Category Archives: theology

liberation for all

My current book project is looking at liberation theology for those who are in a context of domination and control, finding meaning through negating or oppressing others.

A lot (certainly not all!) of church work is oriented in a pattern of oppressing, oddly enough.  There is a hiearchy of not only function but also value, where leaders become, essentially, the Spirit for their community, telling people what to think, how to act, where they fit, where they don’t fit.  A few speak, many are silent.  A few are active, many are passive.  Even as this passivity becomes a topic itself of speaking, the passivity is enforced by the models. Rhetoric can only go so far in the face of practices.  Idealized roles become infused with theological priority of ordination, the Word goes forth from a single message or speaker.

Meanwhile, the Spirit always works from below, rising up from the gathered people, many tongues, many voices, the Word most fully an expression of all, the Body infused by the Spirit.  The body of Christ is not many-headed.  There is one head, all the parts together expressing together the movement of God in the midst of a context.  Experiencing this is the experience of liberation. Here’s how I end my first chapter:

We are liberated when we participate with each other in becoming fully who we each are made to be. We liberate when we help others become, we are liberated when we let others participate in our becoming. Thus, liberation happens for the oppressed and the oppressors together, the one taking up as the other lets go, each creating space for the other, resisting the depersonalizing tendencies of social systems as they engage in the truly personalizing movement of the Holy Spirit in their midst.

Posted in theology, Transformative Church, writing | 10 Comments

considering liberation of the oppressor

To be liberated, the oppressors need to be themselves understood in their oppressing, and to prevent oppression from returning in another guise, a more holistic construction of human reality should be utilized, lest the formerly oppressed institute new patterns of oppressing once or where they may find advantage.

The European example is noteworthy here, in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere, where immigrants often escaped from patterns of oppression or alienation or punishment, only to impose new patterns of violence and abuse in their new setting.

One stark example may be the involvement of Irish immigrants in expressions of “manifest destiny” (or later in African colonialism).

The English subjugation of Ireland led to attempts to end the native language and culture, pushing such farther West into a restricted zone and resulted in mass starvation as workers were required to grow, and export, cash crops rather than diversify their own food sources.

The mass exodus from Ireland to the United States offered new possibilities, among them a “dream” that saw the West as land to be conquered, with the natives inhabiting them killed, isolated, and forced to adopt the culture of their conquerors in order to live.

This is not, to be sure, a pattern to be solely attributed to the Irish, blaming them (or other such immigrants) for its development. However, their participation in such a repeated pattern shows how limited liberation really seeks to be.

We tend to want freedom for ourselves, not for those who oppress us nor for those who have what we want, often framing an unending cycle of both in the guise of justice.

The immigrants who lost their land in Europe wanted land, and getting land satisfied their assumption of loss, even if the land they got was itself stolen from another.

Such is the history of human civilization and is certainly not limited to the European example, but it is story told in most every culture, and every scale of human interaction. The oppressed need to be freed from their oppression but the danger is that an insufficient form of liberation leads to the oppressed becoming part of new patterns of oppressing.   The man who was once beaten, beats.  The woman who was silenced, silences.  The abused, abuse. The once poor, despise the still poor.  The privileged find it hard to let go the mantle of their former oppression, and lay claim to being victims even as they may be new victimizers.  They are not, then, truly liberated.

Liberation must address both sides, the place of loss and the place of power, because both serve to dehumanize people, and often the same person in different ways.

Posted in emerging liberation, theology | Leave a comment

Being Freed to Liberate Others

If we compare the two ways of knowing, it is easy to see that modern men and women need at least a balance between the vita activa and the vita contemplative, the active and the contemplative life, if they are not to atrophy spiritually.

The pragmatic way of grasping things has very obvious limits, and beyond these limits the destruction of life begins. This does not apply only to our dealings with other people. It is true of our dealings with the natural environment too.

But the meditative way of understanding seems to be even more important when it is applied to our dealings with our own selves. People take flight into relationships, into social action and into political praxis, because they cannot endure what they themselves are.

They have ‘fallen out’ with themselves. So they cannot stand being alone. To be alone is torture. Silence is unendurable. Solitude is felt to be ‘social death’. Every disappointment becomes a torment which has to be avoided at all costs.

But the people who throw themselves into practical life because they cannot come to terms with themselves simply become a burden for other people. Social praxis and political involvement are not a remedy for the weakness of our own personalities.

