Monthly Archives: May 2012

Trinity and Liberation

Much political theology and liberation theologies tend to prioritize the context or the situation, orienting the discussion around specific instances of injustices or specific exhortations to act instead of not acting, to be aware rather than ignorant, to go rather than hide. 

In effect, one’s orientation towards God is perceived, once again, by one’s orientation around such objectified issues, which while different than more traditional and ecclesiastically focused orientations are still motivated by and seeking to motivate others towards specified responses to a specified issue.

In this way, it tends to be the case that the more conservative and progressive expressions of church tend to be very similar, with only the objects of concern and the relevant expected responses on chosen topics determinative for one’s acceptance.    The Evangelical church’s interest in anti-abortion, for instance, is mirrored by the progressive church’s interest in anti-war.  The attitudes and underlying rationality tend to be the same, leading to oppositional behaviors as they either talk past each other or conflict with each other based on their respective judgments about a particular issue.

This certainly can be the case with many new model churches, which if operating in an unreflective mode of reaction often tend to be “bizarro” fundamentalists rather than truly new model communities.[1] A reactionary response to Evangelicalism might appear to be a fresh expression but is in fact is just mirroring the exact same attitudes and approaches, only with different topics being emphasized.

It is for this reason that a comprehensive theology of the liberation of the oppressor cannot merely be about an orientation towards wealth, poverty, rights, violence, or other such issues.  As much as liberation is about such specific topics, it becomes more about doing and performing, a performance that can mimic supposed righteousness without actually signifying real transformation.[2] 

What makes a thoroughly Christian theology of liberation so distinctive is, in essence what makes Christian theology itself so distinctive.  We speak of a God who acts, who is involved, who seeks and calls people towards reflecting his action.  But we also speak of a particular God who exists in a certain way, and in this way of existing liberation is not simply an ancillary trait.

God loves because that is who God is.  God liberates because that is who God is.   Liberation is, then, in Christian theology an ontological category.  It is not something we are called to do, but someone we are called to be.

This is again why liberation has to happen from both sides, as it is all people who must experience liberation in themselves so as to be liberated and liberating people in the midst of their contexts, a liberating people who reflect the liberating God. 

Just as liberation is at the root of who God is as a triunity, so too we discover the roots of the liberation of the oppressor as a new orientation in light of God’s unified threeness. We are, after all, created in the image of God, and it is thus through better understanding the identity of God that we better understand who we are to be.

This is who we are called to be because this is the identity that God is seeking for his people, actively involved in this world to form them into becoming, truly, a likeness of him in this world.

Indeed, this instinct that theology is intimately involved in transformation that led Moltmann to begin his contributions to Systematic Theology with a text on the Trinity, rather than the long hoped for ethics of hope that he had in mind since the early 1960s and which friends and colleagues eagerly awaited.[3]  That ethics had to wait for more thorough theological development, as “everything done and suffered must conform to what is believed, loved and hoped for.”[4]



[1] “Bizarro” was a character created to be a mirror image of Superman, a shadow image, defined by being opposite in every way.

[2] Cf Mt 7:22ff.

[3] See Moltmann, Ethics of Hope, preface.

[4] Moltmann, Ethics of Hope, xiii

Posted in 500 | 1 Comment

Truth, Beauty, and Yodeling Pickles

Peter, “It’s just a bit of silliness really.”
JM Barrie, “I should hope so.”

~from the movie, Finding Neverland

There’s something about theology and ministry that makes me serious. Now, that’s not a comment about how seriously I take it, or these are topics of great concern that merit only very serious attitudes.

It’s more that these topics, for whatever reason, seem to cause a shift in my personality. I become very serious. Don’t believe me? Read this blog. It’s very serious, mind-crushingly serious, alienatingly serious. I can’t even remember the last whimsical post I wrote here. I can’t remember, for that matter, the last whimsical anything I wrote. I try to post on what I’m thinking about, but since this is an entirely sporadic blog (liberally sprinkled with “sorry I haven’t written for awhile” sort of posts), I’m not really even sure what the goal of this blog is and it’s certainly not a cross section of what I usually am thinking about.

This has become my serious side. It’s the side of me that doesn’t let itself out in most social situations, and the side of me that, for whatever reason, is both an integral part of who I am and the choices I have made, yet I don’t express in other situations.

Remember the pensieve from Harry Potter? It allowed one to store memories, pulling them out like threads then storing them in a bowl.

This blog, and writing in general of late, has been my pensieve for seriousness. Scroll down, read the earlier posts. Very serious stuff. The writing at least. The pictures are more about beauty.

Truth and beauty, that’s the stuff of life, yeah?

Only for the longest time whenever I’ve had to describe myself or add a tagline I’ve used the phrase “a lover of truth, beauty and occasionally silliness”.

That really does sum up my personality. Only there has been a plain lack of occassionally silliness in my writing. And honestly, I miss it. I’ve been thinking for a while about how to get it back in but, of course, as my main writing task these days is my dissertation and dissertations are, as a rule, especially soul-crushingly serious even within the already serious genre of academic writing, I’ve not a lot of mental space for indulging my whimsy.

I say I don’t have a lot of mental space for whimsy, but isn’t it a matter of making space?

