Category: Transforming Theology

  • Arteries and Capillaries

    Over the last many years, I’ve become interested in complexity.  No, not in order to make difficult that which should be easy, nor to add yet more layers of analysis to what are already indecipherable experiences.

    Sort of just the opposite. That which is easy is very often not so simple.  Yet, we try to make it simple, and devolve into very remedial explanations that fit some conception of the world, but not a real like conception.  Our ethics and structures are far too often functioning in an 8-bit world when there’s 64-bits — really much, much more — in the architecture. In understanding the complexity, we embrace the reality, in which the simple is complex, and embracing the complexity is embracing the simplicity, experiencing what is beautiful.

    arteries and capillaries

    It’s an different kind of simplified reality that we use to deal with most of the world, reductionistic rather than complex. We’re a binary people, on or off, good or bad, do or don’t, wrong or right.  Then there’s the nuance people, which is where a lot of theological ethics tends to land, which makes everything a mish-mash of colors, turning everything gray.

    Those are the traps in theology. We  create dogmatic stands on complex issues, oftentimes doing so in a way that aligns us, curiously perfectly, with political or social forces in our surroundings.  Or we use a whole lot of words to say very little except how complicated things are, and we should see both sides, and buy my book.

    We are also extremely compartmentalized.  That’s church stuff, that’s business stuff, that’s God stuff, that’s me stuff, that’s my stuff, that’s your stuff, that makes me me, that doesn’t make you you or me.  Theology does that too.  Here’s the church stuff, let’s formulate that. That’s the stuff about Jesus, let’s stack this here. Here’s the bit on creation, that fits over by that wall. Here’s the Holy Spirit, where do we put that?
    cubby holes
    Now about salvation, here are your four steps that have very little to do with anything else I’ve mentioned but can be supported by five individual verses and so have to be the way things are.  And here’s who can be in charge, and there’s a verse on that, and because there’s a verse on that, we don’t have to think about what it means in terms of Jesus, or Creation, or Spirit, or salvation, or any of the rest because the answer is clear as day and I’m in charge or can use really big words so be quiet.

    Church stuff is settled, we meet on Sundays, have an hour or so of busyness, a couple guys stand up front, do a varying array of semi-mystical expressions, everyone sits or stands or occasionally replies with a scripted response.  Some people are challenged or renewed or encouraged, others fulfill their obligation for the week, alleviating just enough religious guilt to keep God out of most of the rest of their lives until the next week.

    The Body and the Blood.  More like an automaton. Gears and levers and tubes filled with a viscous enough liquid that keeps things from binding up. Turn the switch, it stands up. Pull the level, air blows through the bellows and it speaks. Don’t mind the man behind the curtain, it’s the people, the people!, who are participating. Everyone in their cubbyhole, in their place and program and category, two or three times a week. automaton

    Very orderly. Can compile statistics about growth and involvement and giving and such. Put those in tables, tweak the numbers, pad the accounts, we’re all doing great. Why isn’t society listening to us? Hey! We’re still big, it’s the culture that’s gotten small.

    Lest this seem like my litany of complaints about the church, it’s not. Like with yesterday’s post, there’s a bit of carthartic release just in the writing to be sure, but there’s something more. I go to a big church, one with staged worship, and manicured landscaping, and new seats that don’t clang when someone gets up to go to the bathroom in the middle of a sermon. I’ve even preached at times!

    I’m in a Sunday School class, that remnant of once-care for the outcast and poor that has turned into yet another intellectualizing seminar for the relatively put together. I’m a member of that. Not because there are no other options. Not because I’m an ecclesial hipster who likes to hang around a traditional church in an ironic way, making snide remarks on my own or with other cool kids.

    I go there because I believe that’s where God has me. Because of obedience. Now, the latter is going to be a rising theme hereabouts, so make not of it. Especially because obedience is grating on our sense of personal identity. Everything has to have an explanation, or it’s considered oppressive and degrading. So we want to explain. To put everything to the test. The test of what it means for my own sense of self. Which is why pastors like church services so much, you know, they’re the most important person at them. But, is explanation required? Does God explain to the people every time he has them do something? Or tells them not to do something? Rarely. But we expect it even still.

