I too recently saw ‘The Dark Knight’ and despite the numerous positive reviews, I was rather disappointed that it was more about the supporting characters than Batman.   BUT the movie did cause me to ponder the social ethic contained within the Batman mythology and how in many ways Batman’s ethic is far from my own.

Comic Books as Modern Mythology

Comic book characters, in modern American society, stand very similarly to the Gods of Greek mythology.  And while we may not actually worship them, the ideological premises of these characters reflect our societal values and in many ways have influenced cultural development as well. Comic Books represent society- either by showing us what really is in terms that can easily be understood or standing as representations of what we wish were true.

Spiderman begins as the week, nerdy and unpopular Peter Parker, but after gaining powers becomes everything he ever wanted to be (including marrying a model who lived next door).  The X-Men have long stood as a hopeful symbolic representation of the homosexual struggle for acceptance in American society.  Wonder Woman, as early as 1940, was a strong, independent, woman carrying the feminism banner.  Superman will always be known to me as the advocate of ‘truth, justice and the American way’.  These characters all began as reflections of societal values, but with any well-passed story- it eventually stops being JUST a story and instead becomes a driving force to preserve the values the story once merely reflected.

But what does all this have to do with the new Batman movie?!?!

The stories of Batman, at their most basic level, express that some evils can only be overcome by evil.  Fear can only be overcome with GREATER fear.  Batman modeled his persona after a childhood fear hoping to become darker more frightening than any criminal had been.  Batman lives in a “Machiavellian” world.  A world where yesterday’s pain must never be forgotten to in order to have the drive to protect tomorrow.  His methods frequently use torture and brutal punishment as a method of acquiring information.  The Batman almost always stops short of killing the criminal, but rarely very short.

Batman does what needs to be done, what’s wrong with that?

Persecution always leads to uprising.  It makes no difference if it is a just or unjust persecution.  Any oppressed people will naturally seek freedom. If the good persecutes the evil with a sword, the evil will always find a bigger sword.  But that is the message presented by ‘The Dark Knight’, Darkness can only be overcome by darkness.  It wasn’t Harvey Dent who took defeated the Joker in the end, but Batman.   The movie’s promotional line ‘I Believe in Harvey Dent!’ was shown to be satirical as the movie’s virtuous hero become its brutal villan.  I see the movies premise that only evil can overcome evil as a grievous moral error detrimental to any community.

Secondly, instilling fear as a motivator works only so long as the threat exists.  If Batman disappears so does the reason to do good.  In my estimation,  the ethos of humanity from Batman teaches that men are good to the extent where they are no longer suffer for doing evil.  Put more plainly, people are only as good as the consequences demand they be.

But it’s only a comic book…

And I know it’s only a comic book, but I think that Batman’s idea of how to cultivate morality goes much further than the Gotham City limits.  Isn’ t this same concept of enforced morality what we see in our society?  Don’t we see this same philosophy of morality through fear of reprisal in our foreign policy?  We ended World War 2 with  a show of force.  That same display of power is what kept us primarily safe throughout the Cold War as well.  American troops can be mobilized anywhere in the world in 24hrs because of our network of bases throughout the world and we would be naive to think that ability combined with superior weapons do not play a large part in the safety of American citizens.  Up until now American has been safe because we are willing to be more brutal and aggressive than our enemies.  The entire war on terror is built on the fact that if you threaten America, America will kill you and your family in your home while you sleep.  As a matter of fact we will bomb the whole town just to make sure.

What about the enforcement of societal morality here in America?  How fast do you drive?  50…55…60?  If I had to guess it’s about 5mph above the speed limit, just enough to not get a speeding ticket.  What about drugs?  Despite its legality I know many people who recreationally use marijuana.  Alcohol?  I work directly with at least 6 people with previous DWI’s, many of them are multiple offenders.  In America, an act is only wrong if you will be punished for it.

Gotham City has only one reason for anyone to be moral- because they live in constant fear of the brutal authority.  And I think its very plausible that the American government is Batman.  That may be the world that Niccolo Machiavelli and John Calvin lived, but I don’t think it is the world Jesus came to show us could be.

