progressive involvement

Keillor on Twain

Garrison Keillor, in today's New York Times, has a rip-roaring review of Mark Twain's autobiography.  The book is "a powerful argument for writers’ burning their papers," says Keillor, who bemoans that good portions of the autobiography are tedious and boring. 

This makes me feel better about looking at this huge tome yesterday at the Tattered Cover and thinking to myself, "I don't want to be a philistine and not properly appreciate the Great Master, but I don't want to read all that."

That gripe strongly registered, Keillor says also that you can't write that much and not have significant portions of the Real Twain show up somewhere:

The reader hikes across the hard, dusty ground of a famous man’s reminiscences and is delighted to come across the occasional water hole. The famous man is in Berlin, hobnobbing with aristocracy at dinner at the ambassador’s, and meets a count: “This nobleman was of long and illustrious descent. Of course I wanted to let out the fact that I had some ancestors, too; but I did not want to pull them out of their graves by the ears, and I never could seem to get a chance to work them in in a way that would look sufficiently casual.”

Why does all this sound like a Stieg Larsson novel?

Judge denies bail to Assange, the Wikileaks leaker.

The piety of puritans and pharisees

David Hall, writing in the New York Times, makes a case that the puritans have been unfairly maligned as self-righteous prigs.  We typically think of puritans as legalists-with-a-vengeance.  Hall attributes this impression to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter in which puritans are portrayed as authoritarian, "bent on making everyone conform to a rigid set of rules and ostracizing everyone who disagreed with them."

Actually, the puritans had many democratic impulses and practices, and were suspicious of all heirarchical authority.  Authority was vested in the local congregation--indeed, we call it "congregationalism."  The denomination which grew out of puritanism was the Congregational Church which later became today's United Church of Christ.

Contrary to Hawthorne’s assertions of self-righteousness, the colonists hungered to recreate the ethics of love and mutual obligation spelled out in the New Testament. Church members pledged to respect the common good and to care for one another. Celebrating the liberty they had gained by coming to the New World, they echoed St. Paul’s assertion that true liberty was inseparable from the obligation to serve others.

They did not, as it turned out, inaugurate the "New Jerusalem" that they desired.  All human systems fail.  In fact, the human systems which begin with the highest hopes usually are the ones that fall the furthest.

The biblical pharisees were similar.  Most people regard the pharisees as traditionalist, conservative, self-righteous legalists, but that is, at the very most, only partially true.

The pharisees were actually a renewal movement within Judaism, and the major rival to the powerful Sadducees, whose base was the Temple priests and the wealthy aristocracy of Jerusalem.  The power base of the pharisees was in the countryside among lay people.  Issues of class were obviously involved.

The pharisees believed that Judaism was for all the people, not just the priests.  Lay people were just as able as priests to love God, and they would do it through observance of the Torah.  As God cared for the world 24/7, the pharisees encouraged keeping Torah 24/7.  This is how Judaism would be renewed, they thought.

Jesus actually had some points of agreement with the pharisees.  He critiqued the Temple, as the pharisees did.  He believed in the general resurrection, as the pharisees also did.

Where the pharisees looked to Torah, however, Jesus looked to the prophetic tradition.  To put it a different way, where the pharisees tilted toward law, Jesus tilted toward the prophets, emphasizing compassion over law.  All four of the gospels portray Jesus in this way. 

The problem with both puritans and pharisees was not intent.  Indeed, in both cases, their intent was laudable.  With the pharisees, it was the renewal of Judaism.  With the puritans, it was the "new Israel" founding the New Jerusalem.

The problem is that renewal movements are charismatic and effervescent.  The early days are spiritual champagne.  After awhile, though, the champagne begins to lose its bubble.  The movement becomes a system.  The early effervescence hardens and grows rigid. 

Paul writes:  "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6).  Unfortunately, many renewal movements, including both puritans and pharisees, begin in spirit, but end in letter.      

 

 

If you really want to learn about God, skip the religion section

I stopped in at two area bookstores yesterday--one of the finest bookstores in the country, the Tattered Cover, and my local Borders.  The TC is a great bookstore overall, but their coffeeshop area, which was superior in their old location at Cherry Creek, has been cut way back.  Borders, on the other hand, has an excellent coffee section, but I still haven't figured out where their new non-fiction is.

In the course of each visit, and as per usual, I check the religion section.  They always have have a ton of Bibles.  This is not surprising, of course, since the Good Book is a major best-seller.  Bibles usually occupy two full shelves. 

Folks, there are only about half a dozen really popular translations.  If you already have one of those, you really don't need the "teenagers' Bible" or the "patriots' Bible" or the "nerd's Bible" or the "bikers' Bible" or whatever. 

