The Good News
If the purpose of the Church is something other than experiencing and communicating the "good news" (aka the gospel), then I've had a hell of a long ride with Christianity only to arrive at nowhere. But for bar-chat's sake, let's go with that for now. Let's say the purpose of the Church is all about the good news. Well, what exactly is that good news, right? I want to highlight the fact that we still have no collective understanding of what that good news is all about. So let's think through this.
It wasn't until this semester in my class studying Martin Luther that I finally came to an understanding as to why the hell I've been so "pissed off" at the church. Well, that is, other than all those times so-called Christians decided to royally fuck me over. As much as that did piss me off, I have always known within me that simply could not encapsulate what I was feeling about the Church. How did I know? Well, I looked around me. The people who embodied the most of what it meant to be a Christian had no (or at the most marginal) connection with the "Church" as such. Yeah, these were the people the Church condescends upon because they don't meet the moral criteria for what it means to be a Christian in modern America. These were the prime targets for evangelism. So in my head I suddenly began to realize that the tables had turned. To be a Christian, you had to stop being one. That is, in the traditional sense. And then I came upon Martin Luther.
Luther believes that the essence of the gospel is the cross. Same interesting but ultimately unhelpful story, right? Well, that's what I thought at first. On closer inspection, I realized that the entirety of Luther's theology revolves around his conception of the cross...but his appropriation of that now-domesticated symbol happens to be radically different than anything I've ever known or experienced. At the risk of oversimplification, here's how Luther sees things. "Adam" rejected the gift of God's creation and passed on his sinful ways to all of us through human seed (thus, original sin). Therefore, everything within us is bent towards sin. But what is sin? Sin is essentially pride. It's our unwillingness to let God be God. We like things the way we want them and thereby take the place of God. So far, so traditional, right? Well, here's where it gets interesting. For Luther, sin is not our inability to do things right; nor is it our great ability to do things wrong. Rather, sin is thinking that we can get things right in the first place. In other words, the more we try to do what's right, the more we sin. The reason is because we are failing to understand that there is NOTHING, and he does mean NOTHING we can do that is even remotely close to doing what's right. ONLY and he does mean ONLY God can do that. How does God do that? Well, God meets us at the cross, the ultimate symbol of everything that a God is not supposed to be: weak, ugly, stupid, etc. God meets us at the cross. That's the only place God meets us. Therefore, our attempts at trying to understand God, to please God, to do what God wants, to be a good Christian, etc....all of those things represent the epitome of sin. Why? Because they try to skip the cross. Instead, we are to meet God at the place of profound contradiction in order to realize that the only way of connecting with God is by connecting with ourselves. It is only when we realize how fucked up we really are that we arrive at understanding even the possibility of being "saved." That's one hell of a theological critique of Christian morality as we've known it.
Now, by no means have I hopped on the Luther train without reservation. There's a number of things about him that I'm by all means not happy about. But here's what he got right. In his time, he described the papacy as being the "antichrist" because they literally represented to him all that it means not to be a Christian. Well, as I mentioned in the thread of the last post (and at the risk of being overdramatic), my instincts that another Reformation is needed in the present time have seemed to come to a head. I believe the Church has come to represent the opposite of what it means to be a Christian. Now, is that a sweeping indictment of all Christians? Absolutely not. Is it a sweeping indictment of the "Church" in all its manifestations? Absolutely. The Church has managed to provide a representation of Christianity that revolves around morality and doctrine. That's the God-damned bad news, not the gospel. That's about establishing one's own eternal happiness by codifying into a religion everything from insecurity to prejudice. If the Church is no longer about experiencing (and much less communicating) the good news, then why bother?
Now, you can write this off as thewalrus being pissed off, cynical, or damaged and...well, for your sake, you'll be nothing but right...because you will have confirmed everything the Church currently represents in my eyes. And yes, what has happened to me down through the years has undoubtedly influenced how I see the world and the "Church." But lest you indulge my propensity to understand the cosmos as aligned towards everything but my favor, you should actually take the time to listen to what I say. Because I tell you the truth, the Church as we've known it is dead. There is no gospel coming from that corner. Even the gospel the Church thinks it's communicating (via doctrine and constructed systems of morality) is nothing but the worst news. That's Martin Luther speaking, not your bartender (although I just so happen to agree).