Earl

[edit note: I read this article as I was finishing my blog.  Check out Jesus Manifesto for an alternative view on the subject]

I currently identify myself as ‘Pro-Choice’ with regard to abortion policies in America. Despite this ‘liberal’ stance, I agree that life begins at conception and that aborting a child qualifies as murder, but…

1. How can we prosecute mothers and doctors without violating the confidentiality of medical records?
2. How can we not consider the baby property since it is contained within and entirely sustained within the mother’s body?
3. How far will the protection of unborn babies go? Will smoking or drinking by pregnant-mothers be a punishable offense next? What about careless miscarriages- can that be prosecuted as murder?
4. Has our legislation on drugs really made THAT much of a difference? Legislated morality that doesn’t reflect the morality of the people always fails.
5. Is it wise to encourage a society where the government determines acceptable morality for our society instead of the individuals? Jesus would firmly stand against abortion, but he would do so (at least as the Gospels picture him) by telling people ‘Don’t do it!’ rather than encouraging Caesar to speak for him.

Now, granted, it’s not completely fair to equate 1st century Judea under Roman rule to 21st century America but it doesn’t too far of a stretch to assume that Jesus would address moral reform from the ‘bottom up’ rather than from the ‘top down’. I believe a self-sustaining moral reform of our society must come from the populous and not the governmental leadership.

We can even see the failure of ‘top down’ morality in our local congregations. Ask any pastor what he or she believes is ‘right’ or ‘true’ about morality and then take a random, honest, sampling from that pastor’s congregation and you will find striking contradictions. A recent survey even shows that possibly 68% of evangelicals reject the exclusivity of the Gospel for salvation. Now, we all know surveys rarely communicate the truth- but even 25% of a group disagreeing with one of its foundational tenants communicates a serious lack of common beliefs between leadership and constituents.

Now to me. I will never be ‘Pro-Life’ because I do not want to be associated with folks who think they can change the world by holding up signs that say ‘Abortion is Murder!’ on the street corner. There is a certain amount of ignorance associated with the ‘Pro-Life’ movement that, imo, tarnishes the Gospel and unnecessarily makes a mockery out of our the Christian faith.

BUT…

Being ‘Pro- Life’ isn’t working anymore either. Because of this dichotomy I associate myself with people who are primarily my enemies. Often the constituents of ‘Choice’ do so from a basis of pluralism or agnosticism or atheism and I’m not convinced that aligning myself with the opponents of Christianity is anything short of a treacherous faith. I’m torn because, as it stands, I attempt to maintain fidelity to God by siding with those who pride themselves on being His enemies. To be true I must betray, unless we can find another option.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on a third option.

I’m just about finished registering for classes and while I’m not completely enthralled with my options for the Fall ‘08 semester I’m very excited to be one step closer to beginning my MTS degree.

So here are my classes:

CH625. Evangelism and the Camp Meeting Movements in North America
W/F 8:00-9:20am (Russell Richey)
This course is rooted in the premise that revivalism and evangelism (personal and mass) have been among the dominant forces in shaping Protestant religious identity in North America. This revivalist impulse took structure through the organization of annual camp meetings and ultimately the National Camp Meeting Association. Significant attention will be given to the leadership and influence of women in shaping (in many cases, decisively) the revivalist ethos. Of significance also is the role played by African Americans, especially the social contextualizing of the biblical themes of captivity and release, and the ways in which this came to be expressed in oral testimony and music. (Gender, Race, Ethnicity requirement)

RP653. William James: Psychology, Religion and Ethics
W 2:30p- 5:30p (Snarey)
This seminar is based on a close reading
of William James’ three great classics,
The Principles of Psychology, The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Pragmatism. The course begins with James’ foundational psychology, then dwells on his psychology of the diverse varieties of religious experience, and concludes
by considering the relationship of religion and ethics as suggested by James’ philosophical pragmatism. The course will be conducted as a graduate seminar.

These two courses were selected because of my interest in Modern Historical Theology and its impact on modern ecclesiology. Pragmatism was the foundation of the ‘Great Awakenings’-preachers perfected the art of convincing the common man into conversion believing that ‘the ends justify the means’.

