I don't know how many of you have heard of Bishop Spong. Like so many popularizers of modernity, he is rather dated (modern equivalents would be Pagels or Ehrman). I am sure they still have all his books at Barnes and Nobles. His most famous was Why Christianity Must Change or Die. I am reading some essays from Gordon Fee (a New Testament scholar) and came across one where he was responding to a debate between Spong and Stott. I really liked what Fee had to say and what he pointed out about Spong.
Even though I see Spong like any boy band, destined for the dollar bin at the Book Nook, His bland attempts at saying something unique is actually repeated over and over (much like the LA created boy bands ... from N' Sync to Linkyn Park).
At one point Fee makes the comment that instead of having any real view on the Scriptures, Spong "is jousting still with the windmills of his past." I have not read Don Quixote, but think that image is fairly appropriate for this kind of scholar (Spong). But my favorite line and the one that made me want to blog is:
"In the final analysis, Spong pushes us to make a clearcut choice between him, with his obvious enchantment with modernity, and Paul, who says that when he proclaims Christ he speaks the very message of God. Faced with such choice, and it is the only choice Spong allows us, I will go with Paul every time. For in Paul I find the love of God and God's wrath against our sin brought together in the cross; in Spong I find merely soft mush."
There you have it friends. Me and Fee are going with Paul everytime.
By the way, I haven't forgotten about Wendell ... I will pick back up with part 4 very soon.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Two Ways of Walking on a Beach
Part II
(Part one is from April 2007)
Have you ever heard that Augustine once wrote that "God is younger than all else." We know that Jesus warned us that unless we became like children we would never enter the kingdom of heaven. Augustine goes further and says that God is younger than us. That we have become older than God. Our minds so quickly wander and dwell on what is not, when what is is plainly before us.
I felt this quite often at the beach. How easy it is for my children to be present and engaged with the wonders of the ocean itself. I end up thinking about what I could be reading or what I might want to do with my life or that the water is cold. It is better to be young and jump in waves.
It is better to observe the firmaments and the division of the waters and be in awe.
The highlight for me this year was when Isaac saw a stingray in the shallow (and crystal clear water). It was big enough that Matt Yoder was watching it swim nearer and nearer to Isaac from his balcony on the 8th floor. The moment I saw it, I felt very alive. I started running down the beach with it watching it swim. If I am honest, I felt like I got a glimpse of why people travel to far lands to watch wild animals. It was amazing to see this wild and strange looking fish, flapping its wings in the water. I found myself looking for it the next day when I went out for a walk ... and actually I think I will look for it from now on. It was fascinating to realize that if I keep my eyes open I may just see some hilarious space-craft with wings in the water one day again.
May we all become like children and so become like God.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
W.B.3 - Television and Advertising
"Television is the greatest disrespecter and exploiter of sexuality that the world has ever seen; even if the network executives decide to promote 'safe sex' and the use of condoms, they will not cease to pimp for the exceedingly profitable 'sexual revolution.'" (P. 124)
I think we all know the first phrase is true, but it is interesting to see him accuse the media executives philanthropy (in donating air space and money to educational commercials for safe sex) as fulfilling a further purpose of furthering our national sexual addiction ... and that he even comments that the musician led sexual revolution of the 60s was a welcome addition to the ad industry.
This reminds me of something I read by Fredrica Matthews-Green about the troubling conformity that was happening during the fifties. Goods were being mass-produced and were cheap ... so everyone was buying, turning us into a nation of mere consumers. The term for this was conformity and there was much talk about what to do to stop it. Fortunately (read: unfortunately) this dilemma is forgotten because it was resolved.
"Advertising developed the brilliant solution of presenting the consumer as rebel. Customers could prove their independence by buying goods that demonstrated defiance of fashion. Such fashionable goods were akin to talismans, keeping the specter of conformity at bay. Especially fashionable were those products that appeared to repudiate fashion, implying that you were too cool to care whether you were cool. Yet because these goods could still be identically mass-produced, they remained affordable and of reassuringly familiar quality. The goods had never been the problem; anxiety about consuming them was the problem. This problem was eliminated through the magic of marketing, by invention of the consumer-as-rebel persona."