I want us to enter the world of plain speech (parrhesia) for a bit. All I'm really asking for is honesty. I have no doubt that some of you have had nothing but the most wonderful experiences within the Church. If you read my post correctly, I am taking nothing away from that. In actuality, I'm trying to place those experiences in their proper context...because right now, they're not being heard as good news (as they should be) because the Church is getting in your way. Other than new folk singers, what the world needs now is for those who profess to have something to say to it (in this case, Christians) to ask some hard questions and to start rethinking what it means to live as a Christian in a world long ago declared to be a burial site for the God we once knew. If Christians don't think this through, at best you'll have me bitching about it for God only knows how many more posts. At worst, we'll have stifled what is perhaps the most meaningful story we know.
posted by thewalrus at 12:59 AM
40 Comments:
live for whatever, can you switch your comment to this thread? You put it under my last post.
8:56 AM, October 02, 2007
you should be in constructive theology...and you should read some rowan williams. i have definitely struggled with this as well and am just finally feeling strong again in my ability to call myself a christian.
9:08 AM, October 02, 2007
I'll response more later, but right now I have to at least say that this is a heck of a good post...now I'm getting you, what you've been trying to say all along, I suppose.
More later.
10:20 AM, October 02, 2007
I did accidentally post this elsewhere, didn't I? Kids, this is what happens when you drink and blog. Here's my original post:
And so, Walrus, how does this critique of Christianity fit into your theology of friendship? It seems to me that Luther would not have his critique without the company of his friends at the tavern. You've somehow completely left out any notion of relationality in this post.
What does it mean to be interdependent with our neighbors in this new conception of the Church? What does it mean in the old conception?
I'm glad to see you finding your way through these questions. You're making great steps, some that I may never be able to take. Forge ahead, good Pilgrim!
And now a sober addendum:
I also think this is a heck of a post and probably your tightest, most thoughtful reflection thus far. I just want to know where some of the things you've mentioned before fit in, if they do, and/or if it hangs together with/without them, and so and so forth, etc., etc., etc.
10:36 AM, October 02, 2007
Wow what a different post. However, I'll be plain here and say there is something in this post that bothers me. I'm not sure I can fully express what it is that is bothering me. So I'll leave comments aside and resort to some questions. Hopefully the questions will help surface what is nagging at me. So Walrus (and friends) attend to this questions and help me either understand correctly what the walrus is saying or verbalize my disagreement.
The crux of your story is narrated with a somewhat passive verb that I'm having trouble understanding. What do you mean by "realize." You say that "It is only when we realize how fucked up we really are that we arrive at understanding even the possibility of being 'saved.'" Are we talking about a kind of mental awakening? Is this "repentence?" Closely connected, is the pre-awakening state of trying "to do what is right?" Could you flesh this out for me? When I help the proverbial old woman across the street, I am sinning?
Also, could you explain what it means to "meet God at the cross?" What does this look like?
I don't understand this phrase: "Instead, we are to meet God at the place of profound contradiction in order to realize that the only way of connecting with God is by connecting with ourselves." I don't undertand how you are connecting cross with human community or self expression. Is it that the cross is like us...weak, completely unable?
Finally, does this story necessitate the kind of sin you define? Is sin in this story essentially an internal disposition? Is sin an exclusively human thing?
I think I might have a comment now. Modern Christianity isn't that far from this explanation. Many would say exaclty what you said and then say, "Until you 'realize' you are absolutely unable to doing anything good, nothing happens." However the key word is 'until.' Once this realization happens the Spirit of God floods your life and gives you the ability to live rightly. Hwowever, what is 'realization' but merely a plain form of doctrine? Again maybe I'm not understanding the extent of your words.
I appreciate finding a way in ancient forefathers. It respects our past and doesn't disregard thousands of human minds. However, I'm concerned that this conception is so close to the modern grid we will merely just snap back into this "antichristian" grid.
12:38 AM, October 03, 2007
Hey guys, thanks for the responses.
Betsy, I'm actually glad I'm not in Constructive right now b/c I'd probably die from overextension. Of course, we did survive last semester... I read Rowan's "On Christian Theology" a long time ago but I don't remember it.
Steve, welcome back. I thought I was getting the silent treatment there for a while. I'll be interested to hear more of what you have to say.
1:31 AM, October 03, 2007
liveforwhatever, both you and squanchum seem to see a divide between this post and the "Used to be a Christian" post, rather than continuity. I'm curious as to why because they go hand-in-hand for me. As for relationality, you're absolutely right in terms of how essential it is to what I'm saying. Maybe that'll be post 3 in the series. I was just mainly trying to focus on Luther's concept of justification as a critique of Christian morality here.
1:36 AM, October 03, 2007
Oh, and liveforwhatever, I had no doubt that it was a drunken mispost. But this place is a bar after all... I'm curious as to what you think in more detail about Luther's concept of "justification" (esp. in light of your prior aversion to Luther). I think it's pretty fucking radical.
squanchum, I'm actually not really surprised at your reticence. I'm curious to hear you flesh it out a bit however. As I said in my last comment though, how do you see a divide between what I'm saying now and what I said in the earlier post?