On top of those two classes I also am taking MTS501- MTS Colloquy, a discussion class where we use small groups to feel out our first semester at Candler. I’m not exactly excited about this class, but it will be good to at least build some study partners/ contacts since I will be alone in Atlanta.

Next, I need some help making a decision:

ST678 Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology
T/Th 8:00a- 9:20a
One of the following topics may be offered during any semester: modern Roman Catholicism to Vatican II; doctrine of God; Christology; ecclesiology; sacramentology; ethical questions.

or

HT629. Mystical Theology
T/Th 8:00a- 9:20a (Reynolds)
An examination of a wide variety of medieval mystical theologians in the light of the paradigm established by Ps.-Dionysius. Subsidiary themes include action versus contemplation and different notions of the religious life. Emphasis is on primary material in translation. Foundational authors include Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, and Ps.-Dionysius (for the paradigm and its history). Medieval authors include Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete, and Meister Eckhart. (Historical Studies)

I would kill to be able to take both classes, but due to the fact that they’re scheduled over top of each other I need to choose between the two. Both classes fit my major in that the later is a Historical Studies class (although outside my focus area) and the former may be a survey of modern Catholic ecclesiology which 1) fits my focus of modern theological movements as well as the fact that Florrie and I have been discussing joining the Roman Catholic Church. (I recently learned that married men may become priests if married before conversion)

And lastly:

CT502. Introduction to the History of Christian Thought II
T/Th 1:00p- 2:20p
Survey of the doctrinal and theological history of the Christian church in its cultural
setting from the reformations of the sixteenth century to the transitions of the mid-twentieth century.

or

ST698. Issues in Systematic Theology- Process Theology: God and the World
T 2:30p- 5:30p (Mary Moore)

or

ST698. Issues in Systematic Theology- Contemporary Anglican Theology
T 2:30p- 5:30p (Joy McDougall)

So the first is a survey class, covering from the Reformation to the middle 20th century. While that is what I’ve been personally studying for the last 6 month (and honestly don’t feel I will learn nearly as much from the class as I would the others) this will be a detailed survey class. And since I want to teach Church History it can’t hurt to hear the same information from a new scholar.

Choosing between the other two classes is, essentially, a coin flip. Florrie and I are also talking about joining the Episcopal Church, so contemporary Anglican theology would fit similarly to the class on Catholicism- but Process Theology is always interesting.

So I would love to hear your thoughts.

Earl

Sunday

Opening Session- Richard Cizik and Shane Claiborne (8-10:30pm)
Richard Cizik was an excellent speaker, discussing his perspective of faith in the public square. During his tirade against those who deny global warming that I was far from my familiar conservative, baptist roots.
Shane Claibore’s time made the trip worth it. Shane spent his time discussing what he knows best- interaction with the poor through living in community. I found two cliche statements rather characterizing of Shane’s speech (they’re cliche, but worth quoting):

“We love to talk about poor people… but how many of us actually know poor people?”

“Bad theology is not countered with no theology… it’s countered with good theology”

“Enough elephants and donkey’s… let’s just focus on the lamb of God”

Monday

Plenary Session1- Randy Balmer on ‘The History of Evangelicals’
As a student with an avid interest in the study of modern history this lecture was absolutely fascinating. To keep this summmary short, Balmers assertions were that:

1. The Religious Right is a product of the IRS’ attack (per. Green v. Connelly) on Bob Jones University on its anti-minority policy. The government’s interference with religious institutions shocked them to take action, and they chose abortion to the rallying cause of the movement.
2. Attack on Homosexual marriage is directly connected to the dropping of the issue of Divorce with the nomination of Ronald Reagan to the Republican presidential candidate in 1984. According to Balmer this created a rift between the Republican party and the conservative aspect of religion in America- thus dropping its opposition to divorce, leaving a large gap for a new group to hate.

There’s more, but you can try to decipher my notes on this lecture.