Men and women who want to act on behalf of other people without having deepened their own understanding of themselves, without having built up their own capacity for sensitive loving, and without having found freedom towards themselves, will find nothing in themselves that they can give to anyone else.

Even presupposing good will and the lack of evil intentions, all they will be able to pass on is the infection of their own egoism, the aggression generated by their own anxieties, and the prejudices of their own ideology.

Anyone who wants to fill up his own hollowness by helping other people will simply spread the same hollowness. Why? Because people are far less influenced by what another person says and does than the activist would like to believe. They are much more influenced by what the other is, and his way of speaking and behaving.

Only the person who has found his own self can give himself. What else can he give? It is only the person who knows that he is accepted who can accept others without dominating them. The person who has become free in himself can liberate others and share their suffering.

~Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life

Posted in holiness, Moltmann, theology, Transformative Church | 2 Comments

kingdom and holiness

The expression of the kingdom that is holiness is a witness to the power of God and a
witness to the presence of the kingdom that is already among us, a transfopeople-193359_640rmative reality in which the incarnation of Christ continues through his people.

In letting go of other forms of identity, participants in this mission take on their own cross so as to discover the resurrection of Christ in their lives and contexts.

The invitation,  healing, and restoration of the kingdom are “both the pathway to the cross and the pathway Christians walk throughout their lives with the cross as those who have died to self with Christ in order that they might live in his grace and power.”

The “kingdom is present wherever Jesus is present,” and Jesus is present wherever his people are present, resonating the work of the Spirit in the pursuit of the kingdom of God.

Posted in spirituality, theology, Transformative Church | Leave a comment

towards liberation

At a certain point the means toward an end lead to very different conceptions of what the end should be and it is thus vital for Christian theology not to merely add Christian terminology to non-Christian or even anti-Christian goals.

Liberation, in other words, is not all the same, and there can be forms of liberation that perpetuate rather than alleviate systemic patterns of violence and oppression.

The goal, in a Christian sense, is not just victory or justice over the enemy, but justice for the oppressed that lead to new patterns of living for all in a shared community.

Love must replace hate, hope must replace despair, joy for anger, life for death.

A true pattern of liberation, in a Christian sense, offers this invitation to all: sinners and tax collectors and Democrats and Republicans, men and women, Greek and American and Palestinian and Jew, Black and Asian and Hispanic and White.

This does not dismiss or erase contexts, rather it encounters the stories, listens to the experiences, acknowledges the hurts, frustrations and shame.  Hope is not through dismissing but acknowledging the depth of hurt is so much that the only way to find peace is through the one who has gone to the depths of death itself and brought resurrection to it.  Our liberation is out of always different situations, and those situations are part of our testimony and our despair. Holding onto death, however, leads us back into oppression.

When Jesus meets us in the place of our death, we can hold onto the story of death or we can grasp onto the future that Christ brings to death.  Liberation never negates; it does offer a way forward, that involves sharing together a path towards life.

Liberation is resurrection, a hope, a dream, a life offered in resolution of shame and guilt and blame and frustration.

This is the eschatological invitation of the Kingdom, not a natural progression. It’s not always even what we want, that’s why Jesus was crucified, after all. But it is the invitation even still, a persistent invitation that defies defiance, confronts violence, resists rage and points to the way that is life.

Precisely because it is not a natural progression is what makes it a particularly Christian proposal. Such liberation is not a vestige of human idealism, over-realized anthropology, or personal ambition framed in the guise of working for gain of others so as to maximize one’s own gain.

Posted in spirituality, theology, Transformative Church | 1 Comment

What does it mean to be a transformative church?

What does it mean to be a transformative church?The Transformative Church

Two elements orient my overall purpose.

  1. A church is transformative when it engages in the development of people to better reflect the life of Christ in their lives

  2. and when this transformation then extends itself beyond the boundaries of a church community, as such people live their lives in new ways wherever they are.

We become in the church who we are to be in the
world.

Read more…

Posted in church, emerging church, missional, theology, Transformative Church, writing | 6 Comments

the broken state of public discourse

Anyone who is online and involved in segments of the opinionated classes–religion, politics, academia, etc.–quickly realizes the minefield that is public conversation.  The goal isn’t necessarily to contribute to the gathered understanding, but rather to establish yourself on a side, or show that you are one of the good people.