Think about that next time you are shopping for something unique and stylish.
I think we all know the first phrase is true, but it is interesting to see him accuse the media executives philanthropy (in donating air space and money to educational commercials for safe sex) as fulfilling a further purpose of furthering our national sexual addiction ... and that he even comments that the musician led sexual revolution of the 60s was a welcome addition to the ad industry.
This reminds me of something I read by Fredrica Matthews-Green about the troubling conformity that was happening during the fifties. Goods were being mass-produced and were cheap ... so everyone was buying, turning us into a nation of mere consumers. The term for this was conformity and there was much talk about what to do to stop it. Fortunately (read: unfortunately) this dilemma is forgotten because it was resolved.
"Advertising developed the brilliant solution of presenting the consumer as rebel. Customers could prove their independence by buying goods that demonstrated defiance of fashion. Such fashionable goods were akin to talismans, keeping the specter of conformity at bay. Especially fashionable were those products that appeared to repudiate fashion, implying that you were too cool to care whether you were cool. Yet because these goods could still be identically mass-produced, they remained affordable and of reassuringly familiar quality. The goods had never been the problem; anxiety about consuming them was the problem. This problem was eliminated through the magic of marketing, by invention of the consumer-as-rebel persona."
Think about that next time you are shopping for something unique and stylish.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
W.B.2 - Economy of Households
"The conventional public opposition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' is, here and elsewhere, perfectly useless. The 'conservatives' promote the family as a sort of public icon, but they will not promote the economic integrity of the household or the community, which are the mainstays of family life. Under the sponsorship of 'conservative' presidencies, the economy of the modern household, which once required the father to work away from home--a development that was bad enough--now requires the mother to work away from home, as well. And this development has the wholehearted endorsement of 'liberals' who see the mother thus forced to spend her days away from her home and children as 'liberated'--though nobody has yet to see the fathers thus forced away as 'liberated.' Some feminist are thus in the curious position of opposing the mistreatment of women and yet advocating their participation in an economy in which everything is mistreated." (P. 122-23)
There is a lot here that is strange and new to our 2008 eyes. Berry understands that historically (before the industrial revolution ... at least in the rural setting) the household had its own economy. The father and mother and the children all worked together. Even if the father was a cobbler or a blacksmith, his children were around pretending to be like dad and the store and the house were usually the same thing. That world is behind us (his "economy of the modern household" where the dad must go away to work ... sometimes even miles away, to return on the weekends or late in the evenings). Now both parents do this journey and there is less and less anything that could really be described as a home or community.
I can't remember if it was him or Fox-Genovese that made the comment that the women's liberation movement was very profitable for Wall Street ... effectively doubling our work force. She said it goes beyond that because it brought with it a greater degree of separation, indeed, willingness to travel and work away from home because there wasn't one anymore.
NOW, I realize that these are larger trends and are not true of every modern household. On my street (with both Christians and non-Christians, in the city of Atlanta) all the mom's stay at home. I also realize that while it might be nice to have this kind of life, it is not possible for some people ... poor families have always had to have both parents work. But I think Berry's comments (and he has plenty more to say ... I am a mere 7 pages into this essay) are worth hearing out as much as we can.
It also makes an interesting point about the appearance of choice we have between "conservatives" and "liberals". Another wild thinker who I am still not sure how to take is Chomsky. He says that this is typical of American propaganda. We have the appearance of choice, when really both sides are saying the same thing in two different ways. Berry says a little farther down on page 123 that while conservatives attack homosexuality, abortion, and pornography, they don't usually oppose sexual promiscuity, because "sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage sexual self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise." This may seem far to skeptical for some ... it is coming from a farmer who has seen first hand the physical and communal devastation of the modern economy.
I think we ought to listen and try and take it into account as we think through our own choices.
