It’s Complicated

I’m teaching my preaching class about reading the Bible for preaching tonight. I find myself in a quandary. I’m a professional biblical scholar. I’ve done the coursework; I’ve read the dead German guys; I know the classic source/form/redaction kritiks; I know the postmodern/poststructuralist/postcolonialist theories. And as a result—I go back to the Patristics and their methods of basic and advanced grammatical exegesis.

And that’s what I want to teach my students—on one hand.

On the other hand—I’m on the far side of the modern critical morass. I’ve been there/done that/used the t-shirt to clean my kitchen. I know where the dead-ends and wrong turns are for meaningful parish use. But they don’t and they’re not.

It’s one thing to poo-poo form-criticism when you know its flaws and pitfalls from the inside. It’s another entirely when you have no idea what it is to begin with…

That’s my struggle: there are real reasons to recognize the issues and purposes and benefits of the modern and postmodern projects in order to move past them. But how is that suppose to happen in under an hour?

*Sigh*

At any rate, if I can instill some good habits and disciplines for reading the text carefully and preaching clearly I’ll call it a success.

What is in a name

The epiScope’s whole Left/Center/Right thing and some discussion at Canterbury Trail and general things around this corner of the web have me thinking again.

M and I were having a conversation about this the other night and I finally vocalized some things that have been rolling around in my head for a while. Some people are against labels. I’m not, particularly, since I think there a helpful way of categorizing the world as long as you recognize and remember their limitations. For the purposes of political debate and influence in discussions about things that matter, they have a particular function—they concentrate opinion and signal a distinct outlook.

I’m looking again for a label that has a bit of precision to it.

What do you call something…:

  • That breathes deeply of the spirit of monasticism, especially that of John Cassian and Benedict, but is for people who live in the world?
  • That both upholds critical reasoning under the principle that all truth is God’s truth and also the Traditions of the Church—recognizing both the gifts and benefits of modernism and postmodernism as well as their problems and dangers?
  • That is not a branch of the Christian Historical Society seeking to transpose worship practices of some other time and place into this century but rather believes that some of the best ways of proclaiming the Gospel in this time and place can be found in the resources of the past?
  • That believes deeply in the Sacraments and the Mass and therefore recognizes the importance of the institutional church and the place of priests but balances that with the Offices, a liturgical path of living that needs neither priests nor institutions (indeed—Benedict was suspicious of allowing priests into monasteries in the first place…)?
  • That sees the joint liturgical paths of Mass and Offices as places of awe, holiness, and mystery where the Living God is most fully encountered and form our minds and habits in the Mind of Christ?
  • That furthers this journey into a disciplined way of being that, in the search for the Kingdom, seeks to cultivate virtue and suppress vice within ourselves and sees the cultivation of justice and compassion in the world as part of God’s plan?

I’m conflicted… I’d like to call it “Episcopal” but I don’t find these elements affirmed and upheld by all sorts of Episcopalians. The way that M and I practice it, it looks like, lives like, and shades into Anglo-Catholicism. But the difference I detect is a privileging of the monastic and contemplative ways and a Stoic philosophical base rather than the Scholasticism and Aristolelianism that so often grounds the former. This comes to a head, of course, in what I see as the Scholastic focus on mechanism, the how of the divine mysteries, which leads to a calcification of what I believe to be accidentals into essentials—i.e., God is incapable of conveying sacramental grace through beings who lack penises…

My first thought, and the one that M favored, was “Benedictine Anglicanism” but that has some problems since I, we, are not nor are we seeking to be Benedictine monks as the name might imply (becoming an oblate is a different story, of course)—nor are we all Anglican. LutherPunk fits these criteria and I dare say Andy, Lee, and others may as well who are not themselves Anglicans.

A much less specific term might be “Regular Christian” in the sense of a regula or rule but it neither captures it all and is also a bit too subtle, I think.