For instance, it’s pretty common for me to read something like, “If you don’t say _________  about _______, then you don’t understand or believe the Gospel.”  There’s always an interest in tying Jesus not only to a particular goal but to a particular stance.

I think I’ve been reacting to this for a long while.  And honestly, at my core I’m a fair bit rebellious. I’m resistant to being told what I must say or write.

I’m a rather opinionated person, to be honest, so it’s not that I don’t have a response to issues that are happening in this world. More, my recent silence to events or issues has more to do with really what is a postmodern critique. I’m suspicious with how public discourse is being used to perpetuate cycles of dysfunction.

There are sources of power that depend on such dysfunction in order to maintain their own authority.  Politics and Media are chief among them, as they must fuel disorder to maximize the psychological and social distress which they then can exploit. Religious leaders often have the same goal.

These systems establish authority and meaning for a class of people who then seek advantage within those systems or find themselves alienated or demonized. A fair amount of people who say things aren’t actually grounded in substantive understanding or belief.  They say what they say to establish themselves as faithful players in the system.  The winds change, they do too.

This is why much (most) public discourse is not really as much as a conversation as a antagonizing pattern of establishing the good people and the evil people. People rush to vocalize their stances so as to maintain or build their status in the particular system they aspire to find meaning in.

Religion, politics, academics, etc. it’s all the same as with pop culture: people tend to be less concerned about truth, beauty, or real consideration of the moral or aesthetic issues and more concerned with aligning themselves with those who can provide favor and advantage.

Tenure is supposed to secure freedom of thought in academia, but it misses the social pressures in seeking intellectual validation and approval by peers. Salvation by grace is supposed to secure freedom of thought in theology, but grace has long been coupled with proofs of one’s status as graced–toe the line of theological and ecclesial conformity or you will be rejected as having never received grace.

I’m working on a new book project this year, on the topic of liberation, and I’m currently reading through some books by Jean Marc-Ela, an African theologian.

When people must be on the lookout, like tracked animals, the development of a literature of paean and laud to the established regime translates into a form of prostitution  to which intellectuals are condemned for the sake of their families–in order to spare their elderly parents or their sisters and brothers the unpleasantness sure to ensue if a writer or speaker does not toe the party line.

Silence is as suspect as speaking or writing–paradox of paradoxes–since it can be interpreted as a form of disapproval of the prevailing regime.

Voluntary marginalization is a dangerous and precarious option where the multitudes are made to kneel before the idols of the day, ready to convulse in a hail of knee-jerk reactions at a moment’s notice.

It is not difficult to imagine the conscience drama in certain intellectual circles where writers and speakers are constrained on every occasion to utter the oracle pronounced to be the thinking of all citizens. Here, to speak in public means to repeat a discourse already heard.

The obligation to submit to official conformism fosters a parrot mentality, in which any critical reflection is a threat of dissidence and schism. The mind is locked up in a repetitious liturgy of the world of myth.

Without free thought there can be no progress in any area, and the triumph of unanimity that checks that free thought demands a whole ritual, currently manifested in the bowing and scraping to established regimes… The unity established through a one-party system is galvanized by the banishment of any form of dissidence labeled as threatening to public security.

Does this mean avoiding any public discourse? No.  For me, however, my sensitivity to the structures of power and how discourse is co-opted by the powerful for their own gain has led me to step back as I deal with my own temptations and, honestly, dependency.

I need approval and acceptance, not for a social sense of self, but because as of summer I need employment and income.  I see what I am told I need to say and think in order to gain status, who I must reject and who I must align with in order to get books sold, contracts, employment. I realize this and can’t get away from a verse that has afflicted me since seminary.

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the Lord. (Isaiah 31:1)

I say afflicted because as this passage stands out to me, I’ve stepped away from doing the things I should be doing in order to find the status I want or need.

I see this need, this interest in looking for those who may satisfy my very real concerns, and then seek to hold onto my integrity by not playing the game as it is being played.

Where is real freedom to be found?  It is very freeing to be on the outside, where dependency on approval for status and livelihood is not an issue.  But it is also a place of isolation and need.  The outside doesn’t pay that well, nor feed or house my family.

My security is bought at a price.  So, find a system to cling to–Right, Left, Populist, Academia–and commit to it, overlooking the faults of one’s “own” while demonizing those others.  That’s the temptation.

