren't members of the church. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then if it's not a duck what is it? A spiritual authority who would say "a duck" for anyone else will, for himself, say that he's really a pheasant and that we must not misunderstand the reality of the God-given authority he has to serve us. Or so he may say.
A pastor once wrote that one of the peculiarities of sin in our lives is that an adulterer may denounce adultery in others yet rationalize his own philandering. There are kinds of Christians who would not hesitate to denounce a prosperity gospel in another preacher or teacher who think nothing of a de facto prosperity gospel in their own life and teaching. There are Christians who are keenly alert to a propensity to use authority (actual or presumed) as the basis from which to demean, belittle, denounce, and attack others coming from other Christians who habitually, even on an hour by hour basis, do the same kind of thing. This has been so commonplace that now the world expects every high profile minister who rails against perverted sex to be a sexual deviant himself. Ted Haggard was famous for speaking up against homosexual activity before he was caught with a male prostitute and purchasing drugs.
But one of the things that is not a scandal for conservative Protestants that should be a scandal is that we focus on sex scandals. Don't get me wrong, sex scandals and sexual sin are definitely bad ... but back in 2007 when the firing controversy happened a Christian once told me that at least the scandal wasn't one involving sex. True, but Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees was not that they were sexually immoral. He objected to their regard for money and the abuse of their power.
Power comes in a variety of forms and a form of power I hope to eventually address is the power of narrative. Yeah, no surprise there. If you know me and the brothers and sisters in Christ I've hung out with in the last ten years I'm keenly aware of the potential a narrative has to shape lives. I want to hold off on writing in detail about that until later. Leftists, Marxists, and their opponents all recognize the political and social power of a compelling story.
One of the things to keep in mind is that sometimes a misuse of power does not originate in any obvious political gaming but comes in the kind of story we tell about ourselves. In Jesus' harsh verbal confrontation with the Pharisees in John 8 this is the flashpoint, the Pharisees have lied to themselves about what the their true story is. Each step they take to affirm what they are certain their real story is Jesus confronts them about the lies they believe and they lies they have told themselves and others through their rejection of Him. The further they go in affirming that they are on the side of God and that God is on their side the more trenchantly Jesus declares that their real father is Satan.
I submit as some food for thought that misuse of spiritual authority among genuine Christians (and by extension all frauds) is a fraudulent narrative of the self and the self's group which becomes the basis for deceit, bullying, manipulation, and a consumeristic attitude toward the flock of the sort Ezekiel 34 denounces. We're in the "Great Recession" right now and now is not the best time for high profile pastors who have solid economic means to be saying anything about consumerism at all. Jesus condemned Pharisees for their love of money and their willingness to manipulate piety in a way to preclude helping impoverished family members. There may come a time when faithful Christian service is demonstrated by not tithing. I haven't tithed to a church in years because I've got no income. I've spared a few quarters and dimes, so to speak, but there are people in the church who are too poor to "give sacrificially" and if a church and pastoral leadership have no use for such people because they are not "faithful givers" or "good stewards" (i.e. because they're poor) then this is dangerously close to the consumeristic/abusive shepherd of Ezekiel 34.
But I've rambled enough on that topic for now.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
HT Internet Monk: the irony of the anonymous kinsmen redeemer in the book of Ruth
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/24377/comment-page-1#comment-606307
A fascinating comment on the Internet Monk series about the book of Ruth. We are told that Boaz marries Ruth and takes up the task of providing heirs for the house of Elimelech. The kinsman redeemer declines to marry Ruth because in so doing he would ruin his own inheritance. Elimelech was the man who built the plan and left for Moab to secure the stability of his family and inadvertantly led the family into ruin. Boaz takes the remnants of this family into his household at the expense of his own estate. We are not given the name of the kinsmen redeemer who declines the offer Boaz makes. Commenter Nate writes the following.
Nate says:
September 21, 2011 at 11:57 am
A great nuance that was pointed out to me recently is that the kinsman-redeemer, who was seeking to protect his inheritance, his “name” so to speak, ends up nameless in the retelling. Boaz, who sacrificed his own security is the one whose name lived on into the present day.
In an irony twist the nameless kinsman redeemer declines to marry Ruth because he is concerned about preserving his own inheritance and legacy. Yet his legacy is to be mentioned without a name in the book of Ruth and his estate and legacy are unidentifiable now, if they could even exist. There is a point where the person who gives up whatever legacy he might have had himself for the legacy of displaying the kindness of God gains a legacy that is greater than the legacies that men cling to for which they avoid kindness.
A fascinating comment on the Internet Monk series about the book of Ruth. We are told that Boaz marries Ruth and takes up the task of providing heirs for the house of Elimelech. The kinsman redeemer declines to marry Ruth because in so doing he would ruin his own inheritance. Elimelech was the man who built the plan and left for Moab to secure the stability of his family and inadvertantly led the family into ruin. Boaz takes the remnants of this family into his household at the expense of his own estate. We are not given the name of the kinsmen redeemer who declines the offer Boaz makes. Commenter Nate writes the following.