I will answer your questions (which are excellent and very pertinent) but I'll have to defer to my work shift tomorrow. It's bedtime. If only I could be saved by not trying so hard to do my damn homework...
2:23 AM, October 03, 2007
Walrus! So glad to hear that you are still hoping for good in the world. Glad to see that you have lost none of your stubborn hardheaded determination!
Theological Question: If all of the people who have left the public church as you say because of its corruption and banded together for the glory of God what do you think they should be called? Luther calls them the true church.
You should probably try reading some John Calvin, he came to many similar conclusions as Luther in a totally different part of the world. He is also a really great read.
Hang in there love Cassia
8:31 AM, October 03, 2007
Cass, I used to be stubborn about being stubborn but that just got annoying. So when did you become a theologian?
I shy away from terms such as "true church" as they seem a bit presumptuous (and I'm a bit surprised that Luther would use that term). If by "true church" you mean "invisible" then I'm a lot more comfortable with that. I am working with some conception of a church that is non-institutional. You're right that I need to study Calvin but I can't say I look forward to it. I certainly wouldn't consider him a "good read" by any stretch of the imagination but he's definitely important.
1:58 PM, October 03, 2007
squanchum, the realization of which I speak is a bit more wholistic than a purely “mental” awakening (although it certainly includes that). It’s an awareness of the human’s dire need of a salvation outside of their own power. (Note: All of Luther’s theology revolves around this central concept of justification so I am probably not doing justice to a lot of its intricacies. I’ll do my best though.). This realization is not really a “doing” in his eyes; it’s more of a “turning” (he calls it the “heart turned in upon itself”…something that Bonhoeffer also picks up later) away from the self towards God (at the cross). If you help an old woman across the street, that’s great. To Luther, that’s a sign that you have been given the gift of faith (now, this is the flip side of his justification coin where it gets complicated; this of course gets into predestination issues, which I’m not on board with.). If you do it to earn yourself favor from others or if you do it thinking that God demands it of you or if you do it thinking that God will look more favorably on you or if you do it because “all those sinners” aren’t doing it, then according to Luther, that’s sin. We can only do good things if God is working out our faith through us. Technically, it is not us “doing” it anyways; it’s God.
Meeting God at the cross for Luther is not a pious thing at all. It’s recognizing that there’s nothing we can do to achieve our righteousness. Humans can only think of righteousness in terms of works, so we must meet God at the cross in order to understand God. It is not possible for us to understand or relate to God as God. Rather than God showing us God’s glory; God shows us God’s ass (literally for Luther; it’s that Exodus story of God passing by Moses and hiding Moses from seeing God’s face (instead showing some ass). When we see God on the cross, we recognize a love of which we are incapable. We must receive the “gift” of faith. So yes, the cross is where we see our incapability and God’s love.
I’m not sure what you mean by sin being an internal disposition or being non-human (if you mean here, creation, I’m not sure what he thinks about that yet). It’s a wholistic thing with Luther. I do know that much. Luther’s concept of sin is very helpful but I’m not saying I necessarily subscribe to the soteriology in which he places it. I’m saying, more than anything, that if Christian soteriology is to make any sense, this concept of justification must be included. I don’t think realization for Luther is any type of charismatic-like event where the Spirit floods over you. In fact, it’s not an event at all. He sees our “flesh” as continually trying to turn us back away from God. All we can know is that if we are able to turn towards God, it’s certainly not us doing it.
The value in this concept is that it makes a laughingstock of churches that function on the currency of morality for identification. Churches that “define” themselves in such ways become the antichrist, literally. That’s why I’m saying this shit is so radical. It turns everything the Church is currently doing on its head. It’s also why I think we have to rethink what the hell community means. It’s not what we’ve traditionally thought and it’s not what Hauerwas thinks it is either. Both are intrinsically violent.
Ok, gotta go to lunch. What do you mean by “antichristian grid”? By the way, you working on your post?
2:40 PM, October 03, 2007
As a side note, I should emphasize again I'm not endorsing Luther's theology or even Christian theology as a whole. For the most part, I'm just trying to figure out a way that Christian theology might make sense in the first place. Luther seems to me to be the only way Christian theology makes sense as Christian theology.
Also, I should re-emphasize that this post is, in my eyes, very much connected with my prior post. In fact, I think it takes my critique of the Church to a whole new level.