There is a lot here that is strange and new to our 2008 eyes. Berry understands that historically (before the industrial revolution ... at least in the rural setting) the household had its own economy. The father and mother and the children all worked together. Even if the father was a cobbler or a blacksmith, his children were around pretending to be like dad and the store and the house were usually the same thing. That world is behind us (his "economy of the modern household" where the dad must go away to work ... sometimes even miles away, to return on the weekends or late in the evenings). Now both parents do this journey and there is less and less anything that could really be described as a home or community.
I can't remember if it was him or Fox-Genovese that made the comment that the women's liberation movement was very profitable for Wall Street ... effectively doubling our work force. She said it goes beyond that because it brought with it a greater degree of separation, indeed, willingness to travel and work away from home because there wasn't one anymore.
NOW, I realize that these are larger trends and are not true of every modern household. On my street (with both Christians and non-Christians, in the city of Atlanta) all the mom's stay at home. I also realize that while it might be nice to have this kind of life, it is not possible for some people ... poor families have always had to have both parents work. But I think Berry's comments (and he has plenty more to say ... I am a mere 7 pages into this essay) are worth hearing out as much as we can.
It also makes an interesting point about the appearance of choice we have between "conservatives" and "liberals". Another wild thinker who I am still not sure how to take is Chomsky. He says that this is typical of American propaganda. We have the appearance of choice, when really both sides are saying the same thing in two different ways. Berry says a little farther down on page 123 that while conservatives attack homosexuality, abortion, and pornography, they don't usually oppose sexual promiscuity, because "sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage sexual self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise." This may seem far to skeptical for some ... it is coming from a farmer who has seen first hand the physical and communal devastation of the modern economy.
I think we ought to listen and try and take it into account as we think through our own choices.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wendell Berry (Part 1)
Wendell Berry is a farmer. He is a poet and essayist and novelist. He is a critic. He is a husband and father and grandfather. He is very tall and a very good talker. He is coming from such a different perspective and has so committed himself to an older way of life and so he becomes a voice for true local culture. I have been reading him for a couple years now and feel like I owe him quite a lot for stretching my brain ... possibly even helping me to imagine an entirely new way to see the world.
The next few posts are all going to deal with his essay "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community".
He begins the essay with a relatively modern example of a public failure regarding private matters ... stating that this convolution of the two, which is missing any concept of community is just one more example in the long line that represents the disintegration of community ... the spending of social capital (with the only result being the lining of profit-lined pockets).
Ok, so here is your first quote: "As our communities have disintegrated from external predation and internal disaffection, we have changed from a society whose ideal of justice was trust and fairness among people who knew each other into a society whose ideal of justice is public litigation, breeding distrust even among people who know each other."
This is most certainly a sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. But look how he connects it to sexuality.
"Once it has shrugged off the interests and claims of the community, the public language of sexuality comes directly under the influence of private lust, ambition, and greed and becomes inadequate to deal with the real issues and problems of sexuality. ... 'Sexual education' carried out in this public language, is and can only be a dispirited description of the working of a sort of anatomical machinery--and this is a sexuality that is neither erotic nor social nor sacramental but rather a cold-blooded, abstract procedure that is finally not even imaginable."
to be continued ...
The next few posts are all going to deal with his essay "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community".
He begins the essay with a relatively modern example of a public failure regarding private matters ... stating that this convolution of the two, which is missing any concept of community is just one more example in the long line that represents the disintegration of community ... the spending of social capital (with the only result being the lining of profit-lined pockets).
Ok, so here is your first quote: "As our communities have disintegrated from external predation and internal disaffection, we have changed from a society whose ideal of justice was trust and fairness among people who knew each other into a society whose ideal of justice is public litigation, breeding distrust even among people who know each other."
This is most certainly a sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. But look how he connects it to sexuality.
"Once it has shrugged off the interests and claims of the community, the public language of sexuality comes directly under the influence of private lust, ambition, and greed and becomes inadequate to deal with the real issues and problems of sexuality. ... 'Sexual education' carried out in this public language, is and can only be a dispirited description of the working of a sort of anatomical machinery--and this is a sexuality that is neither erotic nor social nor sacramental but rather a cold-blooded, abstract procedure that is finally not even imaginable."
to be continued ...