Nate says:
September 21, 2011 at 11:57 am
A great nuance that was pointed out to me recently is that the kinsman-redeemer, who was seeking to protect his inheritance, his “name” so to speak, ends up nameless in the retelling. Boaz, who sacrificed his own security is the one whose name lived on into the present day.
In an irony twist the nameless kinsman redeemer declines to marry Ruth because he is concerned about preserving his own inheritance and legacy. Yet his legacy is to be mentioned without a name in the book of Ruth and his estate and legacy are unidentifiable now, if they could even exist. There is a point where the person who gives up whatever legacy he might have had himself for the legacy of displaying the kindness of God gains a legacy that is greater than the legacies that men cling to for which they avoid kindness.
Monday, September 19, 2011
about Mark Driscoll's comment that video games are stupid ...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/09/18/computer-gamers-solve-problem-in-aids-research-that-puzzled-scientists-for-years/
If University of Washington researchers use a competitive video game to take advantage of the human mind's capacity for spatial reasoning to help network some new, if small, discoveries in HIV treatment research ... does Mark Driscoll still get to say that video games are stupid pursuits of vicarious victories that don't matter and don't leave a legacy?
Well, Driscoll would say video games are stupid anyway. A bunch of gamers got lucky and were building on the work of some other guy working to leave a legacy. Points noted, should Driscoll ever pay enough attention to AIDs research or gaming to notice any of the above-linked news. Yet even if the actual scientific discovery arrived at by competitive video gaming turns out to be modest the significant thing is that it happened at all. A small step forward in AIDs research is probably a bigger legacy and a victory that matters more than, say, baseball games.
Maybe playing video games is foolish and Driscoll can still consider himself wise to rant about how foolish they are. I'll confess that I'm not a huge fan of video games and there are times when I'm tempted to think they're stupid. But humility involves recognizing that what seems stupid to me may genuinely be some kind of vocation or legitimate activity to others. God knows I don't get why people waste their lives on baseball but I try to resist the temptation to say that watching baseball is the stupid pursuit of enjoying vicarious victories that don't matter.
And a certain statement from the apostle Paul has stuck with me.
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are ...
Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up. Besides, if you don't humble yourself, He might do it for you by providentially using those stupid video gamers playing stupid video games to make a breakthrough in AIDs research while you're taking your kids to Little League games whose victories will no doubt, not make newspaper headlines.
If University of Washington researchers use a competitive video game to take advantage of the human mind's capacity for spatial reasoning to help network some new, if small, discoveries in HIV treatment research ... does Mark Driscoll still get to say that video games are stupid pursuits of vicarious victories that don't matter and don't leave a legacy?
Well, Driscoll would say video games are stupid anyway. A bunch of gamers got lucky and were building on the work of some other guy working to leave a legacy. Points noted, should Driscoll ever pay enough attention to AIDs research or gaming to notice any of the above-linked news. Yet even if the actual scientific discovery arrived at by competitive video gaming turns out to be modest the significant thing is that it happened at all. A small step forward in AIDs research is probably a bigger legacy and a victory that matters more than, say, baseball games.
Maybe playing video games is foolish and Driscoll can still consider himself wise to rant about how foolish they are. I'll confess that I'm not a huge fan of video games and there are times when I'm tempted to think they're stupid. But humility involves recognizing that what seems stupid to me may genuinely be some kind of vocation or legitimate activity to others. God knows I don't get why people waste their lives on baseball but I try to resist the temptation to say that watching baseball is the stupid pursuit of enjoying vicarious victories that don't matter.
And a certain statement from the apostle Paul has stuck with me.
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are ...
Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up. Besides, if you don't humble yourself, He might do it for you by providentially using those stupid video gamers playing stupid video games to make a breakthrough in AIDs research while you're taking your kids to Little League games whose victories will no doubt, not make newspaper headlines.
latest installment of new series up at Mockingbird--Batman: the Agony of Loss and the Madness of Desire
http://www.mbird.com/2011/09/batman-the-agony-of-loss-and-the-madness-of-desire-pt-1/
Well, here's a link to part one of my latest set of essays in the DC animated universe. The title of the series--Batman: the Agony of Loss and the Madness of Desire is a bit maudlin but, well, we are talking about Batman here, the Caped Crusader, the Dark Knight.
There's a lot more where this came from and, honestly, I need to keep cranking out the material for it. In one of those weird, amusing but annoying ironies this set of essays has been very challenging to write.
Well, here's a link to part one of my latest set of essays in the DC animated universe. The title of the series--Batman: the Agony of Loss and the Madness of Desire is a bit maudlin but, well, we are talking about Batman here, the Caped Crusader, the Dark Knight.
There's a lot more where this came from and, honestly, I need to keep cranking out the material for it. In one of those weird, amusing but annoying ironies this set of essays has been very challenging to write.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
an update on writing in general and life
I have intended to write a lot, and I do mean a lot. I have, however, had to deal with real-world, off-line concerns about my vision. Back when I discovered I had cataracts I was grateful it was "just" cataracts I've had for a decade or more. But that was before I found out two doctors think it would be a very good idea for me to have the cataracts removed. By the way, I'm still unemployed. Nevertheless, I am attempting to do what I can to see if I can get cataract removal surgery.