Plenary Session 1- Panel Response with: Rita Nakashima Brock, Mimi Haddad, Daisy Machado, Andrea Smith, and Vincent Bacote
While the point speaker gave an excelent presentation it didn’t leave a whole lot to discuss. Instead it turned into a civil rights discussion where everyone said different variations of the same thing. While Andrea Smith was very entertaining, the conversation didn’t offer a whole lot for me. Still though excellent points were made in the area of civil rights and equality.

Learing Track1- Evangelicals and Empire w/ Bruce Benson (Wheaton) and Christian Collin Winn (Bethel)
I was a bit aprehensive going into this session because I didn’t know exactly what to expect. I was very pleasantly suprised though. The entirety of session 1 was the history of Evangelicalism beginning with the Neo-Evangelicals and working their way backwards. Christian Collin Winn presented an alternative history than the one offered by the neo-evangelicals. Rather than identifying their roots in the reformation Winn presented that their roots can better be found in Pietism.

Plenary Session 2- The Theology of Shalom w/ Lisa Sharon Harper
This 45 minute talk can actually be boiled down to ‘God started with everything at piece in the Garden of Eden and wants you to help bring piece back into the world both internally and externally’. Lisa Sharon Harper was an excellent speaker and managed to keep me entertained for the 45 minutes but honestly it was too ‘touchy-feely’ to keep me engaged.

Plenary Session 2- Panel Discussion: Anne Dondapati Allen, Shane Claiborne, Miroslav Volf, Jeremy Del Rio and Bart Campolo
This was by far the best panel discussion thus far. There was a very uncomfortable silence when Bart Campolo looked over at Lisa Sharon Harper and told her that a ‘theology of shalom’ sounded good but it’s not realistic. He proceeded to tell the crowd about his neighborhood and how many of the people he interacts with have no hope of ever overcoming their situations in this life. He then ‘came out of the closet’ as a universalist (his words). The auditorium errupted with shouting and clapping at his ‘coming out’. I definitely felt unbelievably conservative and very alone in the room at that point.

Learning Track Session 2- Evangelicals and Empire
This session was less encouraging. A few vocal individuals who didn’t really care for the history of evangelicals or empires simply stated that they wanted to know how to combat the American government. As someone who falls on the over-prepaired side I always like to be well informed going into conflict- but other folks just want a simple answer. With that said we eventually briefly got into the history of ‘Empire’. The instructors began by having the group list characteristics of an ‘Empire’, talked in the middle about how those characteristics have been present in all large ‘Empires’ throughout history as well as briefly surveying Romans 12’s assertion to obey government in contrast to Colossians 1’s assertion that Jesus is everything that Caesar claimed to be. The session was closed with a discussion of corporation empires taking over the world through the manipulation of nation states.

I did walk away from the session with some questions:

1. Why must an ‘Empire’ be inherently evil? Alex and I discussed this issue and brought up the fact that empires existence necessitate the exploitation of a working class for the comfort of the upper class.  
   
2. What is wrong with a stratified society? Dreaming of a utopia, imo, is a complete waste of time.  There will always be poor, just as there will always be rich.  There will always be a marginalized people, human nature assures that fact.
3. Instead of stopping the ‘Empire’ wouldn’t it be better to co-opt it the empire for one’s means? Physics tells us that it is easier to redirect moment than to stop it.

That ended my day as for the conference.  I found myself rushing to kinkos at 7:30pm to try to fax documents to an apartment complex in Atlanta and therefore missing the ‘Preach-Off’.  Preaching isn’t really my cup of tea anyways.

Earl

I apologize for the lack of posts lately. I’ve been very busy trying to get things in order for Envision (this weekend), my trip to Atlanta (next weekend) and my official move to Atlanta for school this fall (only 9 weeks away).

Expect lots of posts starting tomorrow night though. I plan on blogging my way through Envision (hopefully turnout will be good- I am skeptical though) as well as attempting to video tape some sections so that those of you who didn’t go can see what you missed.

Then I fly out on Thursday morning for Atlanta. Since I’ll be in Atlanta for 36hrs I hope to find time to take pictures- I’ll be sure to post any good ones from my trip as well.

In the meantime, you might as well read about Liberal Abbreviations for a chuckle.