The content is the same as any other Bible.  What you're buying is somebody else's commentary--commentary which is, to be kind, "uneven."  Read the Bible for yourselves, people.  You don't need somebody to tell you what it means.

Most of the religion section, both at TC and Borders, is comprised of "Christian Fiction."  These are your Rebecca-of-Sunnybrook-farm kind of books--either that, or Tim LaHaye's all-the-liberals-die books. 

The theology section is usually somewhat thin in most bookstores.  These two, however, had several offerings, including several classics.  Each had books by several major theologians, including Augustine, Luther, and Bonhoeffer, and some contemporary authors as well.

Though you may purchase it at both locations, avoid the new Bonhoeffer book.  The reviews have been roundly negative because it appears the author, who tries to turn Bonhoeffer into an American-style evangelical, obviously doesn't know that much about Bonhoeffer.

Another section, sometimes called "spirituality" or "Christian living" is often large also.  The majority of books in these categories are schlock--dreary, kitschy, and pious--and all seem to assume that we want to live in a Minneapolis suburb in about 1955. 

Sprinkled in among them, however, are a small minority of truly interesting books.  Some of the newer writers from the emergent church, for example, are expressing and giving shape to what I hope will be the Christianity of the future. 

I think about someone who wants something to shape up her teenage son--give him a dose of religion, maybe that'll help--and picks up Brennan Manning or Rob Bell, or the home-school mom who wants to learn more about Bible and buys a book by Dom Crossan.  Such are the little victories of the Holy Spirit!

On the other hand, I think of those many people who are looking and searching.  Maybe they have a specific problem--divorce, death, job--or maybe they struggle with meaning and purpose.  They might stop by to see if the Christian faith has anything to say to them.  What do we have to offer?  Tim LaHaye and the Patriots' Bible?

Someone once said that Jesus preached the kingdom of God, but what we actually got was the church.  Similarly, Christianity is purportedly about Jesus of Nazareth, but unfortunately, it more usually reflects the values of the people who killed him.     

Good to include Rauschenbusch, but where's Thomas Merton?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer took a low view of the quality of theological discussion in the United States.  American theologians didn't impress him--(although the spirituality of the African-American church did).

If this list of the 50 most influential religious leaders in American history, produced by Joe Carter at the conservative magazine First Things, is a fair representation of American theological thought, then Bonhoeffer was entirely correct to be unimpressed.

Only a few on this list could be considered legitimate theologians:  Avery Dulles, H. Richard Niebuhr, James Cone, John Courtney Murray, Reinhold Niebuhr, Jonathan Edwards, Walter Rauschenbusch, John Howard Yoder.  (Some might include Warfield and Hodge, founders of today's fundamentalism.)

Frankly, for all their many merits, none of these people are well-known outside of the United States, and are barely known inside it.  One could argue that, with Gonzalez, Sobrino, and Boff, Latin America has produced better theology than has the United States.  

Morality as curse, not blessing

Ever since visiting a Mayan ruin in Belize, I've been wondering why it was that the Mayans were perfectly fine with living a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence for 10,000 years, then, seemingly all of a sudden, decided to settle down and become a "civilization."  Why?

Scott Gustafson, a Lutheran pastor with a Ph.D. in theology and religious studies, may have some clues.  He's the author of two books, Biblical Amnesia and Behind Good and Evil. 

In a hunter-gatherer society, food was free, available to anyone who went out and got it.  With the rise of agriculture, this changed.  More food was available, but it was no longer free.  The problem was not the discovery of planting and harvesting.  In fact, hunter-gatherers had already been doing some of that for some time.  The problem was that the agricultural revolution marked a shift in how we thought about food.  It had become a commodity.

Prior to the agricultural revolution, food was no more to be bought and sold than the air we breathe.  After the agricultural revolution, food was put "under lock and key."  (BGE, p. 31)

When food became a commodity, society began to develop criteria to determine who was or was not worthy of it.  Gustafson argues that morality is a social construct by which the "powers" of society determine who is "good" or "bad," who is worthy of being taken seriously, and who isn't.  It also generated "ranking," which determines which is "better" or "worse" than another.

Agriculture increased food production, which, in turn, increased population.  Most of this increased population is not involved in food production itself which frees their labor for other purposes and makes possible the rise of cities and "civilization."  Moreover, rising populations need more and more food, which meant that more and more land was needed in order to increase production.  This generated invasions, wars, and social dislocations.

World's oldest tweet found in Jerusalem

This small shard of clay contains script from the 14th century.  It was found recently in Jerusalem.  The language is Akkadian, which originated in Mesopotamia 

According to the Associated Press, the words are "you," "them," and "later."  (Possible meanings of other words are "Zedekiah's Bar and Grille.")