Finally, I am working on a couple new posts in my head, one of them being a third part to this "series" of sorts. In the meantime, however, I'd like to hear from more of you what you think about this Luther thing. Am I the only one who sees his ideas as turning the modern Church on its head?
2:55 AM, October 07, 2007
Hey Walrus---I had a pretty transformative weekend, and it's greatly affected some of my religious reasonings. I'll try to let it settle quickly so that I can re-respond to your post, but I'm looking forward to future conversations regardless.
10:21 PM, October 07, 2007
[Quoted from the walrus:] "Other than new folk singers, what the world needs now is for those who profess to have something to say to it (in this case, Christians) to ask some hard questions and to start rethinking what it means to live as a Christian in a world long ago declared to be a burial site for the God we once knew."
Sorry I'm such a pedantic prick, but the song says: "What the world needs now is another folk singer like I need a hole in my head." Following that, I think your statement actually turns and negates itself (much like a hole in one's head). Ironic as that might be, I obviously get the point, considering I've watched you drive it home relentlessly over most of the last decade. And again, I find I have absolutely no quarrel whatsoever with your very simple (if blunt) point [how's that for juxtaposition???]. I guess what I really mean to say is: who exactly are you still trying to convince of a case that seems so transparently obvious? I think you've done a good job of taking the meat of th idea and pulling out what is practical, but there is so much more of the realistic and practical part to be done, why go back to the beginning again to lay down a foundation for a case that has already been made. It just seems a little redundant, unless you are somehow evangelizing regarding the validity of your base (which is fine, but about as useful as a hole in one's head.) Maybe I'm missing something or maybe it's the opposite and I just don't need to hear anymore to be convinced, but it seems like maybe you should just say: here's my premise (which I redundantly hold to be true), therefore... and keep on going with the analysis/conjecture of what that means in the world, and if people don't want to make that stipulation that we are assuming your premise to be true, then so what? Only an evangelist keeps trying to convince those who are skeptical of the validity of his claims. I would imagine you understand what I'm driving at. You can't escape it. It is who you are. Own it and see what it means for you. Irony is your thing and it works well for you--it also worked very well for Mark. I'm pouring us each a shot and I'm out for now.
loki
2:53 AM, October 10, 2007
loki, I am on my journey to bed at the moment so I'll respond tomorrow. I will say though that my reference to the Cracker song was intentionally ironic. I saw the tail end of one of their shows a couple weeks ago and it left some to be desired. They went down like a junkie cosmonaut...yeah ok fuck it, I'm going to bed.
2:58 AM, October 10, 2007
"who exactly are you still trying to convince of a case that seems so transparently obvious?"
Well, part of the problem here is that it might seem obvious to you and to me but for the majority of Christians, it's not obvious at all. That's part of my point - the "secular" people are getting it more than the Christians are.
"there is so much more of the realistic and practical part to be done, why go back to the beginning again to lay down a foundation for a case that has already been made."
In part, this post was about me finding for the first time in a while someone other than Bonhoeffer to get excited about (as you know it only makes sense Luther would fit the bill). However, it was also about giving certain readers of this blog a theological viewpoint on a theological issue (as opposed to a "secular" viewpoint on a theological issue). In a way, this all proves my whole point. The Church has issues with listening. I'm simply screaming until someone hears what I'm saying. Read through the comments of the last post and you'll see what I mean.
What are you looking for me to say here? What is the "analysis/conjecture of what that means in the world"? Dude, the only thing I know in that regard is what I live every day. You know what I'm saying? If I'm an evangelist, it would indeed be highly ironic. I'm probably trying to evangelize myself more than anything.
I'm not certain what you're driving at but I have my guesses. It is absolutely true that I'm trying to find a way to hang on to some hope that Christianity has potential. It's not even completely a "spiritual" issue; it's also a career one. loki, let me ask you this. You remember that coffeehouse chat we had in Chicago (Larry was there) a few years ago? You told me not to quit this stuff. I've never forgotten that conversation - it meant the world to me. But how do I own something I'm still trying to believe in?
1:48 PM, October 10, 2007
I'm just going to write off the top of my head in response to your response to my previous response to your topic, don't hold me to too high a standard of analysis:
Re: your decision to be a Theologian -- yes, it is important that there is an element of spiritual convincing (usually called conviction, yes?), and I suppose it may be important for you to "know" to a somewhat greater extent that what you commit your life to is legit, but by my standards, you are already there. It seems obvious to me that you are still struggling with whether you are going to continue this path as a career, but I will tell you every time you ask (and even when you don't) that you are meant to be working in the realm of theology and ethics and religion. Whatever you have to say, the world and the church will be enriched because you will have the platform to be able to speak and be heard. Your words and thoughts are valuable for all of us, and the more you can critique and affirm, the better off we will be. I'm convinced--you should trust me that that is enough, because these words do not only come from me--I am merely a mouthpiece. I don't know how to answer your question about how you own something you're still trying to believe in--that is a profound question to which my only reply is: indeed.