Thursday, April 17, 2008
cursed reading
Does anyone else struggle with writing cuss words in the books they are reading? I don't struggle with it very often ... only when I don't like the way someone is arguing (I struggle with cussing when listening to politicians too). A while ago I read a book by Donald Bloech (I think that is right). It was one of his shorter ones and I still hear he is highly recommended and respected, but I found him making ridiculous arguments and throwing some of my other favorite people under the bus (old dead people who I have never met, but love nonetheless) and I would write out very mean things in response. Sometimes I erased them after I wrote them ... I am not sure why. I don't suspect anyone will ever read my copy of the book, I just felt like it was too much to leave in the margin. Other times, I left it ... feeling like it was justified. Occasionally I will read these to Tara to try and make her laugh at me. Sometimes she does.
But maybe I have said to much. Please don't read this as condoning cussing. I will not tell you which words I use (I mean who knows ... maybe I am referring to horrible things like "darnett all"). Seriously, I don't believe that cussing in general adds very much color to things and often is massively over used. So don't use this blog to justify anything.
I am reading a book now that is making me mad. I had to put it down for a while ...
I guess I am just posting to let people know how worked up I get about books. Do you guys experience that too?
I am definitely a nerd.
But maybe I have said to much. Please don't read this as condoning cussing. I will not tell you which words I use (I mean who knows ... maybe I am referring to horrible things like "darnett all"). Seriously, I don't believe that cussing in general adds very much color to things and often is massively over used. So don't use this blog to justify anything.
I am reading a book now that is making me mad. I had to put it down for a while ...
I guess I am just posting to let people know how worked up I get about books. Do you guys experience that too?
I am definitely a nerd.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
For Families
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who settest the solitary
in families: We commend to thy continual care the homes in
which thy people dwell. Put far from them, we beseech thee,
every root of bitterness, the desire of vainglory, and the pride
of life. Fill them with faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance,
patience, godliness. Knit together in constant affection those
who, in holy wedlock, have been made one flesh. Turn the
hearts of the parents to the children, and the hearts of the
children to the parents; and so enkindle fervent charity among
us all, that we may evermore be kindly affectioned one
to another; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Please hear our prayer.
(From the Book of Common Prayer; P. 828)
in families: We commend to thy continual care the homes in
which thy people dwell. Put far from them, we beseech thee,
every root of bitterness, the desire of vainglory, and the pride
of life. Fill them with faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance,
patience, godliness. Knit together in constant affection those
who, in holy wedlock, have been made one flesh. Turn the
hearts of the parents to the children, and the hearts of the
children to the parents; and so enkindle fervent charity among
us all, that we may evermore be kindly affectioned one
to another; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Please hear our prayer.
(From the Book of Common Prayer; P. 828)
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Commandment: God Speaks to Us
In continuing thinking on the psalms, I read a chapter of Bruggemann this morning. He reminded me of something that others have written about as well ... that the God of Israel (who is the God of the NT as well) is interested in morality. There is a powerful statement in Deuteronomy 6:20-25
20When your children ask you in time to come, “What is the meaning of the decrees and the statutes and the ordinances that the Lord our God has commanded you?” 21then you shall say to your children, “We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. 22The Lord displayed before our eyes great and awesome signs and wonders against Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his household. 23He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised on oath to our ancestors. 24Then the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our lasting good, so as to keep us alive, as is now the case. 25If we diligently observe this entire commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, we will be in the right.”
The God of the Bible is particular. He is love as John tells us, but part of that definition of his character is concern for justice and righteousness. And so we and the world around us are constantly addressed by this particular, the true God's, "summons to obedience" as the ultimate way of knowing Him (in Walter's words).
And he quoted from another book I really like (and happen to have a summery of on my computer). "Who Is Man?" by Abraham Heschel. Heschel says that central to understanding man (humankind) is his sense of personal indebtedness, that God is not only a power we depend on, but "He is a God who demands." He even uses Decartisian language to define man "I am commanded -- therefore I am."