Earl

The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief

After waiting nearly a month to receive this book (don’t trust Amazon.com ‘free shipping’) I received this book last weekend and cracked right into it. This book is written by Peter Rollins (author of ‘How (Not) to Speak of God‘) and serves as an excellent introduction to a post-modern perspective of genuine faith.

Rollins’ book opens with a new perspective on an old story. We all know how the Gospels depict the account of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus- Rollins poses the question ‘What if Judas betrayed Jesus as an act of devotion?’. He acknowledges that this isn’t a new idea, but the picture conjured up serves as an illustration of Rollins’ message. Now Dr. Rollins is not suggesting that the Gospels are incorrect, simply that sometimes being faithful means letting go of that which is most precious to you.

It is on this presupposition that the remainder of the book is developed. Rollins, mostly through an exploration of philosophy, encourages the reader to transcend the modern presuppositions about what Christianity must be and encourages the reader to accept complexity, contradiction and ambiguity. In all honesty, reading this book very much conjured up memories of listening to the lecture Walter Brueggemann gave to the Emergent Theological Conversation in 2004.

I think Dr. Brueggemann would give this book a hearty ‘thumbs up’.

Earl

You can read about this new Colorado bill here.

I will leave it up to you for the rummaging around the internet for both the conservative and the liberal responses. As much as I am ashamed to admit this, I listen to ‘Focus on the Family’ whenever I get the opportunity. I usually only make it halfway through the show before I get so angry that I must turn it off, but I don’t want to loose touch with what the ultra-conservative aspect of my fellow God-fearers.

I think that Colorado should be praised for its proactivity to defend the rights of its citizens, even those who I feel are incorrect in their life choices. Just because a man wants to be a women means anyone has the right to deny him a job or a place to live (within reasonable constraints that is). I’m still absolutely fascinated that Americans’ rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ now means liberation from gender restraints as well.

So what I want to know is what are your thoughts? I know that this is one of those topics where everyone has an opinion, so let’s hear it.

Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Why does providing trans-gender folk rights against discrimination have to mean we need to deny gender as a classification? Should we be concerned with men relieving themselves in the stall next to women?

Yesterday, I allowed myself to be talked into staying in Binghamton for a little while longer. It would have been financially foolish for me to turn the offer down. I’m now not moving to Atlanta until the second week in August.

As a reward/ consolation for myself I purchased: What Would Socrates Do?: History of Moral Thoughts and Ethics from my local Barnes & Nobles. This 8 cd series is taught by Peter Kreeft (Boston College) and does an excellent job at keeping his faith separate from his teaching. Although I suspect his religious affiliations biased his presentation of Logical Positivism

Now, despite my bend towards the blending of philosophy and Christian theology, I’m very ignorant in basic philosophy and ethics. My undergraduate education took a ‘Christ Against Culture’ view of their interaction with society and thought that wasn’t founded in a Baptist interpretation. My hope is that the repetitive listening to these cd’s while I’m working in the machine shop will help to educate me in the most basic aspects of Western philosophy and ethics. Something that I am desperately lacking.

I listened to about 3 hrs of cd’s this morning at work and learned an unbelievable amount in just that short period of listening.

You can also find free lectures up for download here.

Earl

I recently finished reading ‘Everyday Theology‘ edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman and highly recommend finding a copy and giving it at least a cursory read. The premise of the book is that one’s culture and cultural ‘texts’ (such as customs, ceremonies, music, movies, etc.) can be ‘read’ and ‘interpreted’ to give the ‘reader’ an understanding of the question of ‘why?’ and ‘how should I respond?’.

In Vanhoozer’s own words:

“…Theology and understanding alike are short-circuited if we are not able to discern (1) how we are to embody our faith in shapes of everyday life. The reason why theology must study God and contemporary culture is the same reason why preachin must connect both with the biblical text and the listener’s context: because disciples do not follow the gospel in a vacuum but wend their Christian way through particular times and places, each with its own problems and possibilities.” (pg 16)

THE 10 STEPS OF CULTURAL INTERPRETATION

Vanhoozer then closes the introductory chapter summarizing his proposed methodology:

1. Try to comprehend a cultural text on its own terms (grasp its communicative intent) before you interpret it (explore its broader social, political, sexual, or religious significance).
2. Attend to what a cultural text is doing was well as saying by clarifying its illocutionary act (e.g., stating a belief, displaying a world).
3. Consider the world behind (e.g., medieval, modern), of (i.e., the world displayed by the cultural text), and in front of (i.e., its proposal for your world) the cultural text.
4. Determine what “powers” are served by particular cultural texts or trends by discovering whose material interests are served (e.g. follow the money!)
5. Seek the “world hypothesis” and/or “root metaphor” implied by a cultural text.
6. Be comprehensive in your interpretation of a cultural text; find corroborative evidence that makes best sense of the whole as well as the parts.
7. Give “thick” descriptions of the cultural text that are nonreductive and sensitive to the various levels of communicative action.
8. Articulate the way of being human to which a cultural text directly or indirectly bears witness and gives commendation.
9. Discern what faith a cultural text directly or indirectly expresses. To what convictions about God, the world, and ourselves does a cultural text and/or trend commit us?
10. Locate the cultural text in the biblical creation-fall-redemption schema and make sure that biblical rather than cultural texts have the lead role in shaping your imagination and hence your interpretive framework for your experience.

THE REST OF THE BOOK

With those 10 steps established the remainder of the book invokes this method to critique semi-modern American society (I say ’semi’ only because the book’s references to Xanga, Eminem and Gladiator are rather dated). And although I would dare say that the opening 50 pages of this book are the best by far, I think there are positives and negatives to be found in the remaining 200 pages.

Everyday Theology’s treatment of film as though it were a new form of literature is quite refreshing. The analysis of ‘Gladiator’ akin to that given of Shakespeare, Poe or Twain made the chapter not only interesting to read but stimulated the imagination and the desire to immediately run out and dissect the paradigms behind other prominent movies. While I may not agree with the chapter’s assertion that the main idea behind the movie is ‘hope’, I can readily get behind his attempt to identify the cultural values being asserted. The chapter even goes so far as to encourage the interpreter to not try to interject Christian thought and instead to allow the ‘text’ to speak for itself. This same approach is used throughout the book to analyze Eminem’s music, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mega-church architecture (I had never thought of architecture as a product of our cultural values!), and interpreting various cultural trends (blogging, business, transhumanism and designer funerals). But for all its good I did find a glaring problem throughout the book.

THE STUFF I DIDN’T LIKE

I could not help but read this book as a Modern Evangelical text. I hope that I am not the only one who finds irony in my reading of this book in terms of cultural values. While I appreciate Vanhoozer’s desire to see cultural trends be checked against the standard of Scripture, I find it very disturbing that the reader is being encouraged to filter their ‘cultural interpretations’ through such a theologically massive meta-narrative of Scripture. No where in this book did I find an author acknowledging that just as external society is molded by culture so to is our faith and religion. Instead the book’s multiple authors approach the Scriptures seeking to develop a systematized (yes, they often proof-text’ed) version of a singular ‘truth’. Now, to be fair, I must acknowledge that after a few chapters of fundamentalist theology I read ‘theological’ sections much faster but I still found no acknowledgment that one’s interpretive method is a product of their religious background and community.

I get very concerned when an author tells me, or implies, that God wrote Scripture and we can definitively know His mind- Especially when detailed systematic theology is required.

MY THOUGHTS TO THE AUTHORS

If I could offer my two-cents to this books author I would love to say:

1. Excellent job on meeting a desperate need within Evangelical Communities! Culturally educated Christians are something our Churches have far too few of.
2. Well done on making a book that is almost universally readable and applicable! While I didn’t appreciate the side notes and explanations, many more will appreciate them.
3. Please find a way to revise Step 10 to remove the theologically thick meta-narrative’ approach to filtering culture through Scripture. One does not need to understand ‘the big picture’ to understand right and wrong. Also, that is an individual decision that must be made. There may be universal absolutes, but those absolutes must be reached on an individual basis. Presenting that one can know ‘truth’ through any empirical method (aka. a cultural method) boarders on hypocrisy.

I know this is the second book I’ve recommended this week, but I highly suggest you go buy a copy and pass it around your Church for folks to read.