I like a term that Young Fogey has used on occasion, “Mass and Office catholic,” as I think that captures much of it—but I don’t know much about the origin of the term. I think it implies a way of life that these liturgies form but it certainly doesn’t require it.

I don’t know; I’m open to suggestions…

Programming Notes

Thinking Anglicans is reporting not only increased pressure on the ABC to kick ++Schori out of the Primates Meeting but also a previously unscheduled meeting of the Nigerian House of Bishops for Feb 6-8. Looks like ++Abuja has decided to call the cards…

 

In light of that—and more importantly—the nice Quick Reference sheet on the Office is back up here.  Too, they’ve given me permission to plagiarize the format for a more traditional Rite I version as well. I’ll let y’all know when that’s ready…

 

Church politics comes and goes. The prayers of the saints—now that’s eternal.

Spin Cycles

For a while now Jim Naughton has been doing yeoman’s duty as voice of the liberal wing as a kind of counter to T19 and Stand Firm. But he’s based out of one diocese and has a bunch of other things on his plate.

As he reports—things have changed. As of yesterday there is an Official Mouthpiece of TEC at EpiScope.

I find it a bit disconcerting. It seems to have a personality—but no identity. If you’re going to be personal, use “I”, and refer to in-jokes, tell us who you are. At least come up with an official pseudonym. There’s also no response mechanism. What’s up with that? (I, of course, am counting on their use of Google Alerts on their own name so this serves as my response. Hi there!)

Furthermore, it seems to feed in to the current polarization problem with its list of Anglican blogs “to the left” and “to the right”.

We’ll see how it develops…

Randomness

A Blessed Feast of the Purification of the BVM to you all…

It’s an In-Between Day.

Morning Set List

Kyoto Song (Cure)

Garden of Arcane Delights (Delerium)

Strange Day (Cure)

Battle of Evermore (Zeppelin)

Watching Me Fall (Cure)

World in My Eyes (Cure cover of Depeche Mode)

Lithium (Evanescence)

Etc…

Here’s something red—because M told me this morning it’s women’s heart health awareness day (or something like that). Everybody—check your hearts…

I’m digging the poetry carnival bls is hosting. I’ve got a couple rolling around and this should prod me to finish them. One uses a fairly rigid and complicated French form. I think it has a limited range of expression but can be quite cool if done right for expressions that fall within that set. We’ll see…

Dissertation Distraction Project N+3

I had a great question in class last night (which is going well). We were discussing Chrysostom’s wonderful Easter sermon when one of the students, an intelligent well-read Baptist (over half my class is Baptist!!), raised his hand and asked, “Where exactly is it in Scripture that it talks about Jesus’ descent to the dead?”

It’s a great question and I was caught fairly unprepared so I took them to 1 Peter 3 to the discussion of Christ preaching to the “spirits in prison” which the Fathers took to mean hell particularly given the Enochian resonances of that whole 1 Peter chunk. Then I made reference to the Isaiah passage that connects Sheol and the gates of iron but I couldn’t remember where it was… I did take them next to Ps 107 to the section on the prisoners in gloom and deep darkness shattering the gates/bars and how this was read in line with the others. I thought about discussing the bit at the end of Job about the fishhook but decided to skip it. (I totally forgot about the typological reading of Samson carrying off the gates of Gaza which I just now remembered…) I know there are some more that anchor it better and mentioned a little bit about how the Gospel of Nicodemus sets it up.

All this is to say, this morning I saw a review of an Introduction to the NT for Catholics. One of the critiques is that the author glosses some of the disputed issues with a fairly perfunctory “this is what we believe” and goes on from there. It got me wondering, is there a text that looks at some of the locations where protestants and catholics disagree on Scripture or on doctrines that come out of Scriptures that lays out both sides evenly and equally? I’m sure there are some apologetic tracts on both sides denouncing the other—but what about one that seeks it with more of an open-minded approach? It seems to me that a catholic-leaning Anglican would be the perfect one to write such a book having a concern for the tradition and the integrity of the catholic teaching but also a certain freedom in the deployment of modern critical tools…

Some topics might be: the descent of Christ into hell; the perpetual virginity of the BVM; some general stuff on the BVM; purgatory. What else?   

