Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Category

Uncategorized

Straight Lines and Pipelines (part 1 of 3)

originally posted at Ethnic Space

Recently, I got a new calendar for 2012. I’m not a big fan of calendars in general so I refuse to spend much money on them – which is why I waited until February and got one from the ‘extreme discount’ bin at a news stand.

Once I got it home, I was flipping through the pages and I noticed something that really odd. It was a time-zone map for daylight-savings. The thing that struck me so odd is that not all of the lines were straight. For instance, in easter Oregon the line for PST does not follow the eastern boarder of the state. It jogs west for a section.

I thought to myself  “wow – I wonder how that was decided? Did that come from the people? How would someone have the sovereignty to do that? What did that process even look like?”

The reason this seemed to odd to me was three fold:

  •  I lived in perhaps the flattest place on earth: Saskatchewan. And while it is flat I still find myself smirking when I look at a map and see the straight lines of provinces and states … because not even Saskatchewan is that flat! The straight lines on our maps should be a warning to us. They should be a screaming siren and a flashing light that something arbitrary and unnatural has been imposed upon the landscape.
  • My favorite historian to listen to as I drive is John Merriman at Yale. He has a presentation about straight lines and how  after wars  they are drawn up literally with a ruler. It is one of those things that can jolt you out of an imperial slumber. When you grow up in a colonial mentality, so often you take the as-is structure of your reality as a given and never question how straight lines are laid over mountainous regions or winding terrains. You never question the arbitrary nature of border placements and boundaries that literally could not have been devised on site. They would have had to be conceived remotely – literally with a ruler on a flat piece of paper.
  • I was reading Canadian news on my Yahoo! reader and there was a headline about the Oil Pipeline needing Tribal approval. As a dual citizen I am constantly explaining to my American friends that it works a little different in Canada. First Nations are recognized in way that is foreign to most Americans (I am using these words intentionally). You can read about Tribal reaction to the pipeline’s defeat here. The thing that haunts me is the confusion in my friend’s eyes when tribal sovereignty interferes with something like the pipeline. “They can do that?” I know is what they are trying to ask as they stumble through their awkward attempt at understanding political power and land rites.

Several years ago I heard Randy Woodley present a paper about working with the land – not imposing things on the land or doing something to the land. He used the example of highway that was to be constructed through a reservation in a Western state. The easiest way was to make the road a straight line which would require blasting through hills and filling in ravines. Native leadership protested and a decision was made to adjust the design of the road so that it flowed with the bends of the landscape instead.

I think about that story all the time. I hate that a new highway had to cut through what had been unbroken space. We don’t live in a perfect world – it is all compromises and lesser of two evils. I am not a romantic or idealist … but I think that we live in grave danger. It is one thing that we ‘need’ to build a road or need to extract more oil. That is not my primary concern. What really concerns me is that we don’t even see the straight lines. It never even dawns on us that they don’t exist. They occur nowhere in nature. They are imposed upon the land and laid over the land. They don’t come from the terrain and are not in partnership with the place. They are completely foreign and often arbitrary.

And yet we never see them. The western mind sees what-is and assumes its giveness as a self validating presence. This is the first of three posts this week where I want to examine the underlying ignorance, and engage some new possibilities in the hopes of embodying a new way of being in these days.
The two trolls that guard the bridge to a new way are named Colonial Christianity and Environmental Dualism. When we assume the as-is structure of modern existence we choose to stay asleep and allow the machine to roll-on  – to roll-over, and crush  everything in its path. When we fail to recognize how things emerge from the earth, we falsely import and impose our straight (and thus false) lines on the earth. We must change our relationship to the earth and begin to work with the earth.

I will be back tomorrow to talk about what happened in 1421 and revisit why nipples and bellybuttons matter.  I look forward to your comments and questions.

Evangelical 2.0: The Deception of Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network

There are at least two significant distinctions between Emergent and Acts 29 – beside doctrinal issues.
The first is that Acts 29 (as I understand it) has a top-down orientation. That is fine for some circumstances, but it is not emergent. By definition, it is the opposite of emergent.