    So that it makes sense and so by making sense we can put it in a particular file, label it with just the right title, then arrange it into the correct cubby hole, so that when we need to refer to that topic we know where to look. Here are my ethics. Here’s my finances. Here’s my relationships. Here’s my use of time. Here’s my house. Here’s my sexuality. Here’s my diet. Here’s my view on what happened in Florida or what happened in China. Here’s this and here’s that. Our ticky-tacky made out to be independent by giving it progressive names so that we’re not like those people but are entirely different by being exactly like this other group of people.

    We are all conformists but we conform in different ways with different groups with each cubby hole, the file giving the instructions on who is the right guide for that part of our life.

    This then fulfills our expectations for explanations. It’s enough that this is how it should be. It’s how we approach a lot of life, the appearance of freedom and complexity belaying the fact we’re simple sheep, with a multiplicity of different shepherds leading us different directions. That’s true with church too, you know.

    The Law doesn’t make sense so we celebrate our freedom, except when the law is also part of our cultural sense of self so we give in an explanation that may or may not fit with reality. Going to church on Sundays is what people do, so we do it, and we do it because going to church is transforming because you’re going to church. When people see us go to church, they’ll say, “Hey! that’s a person that goes to church, I should go to church too because they are showing me what it is like to live as a person in our era and in our society.”

    That’s what we like to tell ourselves at least. That going to church is transforming and going to church distinguishes us from people who don’t go to church and we’re better at being people because we go to church. That’s not why I go to church. I have very low expectations of what a Sunday morning might mean for me. I’m not closed off to it, but I don’t look for that to be my spiritual resource for the week.

    Going to church has just as often encouraged my shadow sides as it has my light-filled side. Ambition. Competition. Performance. Pride. Envy. Gluttony? Anger. Acedia. Greed. There’s the list. Check off how many are fostered. Even as there are just as often encouragements and real expressions of lived faith that serves as a beacon, a model, a guide for me and others.

    Church is a mixed bag. Just like the rest of life.

    God said to us that our church was where we needed to go. And even in the midst of the frustrations I find myself wanting to be obedient. Because obedience in the context of relationship is an expression of trust.

    And I want to trust. I want to trust that God is doing a work in and among this world, in my community, in my family, in my life.

    Yet, I don’t want it to be a blind trust. I don’t think that is my calling. But in obedience I am drawn into an analysis that pushes me to be involved even where I might otherwise be disdaining. Because disdain is not a fruit of the Spirit, and God leads us to places so that we might learn and grow. I am finding in the big church experience all sorts of insights and lessons, and most importantly particular people, people are part of the body, finding their way in the blood, moving along the arteries. People who I can teach and who can teach me, who I can help and who can help me, people who I don’t trust and don’t trust me, but maybe we’re willing to test those boundaries a bit and see what happens.

    And in my learning and growing, I’m thinking about complexity, and the inter-relationality of all things, and arteries and capillaries. Which has shaped my view of theology and my view of church to move away from the binary of this or that, horrible and wonderful, into finding how a multiplicity of forms and structures contribute to the more thorough transformation of our own life, families, and communities.

    Fractal_Art_17

    This means that my understanding of theology and my understanding of the church is coalescing into a shared approach, both informing each other, both needing to find reactive response to not only big, compartmentalized issues but also interrelated with all the other participants, themes, and scales. My view of the atonement radically affects how I think a church should be structured. My view of the Spirit radically affects my understanding of atonement. My experiences and challenges are shaped by and in turn fill in my perception of the Spirit. How God creates ties together my view of election, and eschatology, and what I should do when I gather intentionally with other believers.

    Trust, obedience, faith, hope, love.

    I’m not a big church guy. I’m, at heart, an embedded, missional, emerging sort of guy. Who God first led to the mountains to experience a semi-monasticism far from formal ecclesial connections, and then led me into the city where I became part of a local mega church, filled with all the sorts of good citizens — some of the world, some of the Kingdom, a few of both — that make it important in the church world. Is it where God will have me stay? Maybe not. But I suspect that if I go it will be with an interest in expanding rather than separating from that ministry. Arteries and capillaries. Mission and theology.