The last time I had a major problem with my eyes was some fifteen years ago when the macula of my right eye detached. I've never had things go wrong with my eyes at particularly wonderful or opportune moments. Not that there are GOOD times to have things like growing cataracts or macular detachments but I've had what have felt like the worst times to have these kinds of things happen to me. When you already have been unemployed for 23 months and nobody seems interested in hiring you and you're not sure what you're doing wrong that makes nobody want to hire you finding out that your vision is failing (again) can be depressing. Perhaps in an unfortunate way there's a peculiar value to this kind of experience to provide a perspective in some of the stuff I have been trying to write.
Such writing as I can bring myself to do under the circumstances has mostly been devoted to a few running comments discussions but, more importantly, in attempting to keep producing new material for Mockingbird. The DCAU project is still on-going. In fact I haven't gotten to the stuff that most excites me until just now. I wrote about Superman this year, and about 1980s cartoons and how many of them stunk. I have been writing on Batman: the animated series and going back and forth with David over at Mockingbird on finding the right way to explore several themes but to do so in a way that is compact and readable.
This project has exploded in scale and scope since we first kicked around the idea of an overview of the DC animated universe some time around last christmas. All things considered this is no surprise, I've been attempting to summarize what now amounts to close to twenty years of narrative continuity surrounding some of the most beloved characters in the history of American pop culture. Along the way I have struggled a lot to discern and articulate what I believe are the core themes and concepts in some wonderful shows.
I normally try to steer clear of stating things in personal ways when I blog. This hasn't kept some of my family members from saying that I blog about stuff they'd never feel comfortable writing about in public but I have frequently seen what I share here as more ideas than feelings, more ruminations than a lot of personal history. There's plenty about myself and my life I don't discuss. However, I have realized along the path of writing about the DC animated universe for Mockingbird that there have been some significant points where how I have written about cartoons is informed by my life in ways I hadn't previously stopped to consider.
Let me take what I wrote about Superman as an American icon at war both with and for his legacies. Superman/Clark Kent is not just the last son of Krypton but the son of an American farming family. He is, to put it in a tacky and perhaps outdated way, the product of two races. He has two legacies. Well, that I'm even alive is due to the result of an interracial marriage. Unsurprisingly this has informed me in all sorts of ways I hadn't stopped to consider but I have, at least, realized, that the reason I've come to love Superman: the animated series as much as I do is because Dini and Timm got a thread to tie together Superman stories that I can relate to, the opportunities and challenges of figuring out who you are when there's not strictly one heritage you could be (or should be) defined by.
Superman spends a lot of time doing battle with rogues who believe that their own race ought to be given priority at the expense of others, whether it's Jax-Ur and Mala choosing to subjugate humanity to preserve the Kryptonian race and their sense of entitlement that goes with that, or Lex Luthor's suspicion of Superman as the Kryptonian who comes and plots to subvert everything he loves about his society and his position in it. Superman could be considered the ultimate illegal immigrant that Lex Luthor thinks has no right living in America. :)
And then there's Batman. I have been looking forward to writing about Batman: the animated series for months and now the moment of truth has come and it's kicking my butt like I'm Riddler and Batman just outsmarted my last, best deathtrap. I wrote "moment of truth" a sentence ago but it would be more apt to say there is a process of truth. It's helped that I've read Grant Morrison's book Supergods with help from a generous friend, but when Morrison writes that Batman is a character that lacks originality but makes up for that lack with soul and staying power I think that fairly opens up the question of what that soul and staying power consist of. Setting aside that I think Morrison's kinda crazy (yet another thing I will blog about later, maybe) I think that Morrison's on to something when he says that there has always been something of madness to Batman and his quest. Morrison is spot on in saying all of Batman's villains are embodiments of mental illness. But what about Batman himself?
This is all, by now, obviously a teaser rather than a spoiler for what I've been working on for Mockingbird. I don't intend to give away everything but I am willing to throw in a potential spoiler by providing a title for the upcoming series. Loyal readers (all twenty of you?) keep your eyes peeled and before too long you should start seeing some installments of my next series for Mockingbird--Batman: The Agony of Loss and the Madness of Desire. You probably can't quite imagine how stoked I am about this project or how daunting it is.
The last time I had a major problem with my eyes was some fifteen years ago when the macula of my right eye detached. I've never had things go wrong with my eyes at particularly wonderful or opportune moments. Not that there are GOOD times to have things like growing cataracts or macular detachments but I've had what have felt like the worst times to have these kinds of things happen to me. When you already have been unemployed for 23 months and nobody seems interested in hiring you and you're not sure what you're doing wrong that makes nobody want to hire you finding out that your vision is failing (again) can be depressing. Perhaps in an unfortunate way there's a peculiar value to this kind of experience to provide a perspective in some of the stuff I have been trying to write.
Such writing as I can bring myself to do under the circumstances has mostly been devoted to a few running comments discussions but, more importantly, in attempting to keep producing new material for Mockingbird. The DCAU project is still on-going. In fact I haven't gotten to the stuff that most excites me until just now. I wrote about Superman this year, and about 1980s cartoons and how many of them stunk. I have been writing on Batman: the animated series and going back and forth with David over at Mockingbird on finding the right way to explore several themes but to do so in a way that is compact and readable.