Call for Papers

Well…sort of…

 

Raspberry Rabbit put up a post in reference to Lutherans asking the question why there’s been no talk of schism there. I answered by saying that there was talk—lots of it—right around the time of CCM. My own understanding is that the only reason that the Word Alone group didn’t leave the ELCA is because of a lack of funding.

 

I was, at the time, in a former ALC seminary and I know the majority of the folks there would have been happy to not be tied to CCM and the apostolic succession. I also remember wandering the halls of LutherSem on a visit and seeing the tracts and pamphlets posted around the place. The energy was there—but it didn’t happen. Do the current Lutherans out there know better than I—was it just a money issue or was there more to it? And—is there talk/speculation/documentation around that would back this suspicion up?

Public Service Announcement

The “World-Wide Web” is, in fact, world wide. When you post stuff, other people may well read it. There are some implications to this.

 

1. You may well be a seminarian and have taken an intro course in liturgy or  New Testament. That’s great. But, in your haste to show off your new-found knowledge remember that there are people who have taken a hell of a lot more courses and read a hell of a lot more sources in the original languages than you.

 

2. I’ve done a lot of work in my field. I have a BA, an MDiv, an STM, and am a few pesky chapters away from my PhD all focused in my area. This means that I’ve read so much that I have a really good idea of how much about my field I don’t know!! True depth of learning breeds humility.

 

3. Don’t assume anything simply because you’re going to be clergy. There are laity who have forgotten more about liturgy—and a host of other topics—than you will ever know. And not all of them have “Dr.” in front of their names, either.

 

4. If you make major factual errors, be prepared to be called on it and furthermore be willing to accept correction. See above on humility… If you don’t feel that way, that’s fine—either don’t post things publicly or prepared to be dismissed.

A Sermon from M

In response to some discussion at Canterbury Trail, I suppose we’re starting to put our money where are mouth is. bls contended that many of the younger generation tend to be more traditional in theology than the previous generation. To support her point Caelius posted some sermon bits specifically underscore the issue of atonement and cross.

Now, I know there are all sorts of anxieties about priests these days–especially the *women* ones. So–here’s a representantive example of such preaching–it’s M’s last sermon before she left her last call.

***************************
Gospel: Mark 9:30-37

Have you ever heard the expression: “He who dies with the most toys wins?”

I imagine it’s probably familiar to most of us. After all, toys are one of the most obvious ways that we can show people our worth, our value, our status. Believe it or not this isn’t a new concept. People have been jockeying for power ever since there have been people.

“He who dies with the most toys wins.”

Competition is part of the human spirit and our culture has not only elevated it, but exaggerated it.

“He who dies with the most toys wins.”

If you live according to this motto then life is, first of all, about competition—there are winners and losers and you’d better be a winner. Second, it means life is about stuff. Things. The motto doesn’t say “he who dies with the most friends wins”… It also doesn’t say: “He who dies the happiest wins.” No, it’s about things. Owning things, having things, keeping them from others. Today’s gospel today takes a different path.

Today’s gospel has something to say about this topic because it touches on some common themes. That is, it talks about dying—and it also talks about being first. But the conclusions that it comes to are wildly different. What does it mean to be first? What does it take to be number one? We certainly have our own ideas. The human greatness that our modern culture honors so much, envies, and tries to pursue—rank, wealth, power and recognition to name a few—can be attained, but it is bought at a very high price.