The second difference is that groups like Emergent Village are self-selecting membership. If someone says that they are a part of it … they get to be. Acts 29 is a denominational model. If you don’t meet their criteria, then you are out.
Thanks for the interesting read. I had thought about some of this stuff before but it was interesting to see your take on it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bo’s Blogs – 1st week of February 2012

Last week was the big Emergent Village theological conversation that I had the pleasure of  helping to organize. It was a wonderful event and this week I put some time into catching up on blog stuff.

Over at Ethnic Space, I started into 3 part series. Part 1 dealt with Pipelines and Straight lines

What really concerns me is that we don’t even see the straight lines. It never even dawns on us that they don’t exist. They occur nowhere in nature. They are imposed upon the land and laid over the land. They don’t come from the terrain and are not in partnership with the place.
And yet we never see them. The western mind sees what-is and assumes its giveness as a self validating presence.

Part 2 examine the Two Trolls that guard the bridge to a new way. It starts in 1421 when the Chinese land on the Pacific coast of N. America and ends by looking at Descartes’ nipples and belly buttons.

In response to Rachel Held-Evans’ call for men to address this ideas of ‘masculine Christianity’ I offered Bananas, Bullies, and the Bible: why you can’t start in the middle.

Like Ray Comfort and his banana, John Piper ends up making the opposite point than he wanted to! Comfort intended to exalt the original design but instead highlighted human cultivation, influence and adaption. Piper desired to show how God has made us but instead showed how we have made God.

I also look at the problem of Preaching for Happiness.  I start by quickly outlining the 3 predominant christianities in Canada and the US

  • Prophetic Christianity – critiquing the empire
  • Therapeutic Christianity – chaplains to the empire
  • Messianic Christianity – escaping everything (including the empire) through utopian visions

and then examine the amazing flowchart of happiness that I found.

In the middle I say “If the point of the gospel was to make people happy then this progression would be the best and most helpful thing that has ever been invented.
But, and this is a big butt, if the point of the gospel is anything other than making people happy, then this kind of formulaic thinking is the most distracting thing in the world.”

Around here we continued the conversation about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of reason, experience, scripture and tradition. I think that the quad has a place in the 21st century but might need a little tweaking.

So, that is some of what I have been up to this week. I had a lot of catching up to do after the conference – a lot of ideas that had been building up.  I hope that you will jump in and join the conversation! See you next week.

the Theological transition

originally posted at Homebrewed

In the book “Who Needs Theology?” Grenz and Olson provide a helpful little spectrum of 5 kinds of theology: Folk, Lay, Pastoral, Professional, and Academic.  I have pastored for over 15 years and have always considered myself a Pastoral Theologian.

Over the last 5 years I have been transitioning toward more of a Professional and Academic location. This is not as simple as it might appear. It is complicated by the presence of two variables:

  1. I continue to be a pastor while I am in the Doctoral program. The church and the academy do not always communicate that well, are not always focused on the same things, and have developed a level of distrust/suspicion at points.
  2. My field in the academy is Practical Theology. This discipline is primarily focused on the activity of the local congregation-community and so even my academic pursuit is church oriented.

The result of this is that I seem to have the same two conversations on a fairly predictable monthly loop. One conversation is with my former congregants who knew me as only a pastor. The second conversation is with my fellow students who are pursuing an interest in one of the “Big 4” Theological disciplines (Philosophic, Historic, Systematic, or Biblical).
The first conversation with former congregants who are suspicious or or unaware of theology usually finds me trying to explain that “theology is a 2nd order reflection – or a 2nd tier discipline – that as a practical theologian I recognize is not the main event (1st order) but an examination OF  that main event.”  I compare it to being in the balcony  watching those who are in the auditorium who are watching what is happening on stage.   I am concerned with the interaction between the stage and the auditorium. I am not focused on the stage primarily. I am analyzing and describing, from a 2nd tier position, the dynamic that is at work and its effect.
The second conversation is usually with people much further into theology than I am. I am continuously explaining that I am not looking for a system to buy into wholesale or a framework that accounts for everything in a totalizing way. I am simply looking for conversation partners.