This project has exploded in scale and scope since we first kicked around the idea of an overview of the DC animated universe some time around last christmas. All things considered this is no surprise, I've been attempting to summarize what now amounts to close to twenty years of narrative continuity surrounding some of the most beloved characters in the history of American pop culture. Along the way I have struggled a lot to discern and articulate what I believe are the core themes and concepts in some wonderful shows.
I normally try to steer clear of stating things in personal ways when I blog. This hasn't kept some of my family members from saying that I blog about stuff they'd never feel comfortable writing about in public but I have frequently seen what I share here as more ideas than feelings, more ruminations than a lot of personal history. There's plenty about myself and my life I don't discuss. However, I have realized along the path of writing about the DC animated universe for Mockingbird that there have been some significant points where how I have written about cartoons is informed by my life in ways I hadn't previously stopped to consider.
Let me take what I wrote about Superman as an American icon at war both with and for his legacies. Superman/Clark Kent is not just the last son of Krypton but the son of an American farming family. He is, to put it in a tacky and perhaps outdated way, the product of two races. He has two legacies. Well, that I'm even alive is due to the result of an interracial marriage. Unsurprisingly this has informed me in all sorts of ways I hadn't stopped to consider but I have, at least, realized, that the reason I've come to love Superman: the animated series as much as I do is because Dini and Timm got a thread to tie together Superman stories that I can relate to, the opportunities and challenges of figuring out who you are when there's not strictly one heritage you could be (or should be) defined by.
Superman spends a lot of time doing battle with rogues who believe that their own race ought to be given priority at the expense of others, whether it's Jax-Ur and Mala choosing to subjugate humanity to preserve the Kryptonian race and their sense of entitlement that goes with that, or Lex Luthor's suspicion of Superman as the Kryptonian who comes and plots to subvert everything he loves about his society and his position in it. Superman could be considered the ultimate illegal immigrant that Lex Luthor thinks has no right living in America. :)
And then there's Batman. I have been looking forward to writing about Batman: the animated series for months and now the moment of truth has come and it's kicking my butt like I'm Riddler and Batman just outsmarted my last, best deathtrap. I wrote "moment of truth" a sentence ago but it would be more apt to say there is a process of truth. It's helped that I've read Grant Morrison's book Supergods with help from a generous friend, but when Morrison writes that Batman is a character that lacks originality but makes up for that lack with soul and staying power I think that fairly opens up the question of what that soul and staying power consist of. Setting aside that I think Morrison's kinda crazy (yet another thing I will blog about later, maybe) I think that Morrison's on to something when he says that there has always been something of madness to Batman and his quest. Morrison is spot on in saying all of Batman's villains are embodiments of mental illness. But what about Batman himself?
This is all, by now, obviously a teaser rather than a spoiler for what I've been working on for Mockingbird. I don't intend to give away everything but I am willing to throw in a potential spoiler by providing a title for the upcoming series. Loyal readers (all twenty of you?) keep your eyes peeled and before too long you should start seeing some installments of my next series for Mockingbird--Batman: The Agony of Loss and the Madness of Desire. You probably can't quite imagine how stoked I am about this project or how daunting it is.
And Jamie Munson has stepped down from executive eldership
http://blog.marshill.com/2011/09/06/important-letters-from-pastors/
Yeah, I saw this ... though I confess I have more pressing things to consider in many ways. When Driscoll says Munson has always been above reproach I wonder if he just pretends that Munson never said "There are no righteous poor in America" way back in 2002. Somebody told Munson that was a skunk thing to say because a week afterward Munson said "There are righteous poor in America," and then with a slight smirk in his voice, "I just don't think there are very many of them." Thanks, Jamie, it was nice to hear you thought there were at least some righteous poor in America after someone obviously talked to you about your categorical denial from the previous week.
Then again, considering that one of the big spiritual influences in Munson's life has been Mark "The real issue under a lot of issues" Driscoll what chance did the guy have? It's not like Driscoll thought he actually had to apologize for this year's bit about effeminate worship leaders. For that matter a lot of Driscoll's apologies have amounted to "I'm sorry that I said something that was offensive to you." The apologies have not always been of the "I was wrong to have said or even thought what I just said." Driscoll's not even the only person I've met who is a master of the "I'm sorry you're offended but not for what I said" apology; one of the other masters of the form has sworn off churches without realizing he shares the non-apologetic trolling nature of the church leader for which he's sworn off churches. Anyway, with a spiritual mentor like Driscoll around would it have been any surprise Munson would go from "There are no righteous poor in America" to "there just aren't very many of them"?
But I don't see any reason to subscribe to a conspiracy theory that Munson got the boot. He may have really resigned. I don't have much to say here on this blog about that. I know people make mistakes and I mention some because not all mistakes are intentional. I do think it is useful to keep in mind that despite a propensity in neo-Calvinist land to assume sin is motivated by pride and is conscious that a lot of sins are motivated by fear and are inadvertant. Since I have written at such length on that elsewhere in this blog I won't repeat myself too much there.