However, I do know that you can still be performing God's will regardless of whatever you feel your level of belief is. That's simply a facet of faith. I hope I've responded with at least something that resonates with you.
loki
1:26 PM, October 12, 2007
Ok, now I think I've realized what bothers me about this post. Something felt off, and it does have a little bit to do with the theology of friendship that I asked you to reiterate.
I think you're off to a good start in trying to understand salvation in a better way. I might even agree with you here. We are completely imperfect beings, and no matter your conception of God, (Christian, Neo-Platonic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc.), "God" is the source of all goodness and perfection. In other words, we can at least imagine a being that is pure and holy, and that's good enough for me.
My problem is that I don't really see the payoff. A friend of mine recently asked me if I have a bottom-up Christology, meaning that I would see Jesus' divinity as some kind of perfection of man. In a way, I think I do, but I also recognize the necessity of there being some kind of perfection or grace that must be set in place by God beforehand. How can we know what is holy? By learning how to be human and by learning the limits of our own humanity. I think we've both gotten to at least this point in the conversation.
If God only meets us at the cross, what is the point of ministering at all? What would be the point of Christianity, or any other religion or worldview?
In other words, I like your top-down argument. I just don't see how it affects the bottom-up. You can say that somehow accepting our fucked-upedness and humbly taking God into our lives carves out the ontological space for us to be Christians, but that seems to devalue Christian ministry and Christian conceptions of neighbor-love.
I think that's what I wanted to push for the other evening, but it was 5 am. Why is it that I never remember our most important conversations?
Anyway, let me know if I'm way off-base here. If I am, I'm probably missing your point again. I don't think I am. I pretty much agree with where you've gone, but I don't see any payoff.
Peace,
TLD
10:13 PM, October 14, 2007
Here's to the Walrus on his b-day. Drinks are on me.
1:01 PM, October 15, 2007
lfw, thanks for the comments. I'll get back in a bit to respond.
2coopers, thanks. I'm at work right now but serve me up a single-malt scotch. 31's not quite as sweet as 21 but we'll work with it.
2:15 PM, October 15, 2007
I hear you can tell a walrus's age by counting the rings in his tusks
8:49 AM, October 16, 2007
I think that for a long time my familiarity of Luther has been like that of a friend of a friend of a friend of a mutual acquaintance. You hear his name thrown around a lot so that it seems like you know him, you've heard lots of stories about him, yada yada yada, but you've never really sat down and had a real conversation with the guy.
As you are prone to do, this post more than anything else makes me want to sit down with Luther and have a nice long conversation. I think that I can see some time coming over the near horizon when that'll be possible, so I hope to cuddle up with the old monk before long.
are you in the middle of mid-terms now? that would explain the slowdown of activity here...grad school hasn't ever really kicked my butt like it is this semester. I've got too much on my plate with the class load and what seems to be one of my busiest falls. The remarkable thing is that I'm being kind of efficient with it all, which is so not in my nature it's kind of ridiculous. So I've learned some new tricks for an old dog, but the longer this pace goes on, the more deeply the stress is starting to wear on me. But, the light is coming at the en of the tunnel, so after a sociological sort of project (one that I think you would deeply enjoy) for a ym class I'll have a lot more breathing room, at least theoretically.
Until then, I'll have to content myself with hanging out with Luther on the crapper. (that should get me started, though, as I spend 25 % of my waking time there.)
All that to ask: If you were giving me your luther must read bibliography, what would be on it?
12:08 AM, October 17, 2007
steve, welcome back. I was beginning to think you switched bars on me. Good to hear that school is going well although busy. I'll be interested to hear about the project. You remember when I used to read whole books on the crapper?
As for Luther, the best place to start is the collection of writings edited by Lull that's linked on my front page. It seems to be the standard reader used in grad schools for Luther. If you want some secondary stuff, go with Paul Althaus' book - The Theology of Martin Luther. The interesting thing about Luther is that all of his theology revolves around this basic theme of justification so you'll encounter it in everything he writes.
12:50 PM, October 17, 2007
Can I just say that I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hate computers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lfw, it just ate my lengthy response to you. But I'll give it another go.