  • I am intrigued by Liberation Theology by am not (as of yet) convinced of God’s preferential concern for the poor. I want to hear what Gutierrez and Boff have to say.
  • I am not a Whitehead-ian (yet) but love John Cobb and the host of other Process thinkers (Epperly, Suchoki, etc.)
  • I am not Catholic but get so much from Elizabeth Johnson, John Caputo, Karl Rahner and Joseph Bracken.
  • I think that George Linbeck and Hans Frei are really onto something about theology and scripture, but I am certainly no Wittgensteinian.
  • I am fascinated by Paul Knitter and John Hick but have no interest in trying to defend a Kantian dualism in order to explain how a Barth style-Protestant might access the noumenal real (an actual challenge I received when quoting Paul Knitter). Continue reading “the Theological transition”

Obama, the Antichrist, and the Beast (reading the Bible better)

This past week a heckler was escorted from a speech by President Obama for calling the President ‘the Antichrist’. If you want to read about it or watch the video,  here are some links.

I find this story very interesting for four reasons:

First, I passionately believe that the Book of Revelation was a spiritual-political commentary on the Roman Empire of the first two centuries. It was written in a Jewish style of literature called Apocalyptic.  I do not think it is about our day nor is it about the end of the world. It is an inspired (and thus scripture) movement of prophetic imagination to call for (in hope) a preferable future.

but that is not how I was taught to read the Bible. I was taught to read it in one hand with a newspaper in the other (as they say). I was told that we could see events (like the Bear from the East) being fulfilled in the Soviet Union or Israel. I no longer believe this but am fascinated by those who still do.

Second, there is no such thing as the Antichrist. Now, scripture does speak about an antichrist spirit – it is all in the books of 1 and 2 John of the Bible and there are 4 references – none of them are what get thrown around these days. The idea of THE Antichrist is actually a horrible amalgamation of nearly every bad-guy in the Bible mashed into one. We take the Man of Lawlessness (from Thessalonians), the Prince (from Daniel) and a whole bunch of other baddies from the Old and New Testament and transform them into one galactically bad figured called THE Antichrist. In reality, there is no such thing.

Third, if there was such a cosmic bad-guy, do you think that you could just pay $250 dollars for entrance to a fundraiser and yell at him because he let gays into the military?  Don’t you think that he would destroy you with like… I don’t know… beams of hell-fire from his eyes or something.  You can’t just yell at the Antichrist and get away with it.  What are you thinking? Continue reading “Obama, the Antichrist, and the Beast (reading the Bible better)”

Earthquakes Hurricanes and Politics

Earlier this week, Michelle Bachmann said something stupidor at least something that I regarded as such.  Later she said she was just joking. I posted it on Facebook and some people actually tried to defend her thinking that ‘god’ caused the earthquake and hurricane.

I have written before about how God does not direct tornadoes or punish the people of Haiti for some deal their ancestors made with the devil. I have said that Crucifying Job’s God” href=”https://bosanders.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/crucifying-jobs-god/” target=”_blank”>we need to update our concepts and adapt our frameworks (theological, philosophical, sociological, spiritual, etc.) to the realities of the 21st Century and not allow ourselves to get limited by what the ancients believed/understood in the first couple of centuries C.E.

What follows is an amalgamation of my comments in that Facebook conversation. I have modified some of them to account for responses by those in the conversation.

When I say that God did not cause these things, I am talking about  intervention, ‘an act of God’.
Do you believe that God intervened in the natural order to make the earthquake and the hurricane? Did God cause them as part of ‘his’ plan?

I do not.  But I also understand that those who want to believe like Bachmann that god does work this way and that scripture does not allow us to think otherwise … is certainly is one way to be a Christian. – a way I think made a lot more sense in the pre-modern world… but it is one way to be a christian.

That being said, it is not the way that I am looking for. I do not want to be limited to only the physics and meta-physics of the first centuries C.E. As christians, I want to incorporate modern realities, acknowledge scientific advancement and adjust to expanding knowledge. I want to grow up out of humanity’s infancy. This means we adapt and integrate to leave behind some of the previous ways of thinking.
Christianity is a perpetual maturing toward reality and moving from milk to meat.