Real issues are used by people in power to secure their own power, they not only do not seek to alleviate the core problem such resolution is against their self-interest. They utilize the true believers and idealists to further establish their own gain.

Politics (on both sides), social causes, religious zeal; full of abusers and the abused, the latter often taking on a Stockholm Syndrome pattern of devotion to those whose self-interest drives the dysfunction. Public discourse is often more a game of social maneuvering than a pursuit of the fullness of truth.

I am silent because I don’t want to play into that system, even as I am absolutely obligated to speak up about issues that occur in my immediate context.  We are called to be good neighbors not loyal partisans.

I am often silent now because I’m trying to navigate how to speak outside the system within the systems, holding onto the fullness of hope and identity in Christ rather than clinging to a meaning derived from ultimately false patterns of meaning. I want to be a prophet not parrot the false-prophets that abound on every direction.

“We must conclude,” Ela writes, “that an acceptance of conflicts of opinion and a divergence of options, without the reduction of the opposition to silence, is not really incompatible with the pursuit of national unity and the progress of the masses.” Nor is is incompatible with the pursuit of good theology, unity of the church, or progress in social questions.

And so I wait on the Lord to give me wisdom and words. The pressure of not waiting is backed by the threat of judgment and dismissal and rejection: say “this” or you are rejected. Silence is indeed suspect.

That makes the goal of waiting on the Lord a difficult, brutally difficult, task.  Because those who are not waiting insist others join them in their chorus.

Posted in academia, personal, professional, religion, theology | 20 Comments

Theology as prophetic orientation

In Christian traditions, God is the primary prophet. He tells us about himself, then has others convey this knowledge. The prophets in the Bible rarely, if ever, are saying something new about God. They remind the people what they already have learned. After the Torah, the rest of the Bible is mostly commentary, and warnings, and revitalizing.

So, then, what does God tell us about his own self? What does God tell us about creation? What does God tell us about salvation, judgment, promise, redemptions? What does God tell us about the Spirit? Who is God? A simple one? A multifaceted unity? A complex unity of three persons? How does that work? What does God want us to do? Be? How are we to gather together? Who is included? What is the human condition, the human struggle, human failings? God tells Moses that he is the God of their forefathers and the I am for all generations? So, that’s history, what can we know about God’s work in history?

The challenge in these questions is to take the insight of many different narratives and teachings and speak of God in a way that is coherent with God’s revelation and has meaning for us in this present experience so that we are oriented with integrity to God’s continued work that reaches to us from the future.

It behooves us to get this right. It’s a challenge and a task to speak of God that relates the I am to who we are.

The sermon notes (now from a couple weeks ago) continue to help me orient the discussion:
The Profaning of God’s Name

  • When the delivered Israelites go to Mount Sinai to receive the law, the third commandment is that they “shall not make wrongful use of the name of YHWH your God, for YHWH will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”
  • Ezekiel describes what the Israelites have done as a kind of corrupting or defiling of the nature and character of God. Because the people failed to enact justice and mercy but instead followed after power and the worship of idols, then the name of God was defiled. The people around Israel did not know YHWH as a God who hears the cries of the oppressed; instead they associated YHWH with the life of all the other gods.

That telling about God involves both a relationship and a study. A delving deeply into the revelation and considerations of God from those who have wrestled with his reality, living it out and filling out themes along the way. It is a spiritual task that involves the heart, mind, soul. There is no anti-intellectualism in Scripture, there’s no rejection of learning or study, indeed these are celebrated again and again, with the warnings coming in regards to false study or, often worse, ignoring God’s being or nature. Ignorance of God is no excuse, and intentional ignorance is worthy of judgment.

When we name God, we do not control God. When we call on the name of God, we are orienting ourselves in a situation of dangerous possibilities. God works, but God is who God is, not who we want God to be. God responds, but is not all things to all people. If we name God, then speak falsely of his character, values, goals, we are liable to judgment. It’s not mere strong language that’s being condemned in Exodus 20. “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” Misusing God’s name is about making God seem to others something he is not. It is abusing the relationship for our own power or benefit or pleasure. When we teach about God things that God does not see as true, we are misusing the name of God. The Jewish scholars sought to bypass the danger by no longer using the name of God, using ways to get around saying the name, lest they say it vainly. Jesus was not convinced by this workaround.