Earl

Doug Pagitt’s new book, A Christianity Worth Believing, is popping up all over. Go pick up a copy and help fund his perpetually out of control side burns.

Go get it. Feed his children.

Earl

While studying for an upcoming post (’Incarnational Evangelism’) I stumbled across what I found to be a very interesting nuance in the Greek text of the ‘Great Commission’. I want to preface my idea by tell you, the reader, that I only have 1 year of introductory Greek under my belt. I am by no means a Greek scholar. Lucky for me, I’m not trying to be.

As I’m sure you can tell by my usage of ‘Evangelism’ in the title, I was taking another look at Mathew 28.19- 20:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

It looks like this in the Greek:

When I decided to look at the Greek this morning I noticed a few things:

1. The encouragement to ‘baptize’ and ‘teach’ both have a continuous, or ongoing aspect. This means the author fully intended to communicate to the ongoing responsibility placed upon those who heard Jesus. When one considers that the Gospel wasn’t written as history, but as historiography it seems almost a given that the Gospel writer was giving the ‘Commission’ to all who would come after as well.
2. It seems to two distinct identifications of being made a ‘disciple’ are being ‘baptized’ and being ‘taught’. This too may seem obvious, but why is it that we focus so much on the later and so little on the former? I can’t help but also ask the question of ‘Was the sacrament of Baptism given such a primacy in the early Church because of a cultural preoccupation on ceremonies and rituals?’ Should we give the ritual primacy in our faith today?  Based on the significance placed on Baptism in the text it seems that my baptism should have been as big of a deal as my wedding.  We sure didn’t spend thousands of dollars on my baptism.
3. If all St. Mathew’s readers are expected to ‘make disciples’ through ‘baptism’ and ‘teaching’, why are so few Christians in the American Church baptizing and teaching? Unless I am missing something in this passage, the command to make disciples through teaching is given to all not just those among us who feel ‘gifted’. Why then are there so few of us teaching? Does this instruction need be something we’d find in a classroom? How else might we do it?

I realize this blog has been more pastoral than most, but I think these are genuinely good questions that I don’t fully have answers for. What do you think about this?

Earl

This was so good I had to put it up.

HT: Inhabitatio Dei

I know we’ve all heard this before, but is he right? I might be crazy but it seems like the kind of guys Mark Driscoll is talking about only exist in the backwoods and are a dying breed. Does Jesus strike you as a ‘punch you in the nose’ kind of guy?

Envision the Future

If you aren’t aware of the Envision Conference read this.

For the upcoming Envision Conference socially conscious Christians are asked to help provide the foundation for the communal declaration helping to provide guidance for Christians’ interactions in the public square. This is an exciting opportunity for those of us that always have an opinion.

Read the PDF document

Earl

Envision 2008
Princeton, New Jersey
June 8-10th

According to the website: http://ev08.org/

Envision ‘08 is about the power of the gospel to transform the public square. It’s about Jesus and justice, evangelical history and heritage, and practiced theology. It’s about the next one hundred years of the church and its impact on the common good.

For three days, we’re bringing together Christian leaders, theologians, and activists who stand at the center of a rising justice movement. They will dialogue over questions that must be answered for the church to move forward.

Whether you are a veteran activist, or just beginning to investigate the link between Jesus and justice, this conference is for you.

Is Anyone Else Interested in Going?

The conference will feature around 60 speakers, including Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Kay Warren, Miroslav Volf, Samir Selmanovic, Jay Bakker, Bart Campolo, Rich Cizik, John Perkins, and Jim Wallis. See the full Speaker list here.

[EDIT NOTE: The LEARNING TRACKS are also well worth checking out.]

I literally just found out about this conference (HT: Ben Meyers), apparently I’m out of the loop. My reason for this blog is that I’m wondering if there’s anyone in close proximity to Binghamton, NY who’s interesting in going. I’m pretty strapped for money right now that I’m preparing for the move to ATL, but Florrie and I can swing gas if I can get some folks who want to carpool. The registration fee is $250 for 3 days but students and other poor people can stay in the Princeton dorms for $99 and Group Rate is only $150 a person. Either way I’m going to be picking up bottles on the side of the highway and washing cars to pay for this.