  • Adventures in the Spirit part I

    These days I’m up to my eyeballs in reading. This makes sense given the fact that I’m now in a PhD program taking a particularly PhD sort of class–Theological Methods. Basically, this is a class on how people write, or “do”, theology. We look at different theologians and discuss how they approach this huge, huge topic. People who are not close to reading academic theology might think this is an odd endeavor. How does one differ in studying God and speaking about who God is?

    There are a lot of ways and these ways come from a lot of directions, with a lot of purposes, and a lot of emphases and interests. Not all are equal, mind you, but that’s not to say there are clearly wrong ways that interfere with the Right way, even if that’s what certain pastors like to imply (the Right way being their way, of course).

    That there are many ways to express theology is easily shown by the very foundations of our faith. Scripture itself tells us of God from many different perspectives and eras, looking through many different perspectives in different contexts, and relates to us God’s revelation and human interaction in a wide variety of styles.

    There is not a Right method to studying or conveying theology. But there are wrong foundations or goals or approaches that don’t always directly oppose Christian foundations but undermine it in an attempt to make sense to other goals or purposes. The former cheerleader who wants to cozy up to the newly rich nerd.

    This was the charge against Liberal theology, the sort of theology that began with a man named Schleiermacher and continued on into our present era. Here the emphasis is less on foundations and more on making sense to our personal experiences and to the experiences of others, assuming that theology has to give up what are considered outdated assumptions in order to provide some measure of influence and inspiration. But in doing that, as history shows, theology is so gutted as to be even less necessary and even less interesting for anyone to converse about. So open minded there’s no worthwhile thought left that can’t be found a hundred other places.

    Now, saying this now I’m being particularly unfair to Philip Clayton and his book Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action, which I’m looking at for the Transforming Theology initiative. Because I’m not saying this is true about his efforts. Mostly, I’m just musing about the context of theological interaction with broader fields, and the mines that have been found. Whether or not Clayton himself wanders the same field is yet to be discovered. I’m hopeful, truth be told, because of the helpful insights of recent theologians which have broken down the old Liberal/Conservative divide and allow us to wander towards a newly cleared field towards a more substantive theological contribution to this world.

    I’m coming at this as a curious kind of Evangelical, one who still embraces the category but with the understanding that not all Evangelicals would embrace me. Inasmuch as Evangelicalism doesn’t have room for my sort, however, I argue that those places are where Evangelicalism has gotten off track rather than me. I’ve got all my Evangelical bona fides lined up, and would argue this more, but that’s not the present concern.

    From this perspective, I am going to go chapter by chapter of Clayton’s book. Because of my present reading load, that includes a major paper due in a couple weeks, I’m not going to be very systematic about it, and hope others might better outline his quite interesting contributions. Instead, I’m going to take a more lectio divina approach. Read a bit, muse over it a bit, then write whatever comes to mind. And throughout I’m going to be asking a response of sorts to Clayton’s own recent contribution. What can Evangelicals learn from Philip Clayton? I suspect a lot.

    And, once again, I’ve made a post of introduction rather than getting to the meat of it.

    I need to do less musing and more interaction… that comes next.

  • Theology is a has-been popular cheerleader

    This is supposed to be my first real post on Philip Clayton’s book Adventures in the Spirit.

    One of my quirks is to occasionally anthropomorphize concepts, situations, politics, etc. and see such as characters in a sitcom. Sitcoms have given us a wide ranging view of human interactions and if not entirely accurate, at least it’s a variously entertaining way to see how we silly people interact during times of often self-imposed crisis.

    In coming to the topic of the interaction with science and theology I admit I’ve kind of gotten my head latched onto a particular sitcom setup.

    Theology is like the high school popular girl, the leader of the pack who decided who was in and who was out. She had cool clothes, surprising influences, and her family came from a lot of money. All the cream of the crop wanted to be her friend. She wasn ‘t really mean but she could be vindictive. She was opinionated and biased and thought everyone would be happier if they saw the world the way she saw it, and experienced it the way she experienced it. She got good grades, was queen of the winter festival, homecoming, and prom in various years, head cheerleader, dated the captain of the football team (who got a full scholarship to Stanford), and volunteered at the retirement center ten hours a week, generally Wednesday and Sunday evenings.