I do, however, have something to say about "The numbers aren't important but we're restructuring to reach the next growth barrier." When Driscoll blogs this it's a puzzle. I have said for years that my concern about Mars Hill (back when I was an attender and now even when I'm not) has been simple--the church has a history of committing to exponential growth of a sort that constantly outstrips 1) the competence of its leadership and infrastructure and 2) the stability of a well-cultivated donor base.
When the Lake City campus closed due to a diffusion of church members to both church plants and Anchor Church (don't misunderstand me, I REALLY like the folks I know at Anchor, they're wonderful people) it pretty much proved my point. A church that devotes itself to non-stop growth will do so at the expense of the financial viability of campuses. I've seen friends lose jobs because Mars Hill couldn't simultaneously afford to keep them employed while pursuing new campuses and renovating existing properties. For a few years in a row I'd hear news of a wave of lay-offs due to not making budget all while the pastors kept up the growth strategy. In terms of church growth it can come off like the pursuit of a "too big to fail" church in a recession that may be double dipping into a depression for all we know.
But Driscoll assures us the numbers aren' t important, though he has a vision of 25,000 people. You know what? That makes about as much sense as some guy telling me, "Hey, I don't have to marry a woman who looks like a supermodel ... but I want the girl I marry to look kinda like so-and-so [insert name of supermodel here]." There was a guy who used to say he wanted to marry a woman with measurements along the lines of 36-32-36 who wore a size 7 dress and had a D cup. God only knows how such a woman could exist in real life. My brother met this guy and once asked aloud where they even make such women and a woman he was friends with said, "You're right, they make those kinds of women." But I've already written about the kind of man who can aspire to that sort of woman as his ideal who then complains about the shallowness of women. Well, if Driscoll can keep shilling his stuff I can try to emulate his example. If you'd like to read an article by an actual nobody talking about the plight of nobodies who have discovered they're never going to be even as famous as the nobody who wants to tell you about somebody ...
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2011/07/roy-baumeister-disposability-of-men-and.html
Yeah, I saw this ... though I confess I have more pressing things to consider in many ways. When Driscoll says Munson has always been above reproach I wonder if he just pretends that Munson never said "There are no righteous poor in America" way back in 2002. Somebody told Munson that was a skunk thing to say because a week afterward Munson said "There are righteous poor in America," and then with a slight smirk in his voice, "I just don't think there are very many of them." Thanks, Jamie, it was nice to hear you thought there were at least some righteous poor in America after someone obviously talked to you about your categorical denial from the previous week.
Then again, considering that one of the big spiritual influences in Munson's life has been Mark "The real issue under a lot of issues" Driscoll what chance did the guy have? It's not like Driscoll thought he actually had to apologize for this year's bit about effeminate worship leaders. For that matter a lot of Driscoll's apologies have amounted to "I'm sorry that I said something that was offensive to you." The apologies have not always been of the "I was wrong to have said or even thought what I just said." Driscoll's not even the only person I've met who is a master of the "I'm sorry you're offended but not for what I said" apology; one of the other masters of the form has sworn off churches without realizing he shares the non-apologetic trolling nature of the church leader for which he's sworn off churches. Anyway, with a spiritual mentor like Driscoll around would it have been any surprise Munson would go from "There are no righteous poor in America" to "there just aren't very many of them"?
But I don't see any reason to subscribe to a conspiracy theory that Munson got the boot. He may have really resigned. I don't have much to say here on this blog about that. I know people make mistakes and I mention some because not all mistakes are intentional. I do think it is useful to keep in mind that despite a propensity in neo-Calvinist land to assume sin is motivated by pride and is conscious that a lot of sins are motivated by fear and are inadvertant. Since I have written at such length on that elsewhere in this blog I won't repeat myself too much there.
I do, however, have something to say about "The numbers aren't important but we're restructuring to reach the next growth barrier." When Driscoll blogs this it's a puzzle. I have said for years that my concern about Mars Hill (back when I was an attender and now even when I'm not) has been simple--the church has a history of committing to exponential growth of a sort that constantly outstrips 1) the competence of its leadership and infrastructure and 2) the stability of a well-cultivated donor base.
When the Lake City campus closed due to a diffusion of church members to both church plants and Anchor Church (don't misunderstand me, I REALLY like the folks I know at Anchor, they're wonderful people) it pretty much proved my point. A church that devotes itself to non-stop growth will do so at the expense of the financial viability of campuses. I've seen friends lose jobs because Mars Hill couldn't simultaneously afford to keep them employed while pursuing new campuses and renovating existing properties. For a few years in a row I'd hear news of a wave of lay-offs due to not making budget all while the pastors kept up the growth strategy. In terms of church growth it can come off like the pursuit of a "too big to fail" church in a recession that may be double dipping into a depression for all we know.