Did I post that part of my dissertation, the part I talked about making space is a significant part of our relationship with God and with others, not only something we do but something that reflects the image of God? I don’t feel like looking now, because that’s tedious, and as there’s few things more serious than tedium, I’m going to dodge looking for the requisite link.

Making space is good. But making space for whimsy and silliness? That’s something the desert monastics would certainly scold me about. Such a serious lot. And the trouble is that I have long taken them very seriously so while I disagree with their scowling about laughter and fun, I realize that there’s was often a depth of spirituality that I, in my best moments, really would love to discover. Maybe my blog has become an unintended reflection of my inner suspicions that theology and the Christian life really are, and should be, quite serious endeavors.

“A hermit saw someone laughing, and said to him, “We have to render an account of our whole life before heaven and earth, and you can laugh?”

That’s from the Desert Fathers. Not all those desert monastic really knew God, but the ones quoted in that book did, and much more than I do.

And yet… to a person, every mature Christian I’ve met or heard speak in person–those whose walks with God are deeper and longer and more thorough than my own–have a sense of humor. That’s always high on a list of relationship ideals, right, that the other person has a sense of humor? That was a big part of my attraction to Amy. She made me laugh.

“And you can laugh?” Yeah, I think so. Precisely because we have to render an account. And there are parts of my rendering that will be, to be sure, pretty ludicrous in the re-telling.

Theology and the Christian life are serious, to be sure, so merit a degree of somber interaction. However, when it comes down to it, both are also pretty ludicrous. We’re trying to come up with words that describe the creator and sustainer and ultimate identity of the universe, who we say is one but also three, God but also man, but not just a man, a man that isn’t like other men but is so much like other men that our very orthodoxy is dependent on testifying that this man is a man as much as other men but not like other men in all sorts of pretty specific ways, like the fact that he didn’t sin and like the fact that even though God incarnated as a man, this man didn’t exhaust all the identity of God even though he was fully God in every way, but since we also have the Father–who was with but not identical with this man, but be careful about using qualifying identical because then you have three gods instead of one; and this third one, or part or mode or person (but not separate person, more of an identity within the threeness of the oneness) is tricky because it’s not really a person, only it is, but more of a wind, or a breath, or a tempest, or a bird? or maybe a force but also a person because our trinity needs three persons and isn’t the beginning of a joke in which a son, a father, and ghost walk into a bar. So, the man died, really died, but didn’t die because he was raised from the dead and is now alive but not alive with us, with the Father, and with us in Spirit–which isn’t a pretty phrase meaning we’re thinking about him but he’s literally with us in Spirit–only to return again at some point which is always just about to happen for the last 1988 years or so.

I could go on and on. But you get the point. There’s an inherent ludicrous quality about theology that sort of inspires a bit of snickering when anyone tries to take it too seriously.

Yet people are very intent about taking it too seriously and if you don’t take it seriously they’ll be the first to remind you how serious to take it. But what do they know?

Really, all that seriousness is about trying to cope with the fact that much of theology, and much of our lives, and much of reality in general is ludicrous. Not because it’s meaningless. But because the meaning is so complex and intricate that our attempts to package it up in brown paper with neat little bows is ludicrous.

And because, I think, God has a sense of humor too, so whimsy is embedded in Creation. Our recognition of it is not dodging the main points of life, it’s indulging in them, recognizing and interacting with the world in a way that doesn’t take it as serious as many people want us to take it.

Finding the silliness, exploring the whimsy, letting go the absoluteness that seriousness seeks to impose, isn’t just a distraction. It is, I increasingly believe, part of our participation with God, part of recognizing the world for what it is–a ludicrous sort of place–seeing the contradictions and complexities as often displaying the ludicrous reality in which we now live.

Laughter is good medicine not because it’s a placebo, but because it helps us see the world rightly once more. Whimsy gives us perspective. And inasmuch as it does, it is, I think, holy.

“And you can laugh?” Yeah, I think so. Because we don’t just render an account our sins. We celebrate our salvation, and that is a feast, a joyous event, a reflection of the fact that this God, the God, our God, takes us seriously but not that seriously. He thinks us ludicrous too, and is willing to rectify our faults because of his love for us, not because we deserve it, because we’ve proven how serious we are about our salvation, but because he wants to. So he does. Ludicrous as it is, God saves us. It’s his whimsy to save the world. God is holy and God saves, becoming one of us so that we can participate with him. Foolish and scandalous as this might be, that’s what he does. And it makes me laugh, because it’s so thoroughly good.

Truth, beauty and occasionally silliness aren’t just a tagline, after all. They’re how I define holiness because they are how I see God’s identity expressed in this world.

They are, as such, also the expressions of love.

Which is, I think, what theology should also be about. Certainly it’s what I want to be about, and I think finding the whimsy and humor again in my writing is a necessary part of my becoming a more developed theologian.

A theologian who is always serious doesn’t really know God.

I could go on and on, writing serious words about whimsy and bogging down in existential introspection about my own identity as a theologian and the seriousness of silliness as part of the theological project. But, that would be ludicrous, so instead, let us end with this, a yodeling pickle.

This post is part of the May Synchroblog. Here’s a list of other participants in this month’s bit of silliness:

Posted in academia, contemplation, missional, musings, personal, silliness, theology | 13 Comments