    Science is… well, science. You know that kid. Well, maybe you don’t (unless you were that kid). Spent a lot of time in the basement playing video games filled with grand adventure while having grand adventures of acne, programming, and a bit of a weight problem. Had friends at school, and they hung out by playing World of Warcraft, indulging their passions and intellect by figuring out how to demolish other tribes and capture the gold found in unexplored realms.

    Only it’s not the medieval era high school anymore. Everyone moved on from high school, going different directions that reflected their potential more than their present. A lot of the kids went on to the enlightenment college, including the popular high school girl and the science nerd. They had, to be sure, entirely different experiences. The popular girl went to a party school where she studied a little bit, but mostly hooked up with the wrong sorts of characters. After a couple of years of this there were some scandals, and most of her friends abandoned her.

    Meanwhile, the science nerd went to MIT and majored in astrophysics, where he met all kinds of people thinking just like him, a lot of them also alienated in high school, though a fair number of people who were shockingly popular and brilliant. He worked with some very important professors, and even as a junior wrote some software that made him tens of millions of dollars. The acne cleared up, he started exercising and that led to him dating more, and becoming more involved in the community. He started his own business, then bought up other businesses, and found that everyone wanted to be his friend, even if they didn’t always have the slightest clue what he was actually studying and working on.

    The ten year high school reunion happens. Everyone gathers together again. The nerds, the jocks, uncategorized hoi polloi. The popular girl overhears the science nerd guy talking to one of her old friends, who during high school tended to be friends with all the various groups. Her name, in case you were wondering, was Sophia and she had majored in philosophy at a state school.

    The one time popular girl has this realization that she and the science nerd really have a lot in common, and all those times in high school she ignored or rejected him really was a long time ago, and anyhow she never really rejected him as much as there was a lot of miscommunication on both sides.

    So the popular girl steps up to the guy, gives him a hug like they are old best friends, and says they should go out sometime. He looks at her, says hi, and walks away.

    The popular girl is left standing there with Sophia, her one time friend who is now an assistant professor of philosophy and a marathon runner.

    That’s my sitcom view on the present situation with science and theology.

    This post turns out to have very little to do with Philip Clayton’s book, but it does expose a little bit of my own attitude about the whole project.

    I am cheering for that popular girl, truth be told, the Cordelia Chase of academic studies.

  • Adventures in Theology

    A little bit ago I signed on with a relatively new project called Transforming Theology.

    Since that is certainly an interest of mine, I thought it might be worthwhile to see how others view this and how they are going about it.

    On their blog, one of the key participants, Philip Clayton, gives a little bit of explanation and description of what they are about.

    Well worth watching, I think.

    The timing of this has been, for me, quite good. Especially given that I’m now taking a theological methods class, with Nancey Murphy and not long ago read her most interesting book Anglo-American Postmodernity. Especially interesting now because it gives a rather helpful framework for my understanding this new venture. Indeed, I’d recommend, again, my overview of her chapters on religious thought as quite helpful reading.

    To give a real quick summary, it has been standard in theological and ecclesial conversations to label a particular theologian or theology as either Liberal or Conservative. This was not just a simple task of convenient categorization. It was, for the most part, an accurate description of assumptions and methods. There were distinctions within each of these camps, but for the most part there were different rules, presuppositions, approaches and dialogue in each that really maintained two distinct strands of theology for the last centuries, and especially the last 100 years.

    For those of us engaged in theological thought it was also an easy way to figure out friend vs. foe. Though not always successfully. I remembering as a young student at Wheaton trying to figure out whether I should like or dislike Barth. He said so many good things… but he was a “Liberal” according to my understanding of classification at the time.

    Over the last 50 years or so this pattern has been crumbling. Such labels might still be used but they are not really useful or altogether accurate, especially as they relate to distinct strands. Instead of there being hardened positions and assumptions there are convergences. Instead of there being an apparent choice between two opposite stances on key foundations, there are fluid positions along a spectrum of belief. This leads to a new approach of theology that can listen and learn and respect what other sides are saying without having to establish a friend or foe mentality.