1:40 PM, October 17, 2007
Ok let’s do this once again. Might be a bit less involved this time. I should say that I describe myself a bit like my buddy Matt in Chicago describes himself: as a Christian agnostic. In some ways that doesn’t make sense at all; in others it does. I don’t know that I would describe my position as a top-down Christology but I don’t have a problem saying that Christ was divine (in a mythological sense…other than that, who the hell can say right?). I’m not really comfortable with concepts of perfection (spare me the snide comments here ;) ).
I think Luther would say that meeting God at the cross is the only way we can engage the Other properly. I guess I’m not sure what you mean by ministering here. I hate that word personally, along with most Christian theological terms, but I’m guessing you simply mean living for the other as we live for ourselves. Luther would say that that becomes possible only when we stop trying to impress God or impress ourselves or impress others. We look at other people who don’t look like Christians and say therefore that they aren’t. Luther then calls us idiots because God doesn’t look like what God should look like. God looks like death. So he would say to recognize what you’re not capable of doing. It is only through the appropriation of God’s grace (via faith) that we are enabled to love our neighbor in the fullest sense. That’s the “ontological space” I think you were referring to. I don’t mean to indicate whatsoever that all this is a salvation thing. Luther would say that it has to start there. I don’t really buy into the heaven and hell salvation scheme myself. I think the conception of “salvation” here however is the proper way for us to relate to God and to our fellow humans.
It’s really kind of a fist in your face theology which is likely why it’s not found in any churches. It’s just much easier to talk about personal relationships with Jesus.
2:09 PM, October 17, 2007
First of all--I figured out to set up a link for the 2nd Chance on my blog. Can you link to mine?
On to the juicy bits.
I still feel a disconnect between the kind of "Christian" that I want to be and the Christian you're describing. It's probably because I have never really dealt with the salvation problem. Sure, it was a part of my Catholic upbringing; I was just privileged enough to not have to care.
I think after salvation comes good works, and I think that's where I differ from Luther...slightly. I think it's true that through true faith and the resultant justification, good works show that you have let God into your life. I also think good works help teach you how to meet God. (And by now, we should know that I do mean the God of spirit, myth, and history. Not some singular, anthropomorphic entity.) When I say "minister", I simply mean "being with people". How does your theology help you be with people? You've started to give me a good answer there with the realization of limited ability, etc.
We have the "why do we act this way" down. We don't have the "what do we do" down just yet.
My Gospel is a social gospel, and not just in the liberation sense. I want to know what God wants me to know about others. And what I'm to know of myself. And what I'm to know of the interaction between the two. I've been slipping into a more Buddhistic chain of thought lately where the central tenet is the alleviation of suffering. Beyond that, it's about finding the Buddha (enlightened one) in each and every one of us. I could just as easily say it’s about finding the Holy Spirit in everyone.
How can Luther inform my intentions to find my neighbor, love her/him, and find the Holy Spirit within her/him?
I think the dissonance I feel in our conversation comes from me trying to appropriate Christianity for my own religious/spiritual motives, and you having a much deeper and meaningful investment in Christianity. (Especially in the "something to be understood from my past" sense) I'm less interested in Christian theology and more interested in the efficacy of Christian spirituality and practice. I don't want to meet God at the Cross. I want God to be hanging out with me from the very beginning (or before the beginning) all the way up to the Cross. And I don't think I do want what I can't have. I think the gospels show us that even in the life of Jesus, there's a necessary history that leads up to the Cross. There's also Jesus' confessional history, his own Judaism, and the covenantal promise for the Hebrews. Even if the one event is only informing all others, I don’t think it’s helpful to concentrate on that one event as the singular moment. The Cross is where we meet God, but let’s be careful not to throw the Jesus out with the Holy Water. Or something.
Anyway, I’m not trying to impress God, but I’m also not trying to be a good Christian. So take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. It may or may not be relevant to what you’re saying.
11:15 PM, October 17, 2007
First, in light of Luther here, could you explain what you meant by, “It’s also why I think we have to rethink what the hell community means. It’s not what we’ve traditionally thought and it’s not what Hauerwas thinks it is either. Both are intrinsically violent.”
I don’t see a break between this post and your previous. I am wondering about the efficacy. I am slowly hearing you. Part of my hang up might be the more traditional vocabulary that we are using in this discussion. Alot of this more religious framework I just frankly have trouble understanding. I don't really live in that world any more and so the terminology and it's reference is no longer obvious to me. I'm guessing you are the same walrus and that is why I asked you so many questions.