But Driscoll assures us the numbers aren' t important, though he has a vision of 25,000 people. You know what? That makes about as much sense as some guy telling me, "Hey, I don't have to marry a woman who looks like a supermodel ... but I want the girl I marry to look kinda like so-and-so [insert name of supermodel here]." There was a guy who used to say he wanted to marry a woman with measurements along the lines of 36-32-36 who wore a size 7 dress and had a D cup. God only knows how such a woman could exist in real life. My brother met this guy and once asked aloud where they even make such women and a woman he was friends with said, "You're right, they make those kinds of women." But I've already written about the kind of man who can aspire to that sort of woman as his ideal who then complains about the shallowness of women. Well, if Driscoll can keep shilling his stuff I can try to emulate his example. If you'd like to read an article by an actual nobody talking about the plight of nobodies who have discovered they're never going to be even as famous as the nobody who wants to tell you about somebody ...
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2011/07/roy-baumeister-disposability-of-men-and.html
Link: Open letter to the Child Star of PastorMark TV
Years ago Mark Driscoll said that the sign of an errant pastor was that when you'd go to look for the pastor's church the pastor's name was the domain name for the church. Okay, fair point, I suppose.
So what am I then supposed to make of Pastor Mark TV? What am I to make of Driscoll presenting his daughter Ashley as a model for other Christian teenage girls to emulate?
Spit take, this is how stories like that of Francis and Frank Schaeffer may begin. I've never met Ashley so it's not like I assume this is an inevitable outcome but Driscoll and company have been using Ashley at convenient times for years and at some point she may look back on these moments with, if not regret or anger, at the least some ambivalence.
Let's take the cutesy photo of Ashley smiling in Reformission Rev from 2006 with the caption "Thank you for buying my daddy's book." If prompted any child who loves her parents might say something like this and it may be harmless as far as things go ... but, it can also be taken as a sign that where public relations, image-promotion, and branding go that Ashley has been a useful PR/marketing tool for Mark Driscoll's image as father and family man. He wouldn't even be the first dad I've come across who has used his children as a point for boasting about the rightness of his ideas, ideals, and practices. He's just more obvious about it.
Now Driscoll fans have wanted to have things both ways. It's fine for him to be a celebrity preacher and say crazy stuff to get people's attention and say this is focusing on the "real" issues. So it's fine to say the author of The Shack is promoting heresy and say that because calling out false teaching is a public matter Matthew 18 doesn't apply. If Driscoll invites people to share stories about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leaders out there then people say he's confronting a real problem in the church. Driscoll himself will say that he's dealing with the "real" issue under a lot of issues. If Driscoll says that video games are stupid pursuits of vicarious victories that don't matter in contrast to building a legacy for Jesus (which, of course, we must assume he thinks he's doing) then Driscoll fans will come up with a way to exegete Driscoll's rant against video games as a way of saying he isn't saying video games are stupid so they can keep playing video games; the idea that Driscoll has pursued stupid vicarious victories that don't matter by watching a single baseball game just wouldn't compute.
Then the other shoe drops and Driscoll fanboys told MacArthur he needed to contact Driscoll privately abou this concerns and John MacArthur pointed out that he'd been doing that for some time. So when Driscoll rips into some public figure by name or by implication he's either speaking the truth or else he's doind something like engaging culture. When people speak up against Driscoll the fans tend to get nervous or angry because these people just don't know Driscoll's heart. Strange how they so readily know the heart of others. Since the heart is deceitful above all things I'm not quite sure why anyone trusts his or her own heart, let alone presumes to speak up with certainty about what's in the heart of another.
Now this is not hypocrisy because hypocrisy is advocating a standard that you don't live up to or even try to obtain yourself. There's a difference between hypocrisy and having a double standard. When I observe Driscoll fanboys I don't see a case of hypocrisy in which Driscoll is actually immune from criticism--Driscoll has at times conceded his critics have important things to tell him. What I observe in Driscoll fanboys is a double standard. They excuse in Driscoll what they cannot tolerate for twenty seconds in someone else because they judge Driscoll by a different set of criteria than what they apply to other people.
So if Ed Young Jr. or Benny Hinn or some other pastor outside neo-Calvinist land had his fourteen year old daughter contributing blog entries to a website named after the pastor how would neo-Calvinists take this. What if, say, Casey Treat had a child posting comments about what it's like to follow Jesus and be a kid in today's culture? How would Driscoll fans react to that? Is there some reason Driscoll can take his wife on tour to promote a book he wrote with her but Ed Young is crazy for having a sermon series on sex where he sits on a bed with his wife? Driscoll and his wife fielded questions on anal sex so this looks like a distinction without a difference ... or at least it would be if no double standards were ever involved.
You can think of it this way, once a person becomes a public figure libel and slander laws become far more lenient. I shouldn't really have to spell out what this means, do I? I don't think we really need to spell out how this could apply to a teenage girl of any kind? By bringing his wife Grace and his daughter Ashley on to Pastor Mark TV and by creating a book with Grace and setting up a thing like a "Real Marriage" tour for 2012 Driscoll is putting his wife and daughter into the public sphere as public figures.