Seriously, I’m absolutely giddy at the possibility of getting to speak with Samir Selmanovic, I love this guy so much I cited him as one of my most significant influences in may entry essay to Candler. I’m also rather fond of Jay Bakker. And top that off with getting to listen to Doug Pagitt and I’ll have enough to blog about for 2 months.

Earl

Human Rights vs. Evangelicalism

Today, while reading Everyday Theology, I first learned of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This was the document produced by the United Nations in 1948 seeking to establish what they deemed as the transcendent rights of all human beings. This document came as a global (as global as we can expect 1948 to be) reaction to the Jewish Holocaust seeking to promote respect for all people. Most notable are the document’s declarations that condemn slavery, torture and identify that all people have the right to a fair and adequate trial regardless of social status.

The book (Everyday Theology) was seeking to interpret the UDHR as a cultural text, which it did very well. Although, throughout the book’s dialogue with the UDHR, I could not help but identify numerous ideological similarities between the UDHR and the recently established Evangelical Manifesto (EM).

Now before everyone panics, I’m not saying that Jerry Falwell is comparable to Adolf Hitler nor am I saying that the EM is an authoritative, binding document. What I am saying is that both documents arise out of a Western superiority and if not handled very carefully the create the foundation for division and conflict.

It seems to me that both documents:

1) Dictate beliefs to the community, with no avenue of input from the people it affects. This is far more applicable to the EM, but it seems interesting to me that a committee was created by invitation to establish beliefs that are then superimposed onto individuals on the basis of its ‘universal’ nature. While the EM did not establish itself as universally authoritative, it did establish itself as universal through its appeal to a historical Evangelicalism that shares its beliefs. There has been a call for signatures, but not for input for revisions to the EM.

2) Caters to a very specific ideological demographic. (The UDHR to Western, Capitalist Societies and the EM to traditional, conservative Christianity)

3) Establish a standard based on the existence of clear ‘good’ and ‘evil’ It seems that both documents operate under the assumption that there is only a minority operating in the ‘grey’ area between total conformance and total rejection. There is no allowance made for societies that protect most ‘human rights’ with the exception of cultural distinctives. Just as there is no allowance made for cultural systems such as communal possessions in Eastern Cultures or the Caste System in India the EM makes no room for a diversity of theology in non-fundamental areas (ie. satisfaction atonement or ’solo scriptura’) HT: Bryne Allport

4) Make arrogant assumptions of ‘universal’ truth. The UDHR proved itself to be useless in underdeveloped countries. Having diversely different courses of development, many post-colonial countries do not share Western ideals of a ‘universal’ truth. Genocides have occurred throughout the third- world, and still continues in many places, despite the ‘universal declaration of human rights’. One only need to look to America’s Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s to display the impotence of the UDHR.

In our contemporary world of personal empowerment and decentralized authority the concept that a ‘universal’ truth can be acknowledged, let alone enforced, is progressively proving to be a modern fallacy. If ‘universal’ truths can be imposed onto individuals, who decides the governing body?

5) I cannot help but wonder, if the UDHR was used as a basis for American invasions is it possible that the EM (and subsequent documents) will later be used as the standard to protect another ‘universal’ truth?

Closing Thoughts
Now please don’t misunderstand me, this post is not intended to undermine human rights or the correctness of the EM. Instead I hoped to highlight the cultural similarities that are found in the foundation of both. Both the UDHR and the EM seem to be rooted in the belief that metaphysical ‘truth’ can be dictated as though it were a science. They are presented as recognitions of something that is universally recognizable, despite their intangible nature. And, In some ways, this is an unfair assessment of the EM, because it is only a statement of belief- not ‘universal truth’. But the EM seeks to establish a definite set of beliefs for Evangelicals through dictation rather than recognition, and that strikes me as the commonality between the two documents. The EM is an establishment of what Historical Evangelicalism has believed, and what Evangelicals should adhere to today. History has proven the UDHR to be powerless without an enforcer, if Evangelicalism seeks to establish a foundation of belief who will act as its enforcer?

Earl