While we like to think of salvation and redemption being wrought by God alone (and in some sense, rightly so), we forget that his saving deeds (saving Israel out of Egypt or the world out of perishing in sin and death) is a summons to obedience. And there is a profound dignity here if we can see past our modern disdain for words like command, duty, even righteousness. As Moses preaches to those children on the eve of entering the promised land "The Lord commanded us ... for our lasting good, so as to keep us alive."
20When your children ask you in time to come, “What is the meaning of the decrees and the statutes and the ordinances that the Lord our God has commanded you?” 21then you shall say to your children, “We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. 22The Lord displayed before our eyes great and awesome signs and wonders against Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his household. 23He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised on oath to our ancestors. 24Then the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our lasting good, so as to keep us alive, as is now the case. 25If we diligently observe this entire commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, we will be in the right.”
The God of the Bible is particular. He is love as John tells us, but part of that definition of his character is concern for justice and righteousness. And so we and the world around us are constantly addressed by this particular, the true God's, "summons to obedience" as the ultimate way of knowing Him (in Walter's words).
And he quoted from another book I really like (and happen to have a summery of on my computer). "Who Is Man?" by Abraham Heschel. Heschel says that central to understanding man (humankind) is his sense of personal indebtedness, that God is not only a power we depend on, but "He is a God who demands." He even uses Decartisian language to define man "I am commanded -- therefore I am."
While we like to think of salvation and redemption being wrought by God alone (and in some sense, rightly so), we forget that his saving deeds (saving Israel out of Egypt or the world out of perishing in sin and death) is a summons to obedience. And there is a profound dignity here if we can see past our modern disdain for words like command, duty, even righteousness. As Moses preaches to those children on the eve of entering the promised land "The Lord commanded us ... for our lasting good, so as to keep us alive."
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The Psalter
I started reading the daily office of psalms two days ago and it has been very powerful to me. Yesterday I read 5,6,9 and 10 and today was part of 119, 12, 13, and 14. I feel like, among other things, it roots me in the larger world. Reminds me that God is the God of the whole earth and his concern is for everyone. He really wants to rid the world of wicked men and wicked deeds so that the orphan and oppressed may receive justice. These words sort of galvanize me in prayer for our broken world.
This morning on NPR they were talking about Tibet and China and the horrible relations and sounds like atrocities that China is perpetuating over that nation. Something so distant and involving the persecution of people of another religion (Buddhist persecution), and the psalms remind me that God is furious about it and he will respond.
"Oh, that the Lord would cut off all smooth tongues,
and close the lips that utter proud boasts!
'Because the needy are oppressed,
and the poor cry out in misery,
I will rise up,' says the Lord,
'and give them the help they long for.'"
From psalm 12
Or from psalm 11 which expresses doubt about the future of mankind.
"see how the wicked bend the bow
and fit their arrows to the string,
to shoot from ambush at the true of heart.
When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do?"
Things seem over ... the wicked are winning ... the very foundations are being destroyed, but the next verse:
"The Lord is in his holy temple;
the Lord's throne is in heaven."
(more powerful words)
concluding with
"and the just shall see his face."
This morning on NPR they were talking about Tibet and China and the horrible relations and sounds like atrocities that China is perpetuating over that nation. Something so distant and involving the persecution of people of another religion (Buddhist persecution), and the psalms remind me that God is furious about it and he will respond.
"Oh, that the Lord would cut off all smooth tongues,
and close the lips that utter proud boasts!
'Because the needy are oppressed,
and the poor cry out in misery,
I will rise up,' says the Lord,
'and give them the help they long for.'"
From psalm 12
Or from psalm 11 which expresses doubt about the future of mankind.
"see how the wicked bend the bow
and fit their arrows to the string,
to shoot from ambush at the true of heart.
When the foundations are being destroyed,
what can the righteous do?"
Things seem over ... the wicked are winning ... the very foundations are being destroyed, but the next verse:
"The Lord is in his holy temple;
the Lord's throne is in heaven."
(more powerful words)
concluding with
"and the just shall see his face."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