If, as he indicated during some of his spiritual warfare talks in 2008, Driscoll screens emails so Grace doesn't get to see some of the nasty stuff that might be said (because she's sensitive about that stuff), why bring Grace into the public sphere herself? Maybe she's developed a thicker skin in the last four years? Okay, she's an adult. Ashley is still a minor. Minors who are children of controversial public figures and celebrities get things said about them. Let me rattle off a few non-random examples: Bristol Palin, Chelsea Clinton, George W. Bush (technically he fits), Frank Schaeffer (again). Then there are the famous child stars I don't really need to mention. Alisa Harris has a point worth considering, a man who would seek to protect his wife and family would have a legitimate basis for refusing or postponing a daughter's request to blog about how other people should live and using herself as an example just because she sees daddy doing it so much of the time.
And at the risk of indulging in my fondness for N. T. Wright (who I know for certain Driscoll has read), in the book Jesus & the Victory of God, Wright points out that the Pharisees were not people with tons of formal political power. Some of them, yes, had substantial influence but they were in many cases public figures by dint of their passion for the Torah and Israel's identity. THey could be likened in many cases to journalists and pundits. Or, to borrow Driscollian vernacular, people blog. Now if it is bad for people who are self-appointed experts on how other people should live why invite one's daughter to join the Christian blogosphere at such a young age? Not to speak too dismissively but the most brilliant fourteen-year-old is still a fourteen-year old. If our Lord Himself did not enter into public ministry until he was in his thirties as is traditionally described what's wrong with suggesting that a boy or girl imitate Jesus and wait a bit before deciding to jump into the public speaking and teaching game?
Now I'm not saying kids can't or shouldn't get before the public and do things they love to do. I mean, I own too many Hilary Hahn albums to make some categorical statement like that! I also own too many Stevie Wonder albums to say that a talented child shouldn't be out there doing things to entertain people and enrich their lives. At the risk of seeming like a callous person, does Driscoll think he has a Hilary Hahn or a Stevie Wonder on his hands in the form of Ashley Driscoll? Is she that comparable level of great, brilliant, and disciplined? Is she that great at theologian? Paternal affection is frequently cool and all but that doesn't mean that Ashley Driscoll is ready to have a primetime slot.
Okay, you know, if she did a discourse on problems in Nestorianism or unpacked the significance of allegations of Montanism in contemporary Pentecostal thought then MAYBE I would grant she's the theological whiz kid Driscoll has bragged about from the pulpit. But even if she is, what is the value in having her out on the internet now where, as the daughter of a public figure megachurch pastor, she will be inculcated into the same pasttime and vocation. The trouble is that if she doesn't go crazy at some point like teenagers will do she could just be getting groomed to be a Pharisee of Pharisees.
If that doesn't happen, Ashley Driscoll is still wading into the realm of blogging and being the celebrity pastor's kid. Given how the internet has a habit of bringing out a lot of peoples', er, not-so-inner Driscoll quipper mentality, is putting Ashley into this cyber-world at the age of fourteen a particularly great idea? Obviously I don't personally think it is. She's not my kid, you may say, I grant that, too. It's just that, well, I saw the picture of Ashley with that caption "Thank you for buying my daddy's book" and I thought it was cheesy, manipulative, and kitsch back in 2006. I don't yet see giving Ashley a platform to show off the great theology her daddy thinks she has as a fourteen year old is necessarily any different. It's a way for Driscoll to brag about how your family should be like his family but it doesn't mean Ashley deserves or needs to be part a new website shilling Driscoll stuff that she contributes to chiefly on the basis of nepotism.
I can't really overstate this concern--if this wasn't the fourteen year old daughter of a celebrity megachurch pastor who's gunning for 25,000 members even though numbers don't matter, would anyone give a crap what the fourteen year old girl had to say about theology? If this were just a fourteen year old girl nobody had heard of who had a father nobody had heard of no one would even know she was in a position to write. To be a Driscoll-level of blunt about this, the only reaoson Ashley Driscoll would have any platform at all is due to plain old nepotism and at this tender age in her life Driscoll has more to benefit from having Ashley blog than Ashley will gain from it unless Driscoll's going to use Ashley's blogging as a way to invite instructive and constructive criticism to her about how to make a sustained argument. Like anyone who would read a Pastor Mark Driscoll's daughter blog is likely to be allowed to do that anyway.
Once it's on the internet it can stay up there for a long time. Consider that there are folks who still remember Pussified Nation. If anything it would be useful if one day Ashley Driscoll could grow up to see Pussified Nation and see the kinds of stuff William Wallace II wrote. If there was something Driscoll can look back on (and should) to tell Ashley about what to do and not do on internet discussion he could turn to Pussified Nation from the unmoderated Midrash and say, "Honey, whatever you do, don't do what I did."
Nah, in Reformission Rev he sold his actions as necessary to get the young men in line. Oh, that'd be the other 20-something men who thought they were going to change the world. If Driscoll makes any claim to have regretted started into ministry too soon and before he was really ready then it would be on the basis of THAT that letting Ashley become a celebrity blogger by nepotistic proxy ... on the basis of that he might just be a teensy bit of a hypocrite. Or maybe just a double standard.