We are given the Name and we are given the name so as to encounter this God who is, walking rightly, with justice and mercy, in truth. Who is this God? What has this God done? What is this God doing? What will this God do? That is the prophetic task, and it is the task of those who claim to be theologians to find coherent ways to speak of these realities, teaching who God is to each generation, ever deeper so that the people may go ever farther in the calling this God gives.

So we need theologians as prophets. But that doesn’t let theologians off the hook. False prophets, after all, do abound.

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

So opens 2 Peter 2. Jeremiah 14 has this to say:

Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds. Therefore this is what the Lord says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, ‘No sword or famine will touch this land.’ Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine. And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them, their wives, their sons and their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.

If I’m commending the role of theologian as a prophet, then I can’t ignore the warnings that comes with such a task and such a title. To be a theologian is not a casual affair, though many have treated it as yet another among many academic specialties. Maybe for some it is. For those who take this God seriously, it is a serious task and calling.

Many in the past tried to get around the warning about wrongly using God’s name by no longer using the name God gave Moses. Instead of the Name, they used the title Lord or God. In most of our translations, the name of God is translated as LORD in all caps. Jesus wasn’t convinced by this false show of piety. It’s not the name that’s the issue, it’s what we’re representing as relates to this name. If we do oppression as Christians, the name of Christ is brought into the service of the oppression, and we are making wrongful use of the name. If we condemn or alienate in ways that aren’t aligned with God, we are misusing the name. We are appropriating God’s authority for our own purposes. That’s vain. And that’s dangerous.

Academic theologians are quite a bit in this danger. I’m not only talking of the ones that are more freely indulging in heresy or don’t believe in God at all. They’re liable to judgment, sure, but not really more than everyone else. There an obvious target. In the model of Romans 1, however, I’m more interested in looking closer to home. What about the theologians who speak the words of God but are primarily oriented in systems that have, to say the least, other concerns. The academic system, for instance, in which theologians are obligated to God somewhere five or six steps down the list. The academic system leads theologians to seek academic honors and gratification, to frame the discussions so as to please academic colleagues, to be respectable in their institutions and respectable in their guilds and respectable in pursuing the theoretical fads of the moment. Being an academic is a very privileged perch, after all, where one relies on the money of those going into debt to pay for a protected status.

Again, the danger in response is an anti-intellectualism. So, we have the intellectuals on one side who serve idols of status and power and vanity. On the other side, we have those who serve the idols of ignorance and whatever whims of religious culture they might be part of. Who are the ones who seek God first, who speak deeply with learned discernment about who God is and what God is doing?

If a theologian truly is in the role of a prophet, then it’s not really feasible to find theology entrapped in the power structures of either academia or the church, where the systems dis-orient the message so as to co-opt the name.

That’s not to say that theology can’t be truly prophetic in academic or ecclesial circles. It’s just it’s a dangerous and difficult task. To be worked out with fear and trembling rather than arrogance. We don’t have idols of gold or silver or wood. We do have idols of conferences, tenure, publishing, and collegiality. Or for those of us who are on the underside of academia, we have idols of jobs, of networking, of benefits. What does it take to get those things? Sometimes it seems like we need to co-opt the name of God, use the language and message of God, living our calling vainly, in order to gain a place at the table.

We associate YHWH with the life of all the other gods of our time. And people then realize the theologians have little or nothing to say about God himself.

It doesn’t have to be like this.

Posted in academia, spirituality, teaching, theology | 1 Comment

mission accomplished

From a student paper:

Contemporary Christian Theology seems like such an academic topic, I was a sophomore, and my faith was incredibly new. I walked in, looked at the class, and saw I was way in over my head. But, as this class ended up teaching me, as well as the blog, I was completely in the right place allowing the spirit to work through me. Words like eschatology, Christology, and pneumatology were words that I never thought I’d grasp, but what I came to learn was that these concepts were ideas already stemmed within in me and were things that I had views on . It was amazing to hear different denominations’ viewpoints as well as speak on Catholicism as I haven’t really have not had the opportunity to share it in biblical studies and Christian theology classes before. Perhaps what I most understood through this class was the idea that theology isn’t about knowing everything, it is about using your life, understanding each other’s views, and knowing that at the end of the day, like everything, it is about Christ.

The class is Contemporary Christian Theology, a gen ed I teach at APU. I’m not sure I would have phrased it like this, but this does come close to my goal. And that I’m teaching students who are not going into further theology studies or ministries is even better. I translated academic theology in a way that helped. That’s something. Maybe not everything, but it’s something.