I see how Luther can offer a strong dose of medicine for the modern church. However, will it be recognized? Luther’s argument sits in a deep trench of traditional vocabulary and theology. I am just now realizing the irony you already perceived. It is incredible that this message is more palatable for the church. How strange that the church can’t hear your first post but listen to the second. However, this irony may be part of my discomfort. Again, the church would not truly face it’s sin. Instead of hearing the outsider, it only hears an insider. My fear is twofold: First, since this concept comes from an insider it will not truly be heard. Justification incased in legal language is a demon. This paradigm has eclipsed the biblical narrative to the extent we can’t hear any other voices. This grid is very deceptive in it’s ethics. (not to mention is theology proper). The anti-christ perspective is Luther with a twist. The twist marginalizes Luther’s insight. “Realizing” we are fallen is merely a step to sainthood. Maybe I need to hear Luther’s insight couched in a different soteriology. When ‘justification’ is juxtaposed with my experience of truly innocent human beings being killed by disease I just get pissed off. Yeah, maybe the western church needs to face Luther and receive some personal theological lashing....but do the marginalized? This is partly coming from my question about sin. Luther’s concept may be holistic but internal, personal transgression is the lynchpin. In some ways Luther’s deconstruction is new oppression for those outside. Can we not find a way to say that what we call sin can be found in everything--even the smallest subatomic particle. I can swallow this. Life is a kind of wretched thrashing. We live in a web like a thrashing fly. It’s not all blackness, but when we find the locus of sin solely in the human, the marginalized tend to suffer worse. My second fear, the modern church will still not do what it MUST do: face the other. Instead of hearing from an outsider, it listens to an insider and responds to doctrine not the human face. The church cannot move ahead without facing the outsider--even if the doctrine is good.
What would happen if..... might we translate faith for luck? Anytime any of us do anything good it’s just luck. Luck might be more effective in expressing two things: 1. Luck helps disconnect any positive happening with the participant. (I can decide to murder a man or to not murder, however, even my attempts at good works can often turn for the worse) Luck belongs to the mysterious world and not with the purpose-driven world of humans. 2. Luck comes and goes. Though I’m lucky today, tomorrow it’s bad luck. . Luck is like the wind (ruach)...it comes and goes. Luck is absurd (hevel) and like Abel it evaporates before the story is fully written.
If we are uncomfortable with this translation it’s because we can’t accept we are completely incapable of doing good on our own. I do have many questions regarding ethical responsibility after this post.
Walrus, Tell me when you are ready. I've got a draft I can send you when you are ready. I'd like to know if it's a direction you want to go.
8:19 AM, October 19, 2007
Lfw, I had your blog linked already but it was the old one. I updated it.
Thanks to you and squanchum for taking the time to share your thoughts. I don’t feel I’ve done an adequate job expressing myself concerning this Luther post thus far. I should start off therefore with a few summarizing thoughts. My intentions with this post are pretty simple. I’m exploring what I see as systemic problems in the Church in America. I feel that its inability to express the gospel, in words or action, is perhaps one of the greatest signs that the Church as we know it has reached its end. I’m attempting to open up a conversation about the implications of that and where we might go. I don’t presume to have the answers for the potential of Christian mythology. I personally believe it has value (I appropriate it myself at times) but I am unsure of all the ways it can be appropriated on a larger scale. I think Luther’s construal of Christian theology is one of the most interesting I have encountered in a while and I am merely trying to see what value it might have. I appropriate Luther’s theology in ways that are not fully faithful to his theology as a whole.
Lfw and squanchum, that should answer a number of the questions you have posed to me. I’ll try to tackle a few more. Lfw, Luther by no means discounts the value of good works. His theology lends for an easy misappropriation due to its strong emphasis on divine justification. However, justification means nothing without good works (or we can say ethics). You kind of answered your own question about how does Luther’s theology help someone be with people? I do think it has a lot to do with a recognition of our own humanity.
“How can Luther inform my intentions to find my neighbor, love her/him, and find the Holy Spirit within her/him?” I’m not sure what you mean by “find” exactly but I think Luther’s theology lends a lot towards being able to embrace the other. Rather than our hearts being turned in upon themselves, grace opens us up to be able to embody good will toward others.
I’m curious as to the “dissonance” you feel between what I’m doing and what you’re doing. Maybe my first paragraph cleared it up some I’m not sure. My investment in exploring Christianity is only that I am always in a process of appropriating meaning into my life and I think mythology and narrative are wonderful things with which to engage life. “I'm less interested in Christian theology and more interested in the efficacy of Christian spirituality and practice.” With this conversation, I am attempting to explore ways to reconnect all of these things. As far as meeting God at the cross goes, I think Luther would say that that’s the matrix with which God engages you throughout your life. It’s not an event. It’s a process. I think you’re seeing this as a temporal thing and I’m not intending that at all. But as far as being able to understand what it means for God to “be with you” will entail an understanding that there’s nothing you can do from your own will to please God. You can only recognize that God is God by recognizing that (acc. to Luther).