In this rubric, the Bible is an inspired and authoritative record of God’s dealings with a part of humanity as interpreted and then represented by those individuals and communities in their understanding and capacity.

This is where ‘all or nothing’ thinking really fails us. I’m not saying to  “throw out” the teachings or worldview of those who wrote the Bible. I am saying that we need to integrate. You have to have something old to integrate the new into. Otherwise it is replacement. I just don’t want to be limited ONLY to first century meta-physics. I obviously don’t want to chuck everything Paul said.

Here is why this is so important: part of the good news that the church has to proclaim is that the world is God’s and that God by God’s spirit is present at at work in the world!!
My hesitation here is what you mean by ‘in charge’ because God is not an Caesar-Emperor with ‘thumbs up- thumbs down power’.

  • that conception of god is to miss that counter-narrative provided by Jesus. God is NOT like Caesar. Jesus shows us something different – that God is NOT like the powers of this world.
  • those who miss this counter-narrative, often also miss that the God revealed in Christ is at work in Holy Spirit at this is why we must be Spirit Christians and not Old Covenant Christians just getting out frameworks and word pictures from the days of Kings. Jesus provides a revision to that understanding and a counter trajectory to simply sticking with that previous understanding.

When we say that it is time to update some things we are NOT saying that the ancients knew nothing about physics or metaphysics. Let’s say that they were exactly as proficient in their day as we are in ours. That is all we can do – do the best we can do in our time as they did in theirs.

What I am 100% against is saying that they knew MORE than us and we need to stick with ONLY what they knew!

There is no other area other area of our life where we stick with the knowledge of the 1st century.

 

I wanted to add a link to “making sense of the miraculous” for those who are interested

3 words of wisdom on love wins

Beside the release of my interview with Brian McLaren on the Homebrewed Christianity podcast [link]  (also available on Itunes), I have been busy reading all week. I have gotten a pretty good survey of all the big discussions going on in, around, and because of the release of Rob Bell’s “Love Wins”.

my fellow student Bill Walker has a very insightful take, asking “is this really about theology?”  at the end he quotes a buddy

“In such a climate, is it really possible to be moderate? Continue reading “3 words of wisdom on love wins”

>Communing thoughts

>This week we start a new series for the New Year.  Each week will be broken into 3 acts.
Act 1 will look toward a Big Tent Christianity perspective.
Act 2 will outline where I am currently at on the issue.
Act 3 will introduce a new idea that I got from somewhere else.

Act 1: Sometimes it is good and helpful just to know that there are other perspectives out there and to know what those perspectives are. Here are four quick snapshots of the historical landscape (as I currently understand it).

Transubstantiation is the famous catholic position. The belief is that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ – which still remains bread and wine**. This may seem confusing or like a contradiction to some but those who hold this position are comfortable with “mystery”.  It is the same way that they believe in Jesus being fully God and fully man at the same time… it is mystery. The same would go for Mary (Jesus’ mother) being a perpetual virgin and also exalted mother.
      ** late edition: it turns out that most catholic thinkers hold to a more historic position whereby it does not remain bread and wine but only appears to. Here is a link to an explanatory note about the physics debate. I hope my confusion can be forgiven – it is a very elaborate topic even for those within the fold. **

Consubstantiation is the Lutheran position. The concern is not that anything happens to change the bread and wine but that Christ’s “real presence” is in and around the elements. The important part of this idea – and related ideas – is that something special happens in this meal and that is why you have to be careful with WHO is allowed to take it and also who is allowed to SERVE it (often called sacerdotal).
     * my friend Dave S. (who holds something like this view) says that something does happen to the elements but that the bread and wine are now mysteriously not just bread and wine.*

Both ‘Tran’ and ‘Con’ would hold to the idea that communion is a  “means of grace”. That  the grace of God comes to you in a unique or special way through eating these special elements.

A third perspective on this ceremony holds that the meal is a Symbol. This is what I grew up with. The idea is that the meal is a Sacrament (meaning that we use concrete things to represent spiritual or abstract ideas) and that the bread is just bread but that it represents (symbolically) the meaning that Christ gave to it at the Last Supper.