The significance of the find is that is the oldest example of writing found in Jerusalem.  It pre-dates the next earliest example by 600 years. 

In the 14th century B.C., Jerusalem was an insignificant provincial village most likely occupied by a tribe called the Jebusites.  It would have had a small population. 

Jerusalem was captured by David four centuries later and made it his capitol.  David, no fool, probably chose it because it would be easy to defend and was not associated with any of the then-current tribes of Israel--thus, neutral territory, and less likely to arouse internal jealousies.

The find is important, but there are other examples just as old.  For example, a local king of Jerusalem carried on a correspondence with Egypt.  These records are in the Egyptian archives and also date from the 14th century B.C.  They were written in Jerusalem, but not found in there.

Photo:  Here

Fashion report: The girl with the hip new threads

Out with the Farrah Fawcett locks.  In with shaggy coiffure.  Out with the kinky red boots.  In with black leggings.  Out with the bustier and the star-spangled short-shorts.  In with the stealth look of Lisbeth Salander, complete with fetish choker.  Out with the Playboy playmate look.  In with pirates of the Caribbean. 

What could go wrong?

Triangulations is a blog dealing with translation issues in Biblical texts.  That's where I found this handy chart. 

Read from lower left up, then down to the lower right for a summary of some of the trajectories and issues involved in translating sacred texts. 

Note that "religious agenda" imposes an ideological influence at key points in the process.  While, at one level, that might be lamented, it must also be admitted that everyone has an agenda--the skeptic as well as the fundamentalist, and every shade in between.  Might as well admit it up front.  As Triangulations notes, "there is no such thing as pure objectivity."

Note also the "cloud" around "'original' text" and "original intent."  The "cloud" is there because we do not actually have any of these documents. 

Incidentally, this is why, on certain difficult issues, fundamentalists can hedge their position by saying that the text is "inerrant" in the "original autographs."  Since we do not have the "original autographs," who can say?  As a seminary classmate of mine put it, "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs."

People should realize that these issues are all in play behind every major translation of the Bible, and all the minor ones too.  It's a complicated matter.   

Five best ministry books

Christian Century magazine asked half a dozen prominent pastors for their "five essential books on ministry." 

Eugene Peterson and Dietrich Bonhoeffer each appeared on more than one list--no surprise there.  Peter Marty listed Peterson's Under the Predictable Plant, and Brian McClaren recommended Working the Angles.  Both are good choices, but, were I to pick a Peterson book, it would be Reversed Thunder, which is the only book on Revelation that ever made any sense to me.

I chuckled a bit at Richard Lischer's choices because they were so...Lutheran.  As essential books for ministry, he picked Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELW), Faith and Freedom:  An Invitation to the Writings of Martin Luther, and Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison.  I'm not familiar with the Luther book, but ELW and Letters and Papers are both excellent choices.

Bonhoeffer is at his most approachable in Letters and Papers.  In fact, for a sense of the man, there is no better resource.  Not only is Bonhoeffer seen in a personal way, his theology is some of the most creative, al beit incomplete, of his all-too-brief career.

Brian McClaren listed Bonhoeffer's Life Together, also a good choice, especially for Americans.  Exploring Life Together is a good way to explore the nature of community, something which is very much a part of our own history, but which also tends to get submerged below our emphasis on individuality.  (McClaren also listed the very influential book on family process, Generation to Generation, written by psychiatrist Edwin Friedman.)  My choices:

(1)  Lischer is right.   Evangelical Lutheran Worship is a great resource, mainly because it is a compendium of many things in one place--readings, psalms, creeds, confessions, hymns--and serves both as an important repository of the tradition and as inspirational aid.  Other Christian traditions have a similar resource--it's not just a Lutheran thing.

(2-4)  Both Bonhoeffer books--Life Together and Letters and Papers--plus, one more, Ethics.  One of the biggest tasks confronting the church is a confusion of its role.  Most people, including most pastors, think Christianity is a source of moral teaching and a guardian of morality. 

It is not.  Christianity has very little to do with morality actually.  It's about death and resurrection, not our poor personal pieties.  As the saying goes, "Jesus didn't come to make bad people good, he came to make dead people live."  You can only talk about morality after you say that first, and, even then, you shouldn't overdo it.

Bonhoeffer gets at that in Ethics.  If I remember this passage correctly, he says, "For the Christian, Jesus Christ comes to occupy exactly that 'space' that was previously occupied by the knowledge of good and evil."  Pastors who spend their time pondering that thought spend their time well.

(5)  Parables of Grace, by Robert Farrar Capon.  The reason Capon is important is because he gets the above point, and because his analysis of the parables have many practical and pastoral applications.  Plus, you read one of his books on the parables, and you'll want to read the other two as well.