9:25 PM, October 21, 2007
Squanchum,
By that quote I simply meant that our traditional understanding of community, which defines itself around morality and doctrine, necessarily leads to violence. I think Hauerwas’ peaceable community of virtue, while a step in the right direction, also leads to violence. By “violence” in this sense, I only mean not letting the Other be other.
I hope my last posted comment answered your efficacy question. Like you, I do not connect with this traditional language either…which is part of what I’ve been trying to allude to all along. I think these terms are largely vacuous now. Again, I’m not trying to simply provide a reconstrual of Christian theology. I’m using Luther’s theology in large part to expose what the Church has become.
Re: your twofold fear. By “insider” I’m assuming you mean Luther. (I’d take it as a compliment if I were myself but I’m guessing few would describe me as such.) I actually think Luther might be someone the Church will listen to. That’s why I’m appropriating his language and thought as I am.
“When ‘justification’ is juxtaposed with my experience of truly innocent human beings being killed by disease I just get pissed off.” I couldn’t agree with you more. What to do about that is in part what I am searching for.
“Yeah, maybe the western church needs to face Luther and receive some personal theological lashing....but do the marginalized? This is partly coming from my question about sin. Luther’s concept may be holistic but internal, personal transgression is the lynchpin. In some ways Luther’s deconstruction is new oppression for those outside. Can we not find a way to say that what we call sin can be found in everything--even the smallest subatomic particle. I can swallow this. Life is a kind of wretched thrashing. We live in a web like a thrashing fly. It’s not all blackness, but when we find the locus of sin solely in the human, the marginalized tend to suffer worse.” Where do you find the locus of sin to be? Again, I don’t think Luther would disagree with what you’re saying here at all. I don’t think the “marginalized” need a theological lashing at all. They’re not the ones doing the oppressing.
Also, I don’t mean to imply that the Church simply needs to get its “doctrine” worked out before it can be a good church. I’m trying to bring doctrine and practice closer together. But as long as the Church continues to function on an operative concept of justification that excludes and judges people, then I don’t want it to face the other.
I can’t say that I’m following you on the faith/luck discussion. Can you elaborate a bit?
I’m ready for you to send me your post anytime. Giddy up.
9:51 PM, October 21, 2007
Hey, I set up tivo to record boston legal. thought you'd dig that.
10:36 PM, October 21, 2007
Welcome to the fold, my friend. It's really good stuff so far this season.
10:41 PM, October 21, 2007
I also chewed up a Luther sermon and have more on the way. It's amazing to me how one minute I can be totally with him, really digging his theology, then the next second feel the gears grinding as he moves into some highly allegorical interpretation of a text. Nonetheless, It's very challenging reading, and helpful.
Is there some room for the thought within your post for people being the vehicles of things being done right, God acting through them?
9:42 AM, October 23, 2007
Have I told you guys I'm also helping coach a debate team this year? First tournament is this weekend. I'm crazy nervous about it.
11:08 AM, October 23, 2007
steve, you reading from the Lull text or another?
Re: your question. Luther would say that's the only way people can do things right (is by God enabling them).
Congrats on the coaching. Let me know how it goes.
5:45 PM, October 23, 2007
I'm reading from the american edition of luther's works...right now from the volume "career of the reformer I". Before that I was reading sermons from the postil.
boston legal didn't record. Kellys said some special on the wildfires was on instead.
As if that's more important. Oh well, maybe next week, unless there are some more disasters.
3:37 PM, October 25, 2007
Has the light gone out for you?
Cause the light's gone for me
It is the 21st century
It is the 21st century
You can fight it like a dog
And they brought me to my knees
They got scared and they put me in
They got scared and they put me in
All the lies run around my face
All the lies run around my face
And for anyone else to see
And for anyone else to see
I'm alive
I've seen it coming
I've seen it coming
I've seen it coming
I've seen it coming
(special prize for the one who gets it!)
12:18 AM, October 26, 2007
Radiohead - "Bodysnatchers" bitch.
I win the prize...unless it's in your pants...then mrs. davis can have it...
p.s. - how much you pay?
1:41 AM, October 26, 2007
sorry, it was in my pants.
3:05 PM, October 26, 2007
Josh:
I don't get your references.
But I've Got You (At the End of the Century).
11:44 AM, October 29, 2007
I am being there (Dasein)
$3.
The album is almost perfect - a simple beauty.
2:41 PM, October 29, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home