The fourth snapshot is of the Quakers. This group holds the communion meal in such high respect that they don’t celebrate it!  They hold that since the spiritual body of Christ (the church) is so fractured, that it would be unimaginable (and maybe blasphemous) to participate in a ceremony that exalted the body of Christ broken that we “may be one” (as Jesus prayed in John 17).

All four of these groups would be ‘sacramental’ at one level or another – seeing them as ‘outward signs of an inward truth’ or some other formulation. Some refer only to the first two ( Tran and Con) as sacramental since they have a “high” view of the sacraments and then others would be seem as only symbol or ceremony.

Act 2: I grew up with the Symbol understanding and that has always been the way that I have participated in communion.  I am still primarily there but with a few modifications : one in the positive and one in the negative.

In the negative, I do not believe it to be a “means of grace”. I think that the grace of God will come to you just fine without a special meal of special elements. I do not believe in that sort of meta-physics anymore. I think the presence of Christ is the same during that meal in a church building as it is having coffee with a friend. I love taking communion at church! I just don’t think that it is a means of God’s grace nor that Christ’s presence is thicker there and then than it is at any other time or place.

Some may think that this seems very unreligious but actually it is very religious! I think that the presence of Christ is with us every time we break bread with someone (this is my positive change). Every time you sit across the table from an “other” you are reconciling in Jesus’ name and bridging the gap – this is the ongoing ministry of Christ through you! And the important thing is that Jesus is just as present when you have lunch with your co-workers and a pint with your mates as Jesus is at church when the bread and cup are up front!   Jesus is with you all the time.  For me, it does not get much more religious than that.

Act 3: Richard Kearney proposes the idea that the early church was so focused on substance and status (which were very important to establish in those early centuries) that it may have missed something vital in the teaching of Christ. By over focusing on whether the bread became the body and blood of Christ,  it missed something possibly even more profound. Christ’s body became the bread.

The implication for this is that Jesus is saying “what they are going to do to me, do not do this to others”. That the big deal with communion is not whether the bread becomes the body, but that Christ’s body becomes the bread. Jesus is saying eat together–I have given my life for every one so that no one needs to be killed like this in God’s name.

The everyday theology application:  Communion  is not about ceremony and ritual during a worship service at a grandiose cathedral owned by the religious establishment, served by professional clergy and robed priests to those who have been approved and indoctrinated.  Communion is a meal that those who love Jesus and live in Christ’s way share with those who are both near and far from the church.

When we break bread together, that is communion.  It is not so much about whether the bread becomes the body, but that Christ’s body has become bread. No one is to be killed because of their opinion or belief about God–for Christ’s sake!  This is the exact reason that Jesus changed that famous Jewish Passover ceremony for his followers.  Within 300 years of Christ’s death and resurrection, we were back to religious ritual, robed priests, militarized religion, and violence done in God’s name. People being killed over this continued into the 1800’s.

 I am comfortable going out on the limb and saying A)  it’s almost as if Jesus never came.  The only thing that changed was who was doing the violence.  Now they did the violence in Jesus name instead of some other god’s name. B)  this is not what Jesus wanted.

Here is the thing: 
 I am for a Big Tent Christianity. So I want to break bread with those who believe that the bread becomes the body, with those that believe that Christ’s presence is with the bread, and with those – like me-  who see it as a beautiful symbol and metaphor.

 Do I believe that in the age of physics that it is silly to say that the bread becomes the body? No – it is consistent with a historical position.
In a post-Christendom world is it tenable to have a “means of grace” controlled by religious professional and distributed to only the approved members? No.

But I do think that it’s tenable for us to continue to participate in the metaphor if the body becomes bread – it is a symbol of sacrifice and reconciliation that anyone is free to participate in no matter what they believe about it.

Spirit vs. Letter

I stumbled onto an interesting story while researching my Ethics of Pluralism paper

The LA Times examined a case study of a Jewish Center and Synagogue* that wanted to construct a eruv by surrounding a city with monofilament fishing line and designating it as one space. This would allow those participating in the orthodox congregation to satisfy the codified expectations of Sabbat while moving within the eruv, as this would no longer be moving between one place and another. Continue reading “Spirit vs. Letter”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