I guess I should look forward to Ashley Driscoll's review of William Gurnall's The Christian in Full Armour then. Or maybe her review of the cases for and against paedobaptism and why she thinks Calvin was wrong to advocate paedobaptism. If Driscoll was serious in saying a lot of young people are wrongly and idolatrously obsessed with the Christian conference scene why is he not only going on a tour with his wife to promote a book on "Real Marriage", but also assimilating Ashley into the borg-like world of neo-Calvinist blogging? I mean, if I had a life, which I don't quite have, I might blog a whole lot less. But Mark assures us that his baby girl is a great theologian and who am I to doubt his paternal affection?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Links from Mockingbird: The imcompetent bloodshed of the Locavore and inauthentic authenticity
http://www.mbird.com/2011/09/choking-the-chicken-a-locavores-lament/
http://www.mbird.com/2011/09/inauthentic-authenticity-and-the-best-way-to-sell-yourself/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/fashion/for-only-the-authentic-cultural-studies.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
http://www.mbird.com/2011/09/inauthentic-authenticity-and-the-best-way-to-sell-yourself/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/fashion/for-only-the-authentic-cultural-studies.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Two separate blog entries but their overlap is intriguing. I do not value authenticity so much as I value honesty. Authenticity is not really, to put it crudely, a Christian virtue or any virtue at all. Authenticity is simply the fruit of your life growing on the vines or branches for people to observe. You will always be authentic but you may be an authentic honest person or an authentic liar or an authentic ditherer.
A quest for a locavore lifestyle is a sort of Seattle thing. It does not confer upon a person a connection to 'real' or 'authentic' living. If anything it is, within Seattle, an extension of a kind of consumeristic obsession with status that speaks not of authenticity or simplicity but of a luxury of convenience that leaves a gap that permits the person aspiring to locavorism to see himself or herself as part of a solution to a problem. "Sustainability" is not necessarily a terrible thing but in our day and place it is more realistically described not as a vocation but as a hobby that aspires to an authenticity that in earlier epochs arose from the bluntest pragmatic and practical concerns.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Recycled material: Meditation on John 1:1-5
O Word of God who formed the sun,
Who formed the billions and the one;
O God, the Word, who made all things,
Whose praise the universe still sings;
Our origin and end you are
And in all things we prove your power.
Of you we can't be over-awed
O Word who is true God with God.
O Life who is the fount of life
In spurning you we loved our strife,
Your breath is how we came to breathe,
Your health our sickness will relieve;
Your blood makes our dead hearts to beat
And makes our withered hands complete;
O Life of Life you can decree
That e'en the blindest eye may see.
O Light that makes the cosmos shine
Please fill our minds with light divine,
That with yourself our hearts may glow
And you our darkness overthrow.
O Light in whom no shadow lies
Give sight to all our blinded eyes
That we may see you are the Word,
True Life and Light to all the world.
I wrote this poem between January and March 2007 and posted it in March of `07. It took months of work and was a slow and steady process. If it weren't obvious already I had been immersing myself in a lot of the poetry of John Donne around the same time I was reading John's Gospel. I tried setting the poem to music but never successfully made any music that I felt properly fit or set the text. I trust it's obvious that I was (and would be) going for a simple four-part chorale/hymn setting. I'm simply a competent poet, if even that, but since my church is heading into a series on John and since I wrote this poem inspired by reflecting on the famous first five verses of that gospel I thought I'd repost this.
You may notice a slight change or two if you compare this version to the version I originally posted. The differences are small but not subtle. I made the revisions I made (if you read the original, can you spot them?) so as to avoid what I considered to be overly synergistic implications in the original form of the poem. In case you hadn't noticed it in my blog entries since 2006 I kinda care about theological stuff. :)
Who formed the billions and the one;
O God, the Word, who made all things,
Whose praise the universe still sings;
Our origin and end you are
And in all things we prove your power.
Of you we can't be over-awed
O Word who is true God with God.
O Life who is the fount of life
In spurning you we loved our strife,
Your breath is how we came to breathe,
Your health our sickness will relieve;
Your blood makes our dead hearts to beat
And makes our withered hands complete;
O Life of Life you can decree
That e'en the blindest eye may see.
O Light that makes the cosmos shine
Please fill our minds with light divine,
That with yourself our hearts may glow
And you our darkness overthrow.
O Light in whom no shadow lies
Give sight to all our blinded eyes
That we may see you are the Word,
True Life and Light to all the world.
I wrote this poem between January and March 2007 and posted it in March of `07. It took months of work and was a slow and steady process. If it weren't obvious already I had been immersing myself in a lot of the poetry of John Donne around the same time I was reading John's Gospel. I tried setting the poem to music but never successfully made any music that I felt properly fit or set the text. I trust it's obvious that I was (and would be) going for a simple four-part chorale/hymn setting. I'm simply a competent poet, if even that, but since my church is heading into a series on John and since I wrote this poem inspired by reflecting on the famous first five verses of that gospel I thought I'd repost this.
You may notice a slight change or two if you compare this version to the version I originally posted. The differences are small but not subtle. I made the revisions I made (if you read the original, can you spot them?) so as to avoid what I considered to be overly synergistic implications in the original form of the poem. In case you hadn't noticed it in my blog entries since 2006 I kinda care about theological stuff. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)