    This isn’t to say there are no, or should be no, disagreements. There should be and there absolutely will continue to be.

    For me at least such a dialogue is not fruitful if it means merely watering down theology so as to make an agreeable stance that means nothing in heart or substance. It means engaging in dialogue with mutual respect so as to understand other positions, learn from them, and see how they can shape continuing thought, study and practice. This means, for me at least, not watering down, but indeed better understanding my own tradition and thoughts, communicating these as well as possible, sharpening them and thus being an able contributor.

    This contribution to theology has two main goals, as I’ve seen it. While each are important to an overall theological perspective they really have two distinct directions of focus and might be, in some ways, exclusive pursuits. The first direction is that of coherence. In this theology is asked to make sense both to itself and to the broader intellectual world. The pieces of its claims should fit together and theological conversation should be able to, it seems, have a connection with other forms of knowledge–especially as we maintain that God is the God of Truth.

    The second approach is that of integrity. Theology should mean something not only to academics and as a cogent philosophical system but also, and arguably more importantly, it should mean something to those living life as they experience it, with the hardships, struggles, concerns, and frustrations that life contains. A holistic theology should be able to speak both to those engaged in complicated intellectual pursuits and to the poor person who hasn’t eaten for two days.

    To give a picture to this, I see the pursuit of coherence as being the rear guard, protecting theology from being undermined by developed instabilities that are created either by its own lack of contemplation or by new forms of knowledge about this world from other places (i.e. the earth revolves around the sun). It is not primarily concerned with what theological issues might mean to the desperate person, but that does not mean it has no vital function. If theology collapses because of incoherence, there is no ability to speak to those who are the most desperate. They will have rejected it before tasting of its ability to offer deep solutions.

    That is, in a way, the state of Christianity in Europe and North America.

    Theology in the pursuit of integrity is on the front lines, in the trenches, embracing praxis and problems. Taking stock of people’s questions and situations, not always an academic approach in expression or discovery. It can often take the approach of what Dyrness has called a Vernacular theology–a theology that is expressed by the people as they live, rather than what the official doctrines might say. It might also take the approach of a academic style theology that begins with questions of friction and difficulties and is framed to response to these without particular note of inconsistencies or systematic development.

    Two theologians, I think, mark these two approaches particularly well, as they essentially began in much the same setting. Wolfhart Pannenberg exemplifies the pursuit of coherence, and Jürgen Moltmann exemplifies the pursuit of integrity. Like with the various foundational theological positions, this too is reflected on a spectrum rather than as two distinct choices.

    My own theological position would be best described as beginning from the conservative side of the spectrum, strongly developed in conservative churches and conservative institutions of learning, as they may still be accurately described. My own academic pursuits are now emphasizing Moltmann, emerging/missional church theology, and are concerned with how theology deals with questions of poverty, hardship, hurt, and frustration. In short, according to my framework, I start as a conservative with an interest in theological integrity.

    That’s my place in this attempt for theological conversation. And my task, as it begins, is an interesting one. Tripp Fuller, one of the key organizers of this Transforming Theology forum sent me a book by Philip Clayton to review called Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action. Philip Clayton, as much as it would fit into my framework, would seemingly be coming from more the Liberal side of the spectrum with a strong interest in theological coherence, hence repeated references to Pannenberg at the beginning.

    My approach is to hopefully write on this book chapter by chapter. A single post review of the whole text might be easier and quicker, but it would not, I think be as helpful overall to the broader dialogue. Instead of trying to give a judgment, my hope is to make notes along the way that would illustrate how this book contributes to people no matter where on the spectrum they are. I also hope to make his contributions more readily approachable by those without theological training or interest in the more abstruse aspects of theological and philosophical coherence.

    I hope to write on what this work means to me and how the core ideas might be helpful to the people I know. That I do this without a proper background in either philosophy or science brings humility to this task and likely will shape the sophistication, or lack thereof, of my comments.

    That’s my introduction to this new task of mine. Look for the posts to pop up periodically for the next few weeks.