We’ll see where God leads in my pursuit of communicating all of this. My contract with APU was only for a year, and they are looking for someone with different background for next year (and the permanent position). So after this next semester? Do you need a theologian? Maybe it’s not only academia that needs more theologians… Maybe that’s part of the problem in a lot of respects.

For now, and for this season of life, I’m learning a lot in this present foray of academia (the positives and the negatives) and it is encouraging to know I’m helping others learn as well. What will the next season hold during this time of continued wilderness?

I await the Promised Land, keep walking forward, find strength and hope in the face of discouraging news, find renewal and encouragement in hearing very positive affirmation from others. I’m tired, to be honest, but the cloud hasn’t rested yet, so I, we as a family, seek what God has in store, further up and further in.

To live is Christ.

Posted in ministry, personal, speaking, teaching, theology | Leave a comment

“Name it, claim it”: Theology as prophetic insight

What is prophecy? A popular understanding sees it as telling about the future, doom or glory, with a prophet more like fortune teller. Indeed, that’s what a lot of “prophecy” that’s out there in popular Christian circles is really modeled after, it’s a way of giving people a cue to the, or their, future so as to 1) make money 2) give the speaker some level of power 3) tickle the fancy of wayward hearts. Which isn’t to say that everyone who is interested in prophetic movements are bad, more often than not they’re desperate. And desperate people eager to hear a word from God in their difficulties fall prey to those who leech off desperation.
Holy-Prophet-Moses
I’m also not rejecting prophetic movements or people in general. I have Pentecostal influences and still see myself in that tradition in many ways. I’ve had people give me helpful counsel, reminders of God’s call, insight into how God is working, and I’ve appreciated that in deep ways. I think there are people out there who really are sensitive to the work of the Spirit and speak words of truth in contexts where the words are important. Such words aren’t just limited to future-telling. Prophecy is a speaking of God, words concerning God, utterances of God’s interests and values. In this way, in Christian tradition, we say that the primary prophet about God is God himself, who reveals himself to people, initiating the conversation.

As I continue my musings from the message notes of last week’s sermon, here’s what comes next:

God’s Unique Name (Exodus 3)

  • God is the “I AM” who is present with his people in their suffering. Thus it is the “I AM” God how has sent Moses to Pharaoh. And now Moses will go as YHWH’s representative and he will be “like God to Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1)

So, we can see the task of prophecy and the task of theology here in God’s introduction. God describes himself. He describes himself as one who is paying attention. He describes himself as attentive to the current issues. He describes himself as being willing to engage the situation. Have hope.

He also tells Moses his name. God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: This is my name forever, and this my title for all generations.”
jk_prophet
Names are important. In naming something we identify its purpose, meaning, and situate a form of control. Calling someone by name is both endearing and influential, when we hear our name we turn and respond. The ability to use a name, then becomes a source of subsequent power. Bothering me? I know a guy I can call. We use names to create contexts of interaction and, often, bartering. Names imply domains, both in the internet and more broadly. So many gods, all have their names, all have their areas of specialty. Want thunder? Thor. Wisdom? Athena. Flavor for your food? Huixtocihuatl. Trouble with water? Suijin. Need to write? Seshat. Name him, claim him. Name her, claim her.

The Jewish God gives not so much a name as a statement. What is his domain? “I am”. What is his speciality? “I am”. Who is responsible. He is. For everything in essence, but not in a generalized way, in a distinct, purposeful, willful way. Who is this God that gives such a name? Not a god you want to cross. Not a god who is going to put up with distortions or being subverted. That’s what the prophets are about in many ways, God feels slighted and God feels like his people have taken advantage of him, dismissed him, played around with others, while the ones in charge use the name of God to institute perversion or oppression or corruption. The Name claims it all, and judgment is the result. When we name God, God claims us. God calls us to live in light of his claim.

Prophecy then is a telling about God in light of the fact God is particular about his name, his ways, his priorities, his values. He reveals himself and it is not up to us to distort the revelation. However, what the prophets do is relate God’s revelation to contexts, addressing situations, addressing ideas and concerns. Moses asks what he is to say. God tells him. Moses tells Pharaoh and all the people. Prophecy is not an easy task, and it is not a task to be treated lightly.

It is the task of theology. We speak of God. Deeply and thoroughly as we can.

Posted in holiness, musings, spirituality, theology | Leave a comment