I recently read an article about a campus minister with Intervarsity at Stanford who, with the help of others, began a group specifically for faculty on campus. About a dozen or so professors would gather for breakfast every Friday morning for fellowship and conversation. The following year another group was started at the hospital on campus for medical faculty and physicians and several years after that a small group of physics professors began meeting with the same purpose in mind—food, Christian fellowship and conversation. The campus minister did not know whether his idea would flourish or be a complete flop, but over those several years more than 100 faculty members joined in. He wrote of those group meetings, “When we started most people did not know each other, so every Friday a different professor shared his or her Christian story. The very first Friday morning Doug disarmed everyone with a candid account of his disintegrating marriage. The following week Tony related his frustrations with raising teenagers. Another recounted his financial failures. In the succeeding months it became clear that these remarkably gifted people who had reached the pinnacle of professional success were more interested in sharing their lives rather than mere idea. The group took on a distinctly pastoral rather than an academic ethos. How do you balance personal and professional responsibilities? How do spouses negotiate dual careers with heavy demands?……Does God care about my neuroscience research? I still remember the morning that Chuck spoke for many of those exceptionally gifted and gracious professors when he noted with his trademark sardonic wit that ‘behind every great man there often lies a trail of human wreckage’”.

“…behind every great man there often lies a trail of human wreckage”.

These professors, some of the greatest minds in the country, who at a glance appeared to have everything, came together not to share ideas or current research, but to share their lives with each other- to share their brokenness. In their climb up the ladder to success they left many things behind. They neglected family and friends. They ignored co-workers and others doing whatever it took to get ahead and be on top. And when they finally reached their goal—you know what? It was empty and lonely. The type of greatness that the campus minister speaks of has a limited capacity to nourish human fulfillment. It may get us a lot of status. It may even win us a lot of toys. But it doesn’t protect us from human vulnerabilities and instead separates us from the people we love and who love us back. We may love our toys, but our toys won’t love us back.

“If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”

Jesus shows us a different way. Jesus shows us a way that turns its back on both his culture and ours and their expectations and measures of success.

“If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”

Servants then and now don’t have much in the way of status. Or power. Or toys. And yet Jesus points us to the way of service. He points us to a path of fulfillment that can only be achieved, not in isolation from others, but in direct contact with them. Jesus shows us a way of life that doesn’t cut off those who love us or see them as something that gets in the way. Instead the winners in Jesus’ game are the ones who love and go out of their way for those close to them—friends, spouses, and children.

This is the message that undermines what the culture teaches. This is the message that the world doesn’t want to hear. In fact, it would rather kill the messenger—and it did. This is a message that leads to the cross. But even there the world lost because in his dying Jesus demonstrates for those who walk in his steps what true love really looks like, a love that would give itself up for the redemption of the world.

It is interesting that Jesus chose a child as a sign of welcoming. We usually view children and babies as cute beings to be cuddled, rocked, and played with—as long as we have time to spare on that kind of thing. They are innocent and adorable creatures…and also the opposite of greatness. Society in the time of Jesus viewed children as ultimately insignificant because they lacked accomplishments, status, pretension, and power and were not considered wise.

And isn’t ours the same way?

And yet it is the children whom Jesus welcomes. Jesus is inviting each and every one of us to welcome all people regardless of status, or power, or wealth. Inviting the children means that the power, the status, and the toys mean precisely nothing. Jesus cares about none of it. To imitate children as Jesus commands is to see ourselves and others in the same manner, not as people whose significance lies in titles or honors, successes or failures, wealth or toys, but in the knowledge that we are human beings who God loves despite our brokenness and sinful nature.

God loves us just because he does—it’s who he is.

And it’s who Jesus invites us to be too.

Not for the Faint of Heart…

Ok, bls, the last quiz was too easy, huh? Try this one out…

I’ll warn you, it’s a quiz for high medievalists; a lot of the questions are a bit after my time-span. Just over 50% but I’m quite pleased with my showing…

Ye are 57% proficient in medievale trivia.

 

A fayre shewing. Ye are ful of much wisdam. Sans doute, ye rede a good deal of bokes concernynge the middel ages. Peraventure ye haue much oothir knowlech of straunge thinges as wel.

The Gret Quizz of Medievale Trivia
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz