Archive for the ‘Orthodoxy’ Category

« Older Entries

REVIEW – "Moon" (2009)

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

What does it mean to be human? More specifically what does it mean to be a person? How do we find meaning and purpose in an apparently absurd universe?

It boggles my mind that critics could rave about how “Moon” (2009) is brilliant science-fiction that everyone must see – and yet the film was released only in Los Angeles and New York City. In other words everyone needs to see a movie that almost no one can see.

For months I have ached to see it. Finally January 12 arrived and my family gave it to me for my birthday. Watched it with my younger daughter. She thought it was sad and depressing. I do not disagree but would phrase it differently. It is both profoundly disturbing and profoundly moving.

The sets and visuals are persuasive – all the more impressive when one realizes that “Moon” was filmed on a mighty small budget. The background music is exquisite. One of my pet peeves in many American films is the loud music that tells us how we should feel at every given moment. But in “Moon” several important scenes have no music. And when music is present it is elegant delicate and haunting. It enhances rather than forces the emotional impact of key scenes.

“Moon” tells the story of Sam Bell – the always enjoyable Sam Rockwell provides an exceptional performance – who is only two weeks from the end of his three year contract. His job is to maintain the equipment that mines the surface of the moon for Helium-3 (an isotope used in fusion to generate energy back on Earth). He is completely alone. Well except for the constant companionship of the robot helper Gerty (voice by Kevin Spacey). The communications satellite has been broken all this time so he cannot have live conversations with his family back home. He can only watch and send back recorded messages.

The years of loneliness and isolation appear to be taking their toll. But he is going home! “Two more weeks buddy!” Sam says to Gerty while eating breakfast (which is “the usual” – a nice touch that reinforces the sense of isolation and monotony).

Already the film raises important issues about the human need for companionship. How does a human being survive complete isolation? Sam appears to enjoy his work. The monotony of checking and reporting how many miles a harvester covered each day is occasionally broken by a full H-3 canister which Sam must retrieve and then ship back to Earth. But even Sam still has plenty of free time which must be filled somehow. He cares for and talks to his plants. He carves wooden models of people and buildings back home. He watches old television reruns.

But notice the pattern. Sam is utterly alone. He must talk to somebody. To Gerty. To his plants. Even the lunar harvesters are given names. A person needs relationship with another person. Even if the other is a substitute. (See also Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” and his relationship with “Wilson”.) This raises questions about the extent to which we engage in substitute personal(?) relationships. Virtual pets. Video and online computer games. Again we confront the interior-exterior distinction which is so important in Orthodox Christian theology. We are created for relationship – but relationship with persons.

I do wonder “would God be enough?” If for whatever reason I was completely alone would the presence and companionship of the Triune God – who himself is three persons in relationship – be enough to keep me from going insane? The answer is probably yes when one considers the stories of monks and saints from Christian history.

But even then – the idea of escaping from the world is to bring back to the world the spiritual resources we gain during our time in the wilderness. Sam’s three years alone is a struggle but it also changes him for the better (confirmed by one of the recorded messages from his wife Tess).

But back to the struggle. One evening Sam is making coffee when he sees a teenage girl(?) sitting in his chair. We wonder, Have the 3 years been too much? Is Sam losing his mind? Who is this teenage girl that Sam thinks he sees?

The next day Sam once again goes out to retrieve a full canister of Helium-3. And something happens that changes everything.

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD!***

(more…)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Science Fiction | No Comments »

REVIEW – Inner reflections/contradictions in "Avatar"

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?

Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.

So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.

It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?

My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:

In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world.  For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]

In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.

Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen.  In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have.  For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home.  This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.

Read the whole thing here.

So what about those conservative criticisms?

In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.

This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.

For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.

The article understands the situation well – but to a point.

Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.

Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.

“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”

Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.

Or do they?

Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:

It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]

Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:

Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.

Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.

Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:

For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.

The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…

That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.

There is a word in the English language for that.

9/11 and America-as-terrorist

***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***

(more…)

Posted in Media, Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Politics, Propaganda, Science Fiction | 3 Comments »

The glory of human freedom in "Minority Report"

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last night was planning to get to bed early but “Minority Report” was on. Tried to find the dvd version – was the very first dvd we owned a gift from two ministry volunteers – but no joy. So just watched it on television until midnight.

There are few things that get under my skin quite so much as losing something.

You remember “Minority Report” right? Science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg based on a short story by the great Philip K Dick. Have you noticed how many successful movies have been based on stories by Dick? (As well as a couple real turkies.)

As I watched I realized not for the first time what an exceptional movie it is. No matter how goofie you think Tom Cruise is dang does he deliver an excellent performance in that film. Notice the constant theme of “seeing” and “eyes” and “not seeing”. Even a passing advertisement in the background reinforces the theme.

Can you see?

In a nutshell the story-now-film addresses directly freedom and guilt. Can you arrest and imprison someone because they were going to commit murder – but have not done so yet?

Anderton (Cruise) rolls a ball around the table which Witwer (Colin Farrell) catches.

“Why did you catch it?”

“Because it was going to fall”.

“How do you know that?”

The argument of course is facile. Human beings are not balls. But Anderton somehow gets away with it and Witwer does not push back at that time.

There are two moments of utter glory – when you realize what the issue is. Do human beings have choice aka free will?

The precogs see a premeditate murder – 36 hours away. The killer is – to his shock and horror – John Anderton himself. The victim is someone he has never seen or met or heard of. But sure enough… eventually… he finds the man and concludes yes he must kill him.

Agatha – the most gifted of the precognitives whom Anderton has liberated in order to gain information from her – says “you have a choice”. We do not believe it. Anderton does not believe it. They have already seen it. He is going to kill Leo Crow.

But somehow – and the film does not really quite explain why or how – Anderton does not pull the trigger. His watch alarm goes off. What the precognitives foresaw does not happen.

He has a choice. And Anderton made that choice – to arrest but not to kill.

(And at the end Burgess chooses not to kill Anderton but instead himself. The opposite of what the precognitives foresaw.)

The issue of human freedom and free will is one that has become increasingly important to me. It comes up a great deal in the literature of Tolkien. And a cornerstone of Orthodox theology is its insistence that humans have free will. They do not deny the sovereignty of God or providence or grace. But never ever can such teachings eclipse the reality of human freedom.

(Some of those who read this website lean toward Calvinist or “reformed” theology. My intent is not to insult or start an argument. I am not arguing against something so much as arguing for.)

Think about other books by Philip Dick. Which often deal with “what does it mean to be human?” and “what truly defines who we are?” Dick – fairly consistently – seems to argue in his stories and novels that we are defined by the concrete choices we make. (Think about “Total Recall”. Quaid is “fated” to go back to being a scumball criminal agent. But he refuses. He has already chosen a different path. And he does not go back.)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Religion, Theology | 2 Comments »

Has "women in ministry" become central dogma?

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

  • I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
  • Who received her seminary degree years before I did
  • Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
  • I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • Where some of my teachers were women
  • About half of my classmates were women
  • I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
  • I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ’superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!

Posted in Baptists, Christian Practice, Christianity, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Orthodoxy, Personal, Southern Baptist Convention, Women | No Comments »

Theology as snapshots of a slowly moving river

Monday, August 17th, 2009
The Assebet River (which flowed behind our house in Massachusetts)

The Assabet River (which flowed behind our house in Massachusetts)

This is one of the busiest times of the year for Church of the Nations. I do not have much time or energy this month for posting. But since I appreciate people coming here I do want to post something.

There is a member of the congregation who often sends long responses to my sermons. They are extremely thoughtful and enjoyable even when they “push back” on some things that I have said.

The last two weeks there have been some exchanges in response to my sermon about the perfection of the Christian church. I want to be careful to respect the privacy of the fine brother in Christ – so rather than provide a name or direct quotes just brief indirect summaries and my thoughts in reply.

Does the idea of “perfection” create problems for doing theology? Most disciplines (such as biology) have abandoned the idea of perfection. And yet we say God is “perfect” and unchanging.

My reply included the following:

4) Of course Christian tradition does speak of perfectionism with regard to God. As you know my personal bias is to side with Christian tradition. Although always with the awareness that tradition might best be understand as a snapshot of a slowly moving river. (Where the heck did that come from?!?)

5) As you know lately I have been reading a great deal of Orthodox theology. One thing that shocked me was reading two rather difficult articles: “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” by John Meyendorff and “Tradition and Traditions” by Vladimir Lossky. Picking any one quote from Lossky is dangerous but perhaps:

“If tradition is a faculty of judging in the light of the Holy Spirit, it obliges those who wish to know the truth in the tradition to make incessant efforts… It must not be thought that the conservative attitude alone is salutary, nor that heretics are always innovators. While the church preserves it [truth?] in the tradition, this preservation is not static or inert, but dynamic and conscious”.

I was astonished to read that (and the rest of those two articles). …

6) As you probably know the common way to handle the perfection of God is that God in his “essence” does not change but God in his <insert favorite concept or term> does change. The <x> can be “his relationship with creation” or “emanations” or something else. So that God “does not change” and yet clearly God does “change”.

7) I do accept the words of Jesus “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”. But then… what does Jesus mean by perfect? The same thing as later philosophers and theologians? Perhaps not. Indeed Hebrews says that the son was made perfect through suffering – which to me is a profoundly significant statement that may offer insight into what is meant by “perfect” in the New Testament.

Which generated another reply that was more insightful if that is possible. This brother focused on how I do theology. It appears that I do not say “I believe x, y, z and therefore I am a Christian” but rather “I am a Christian and therefore I believe x, y, z – or at least am inclined to do so”. He particularly seized upon the idea of theology as “a snapshot of a slowly moving river”.

My second reply included:

2) I had not thought of the distinction you make (which is a profound and sensitive insight). That my Christian faith biases me toward certain doctrines/dogmas – rather than the doctrines/dogmas are what “makes” one a Christian. In a nutshell I trust the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the entire Church (past and present). It does not mean I will never question or disagree with “Tradition” – I have a bias in favor of that. But that I will do so carefully and reluctantly. And may even say “I will teach or proclaim or practice such and such – even though I have personal/private reservations”. This might make me a marginal Protestant. ?

2b) Right or wrong I distinguish between “Christian” (noun) and “Christian” (adjective). By this I mean whether someone “is a Christian” or not is not my determination to make. I am relatively comfortable holding opinions on whether a particular teaching is orthodox (small o) or not. In other words someone may be a fine and wonderful Christian and yet hold heterodox(!) opinions. Who am I to judge whether an individual Mormon is “a Christian”? But I do not mind one bit saying “the Mormon understanding of the Trinity is extremely wrong”.

2c) But what… moderates(?)… the above stance is the “snapshot of a slowly moving river”. There is always – always – the “but I/we could be wrong”. Hence the quotes from Florovsky [sic - it was Meyendorff] and Lossky.

(I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of privacy and discretion.)

What do you think?

Posted in Orthodoxy, Personal, Theology | No Comments »

Church as visible concrete reality versus(?) overly-realized eschatology

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009
Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

What and where is the Church? Is there only an ideal Church off somewhere/somewhen in heaven? Or can we see and experience and participate in the Church here and now?

Metropolitan Ware writes:

The Church is accomplished on earth without losing its essential characteristics. There is not only an ideal Church that is invisible and in heaven. This ideal Church exists visibly on earth as a concrete reality. (The Orthodox Church, 242)

This is an important even essential cornerstone of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

I do not know to what extent this is compatible with Baptist Christian theology (however one defines that) concerning the church. But in a delightful article Prof Steven Harmon at Samford University explains why the church still needs Baptists. The heart of his position is this:

I’m convinced that the church cannot make progress toward the visible unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-23) unless it receives the distinctive gifts the Baptist tradition has to offer the rest of the church. (Baptists Today, August 2009: 28)

I find it interesting that Prof Harmon’s argument refers to Christian unity – rather than some other goal or principle. We will come back to this. And it is significant the he refers to the “rest of the church” – which is to say that the church is more than (a) the Baptist tradition or (b) local Baptist congregations.

So what are these distinctive gifts that the Baptist tradition offers? The first gift that Prof Harmon describes caught my attention:

I believe one of the gifts that the rest of the church needs to receive from Baptists is our gut-level aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church. (That’s theologian-speak for the refusal of Baptists to equate any expression of church life in this present age with the full realization of the kingdom of God.)

The reason this grabbed my attention is that I wonder what is the relationship between this position (aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church) and what Metropolitan Ware writes. To what extent is (this particular) Baptist ecclesiology compatible with its Orthodox counterpart. One could focus on the term “fully”. Perhaps Orthodox ecclesiology would concede “look – we are the visible concerete reality of the Church… but we are not the full realization of the kingdom of God”.

I am not a theologian – although I would like to be more of one. I am not sufficiently versed in Baptist or Orthodox theology or in theological method to figure out how these two positions relate to one another. My guess is that Orthodox theology would indeed say “yes we are the full realization” – and then qualify or explain that somehow. My guess is that there are irreconcilable points-of-difference between Baptist and Orthodox theologies of the church/Church. Although I would rejoice were it possible to synthesize and harmonize them.

Please understand I am not trying to pick an argumment with either or to set one against the other. Not at all. I am trying to understand. And to struggle through my own understanding of the Christian church.

One fine brother in Christ wrote in a forum that “Rick is not comfortable being Baptist”. I suggested there might be some truth to that. But hang on a moment.

Prof Harmon in the same piece also writes:

“Real Baptists” are relentlessly dissatisfied with the present state of the church in their pilgrim journey toward the community that will be fully under the reign of Christ.

That sounds like the journey of my own heart. Relentlessly dissatisfied – hopefully in a good way! Indeed at times I feel like “the earliest Baptists… [who] ended their lives on the periphery of the Baptist churches they helped establish”.

Is there a home – ecclesiologically? Or is God content always to travel in a tent?

Posted in Baptists, Christianity, Ecclesiology, Orthodoxy, Theology | No Comments »

Vladimir Lossky and the practicality of "orthodox" theology

Monday, July 6th, 2009

The “Introduction” to The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky was an important turning point in my growing awareness of the importance of sound theology in the Christian life and in the Christian church. This is not to say we must become theological fundamentalists who have every question exhaustively resolved and/or permit no differences of opinion or expression on matters of Christian teaching or practice. But simply that sound theology cannot be skipped over in order to emphasize ethics or mission. Although one could quote several paragraphs perhaps this one captures most the spirit of the work:

Unlike gnosticism, in which knowledge for its own sake constitutes the aim of the gnostic, Christian theology is always in the last resort a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God or deification, the theosis of the Greek Fathers. Thus, we are finally led to a conclusion which may seem paradoxical enough: that Christian theory should have an eminently practical significance; and that the more mystical it is, the more directly it aspires to the supreme end of union with God. (9)

Earlier in the chapter Lossky states:

We must live the dogma expressing a revealed truth, which appears to us as an unfathomable mystery, in such a fashion that instead of assimilating the mystery to our mode of understanding, we should, on the contrary, look for a profound change, an inner transformation of the spirit, enabling us to experience it mystically. Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible without the other. (8)

If the ultimate end is x – it is important to articulate(?) a theology which supports and leads to x. Much of the book addresses how and why inadequate understandings of the Holy Trinity – particularly of personhood – call into question the possibility of our union with God or generate inadequate understandings thereof.

Posted in Christianity, Orthodoxy, Theology | No Comments »

In response to my Baptist friends

Monday, July 6th, 2009

John Smyth

Oh dear. There is something just wrong about saying “I am not participating in this particular forum any more” and then responding to comments which recently have appeared on that forum. It is like those celebrities or politicians who “respond” to each other on camera or in print – but never have the courtesy to speak to and with each other if in private.

You understand I am criticizing myself here.

But with so much traffic from there this week – perhaps I need to reply.

1) “Rick Wright is not comfortable with the CBF because he’s clearly uncomfortable being a Baptist”. There may be some truth to that overstatement. I do not have any current plans to convert to any other Christian tradition – although for about one year seriously considered even pursued the possibility. Like most people I strive to understand better the Christian faith. In recent years this has generated an increased concern for “orthodox theology”. Not because correct beliefs are super important in and of themselves. But because they matter in terms of our mission, our worship, our spiritual formation, and our life in communion (ecclesiology). Even in seminary I was much more open to and fond of creeds in Baptist life. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point.

2) I would suggest however that perhaps I understand being “Baptist” a little differently from some. To me the quintessence of the Baptist vision is – in a word – freedom. But if the heart of being Baptist is freedom – then Baptists are free to embrace “orthodox” theology and practice and even ecclesiology. And yes that means weird “un-Baptist” things like creeds and sacramental theology. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point. They would probably argue that even if freedom is the heart of being Baptist – that this freedom expresses itself and must express itself in certain concrete patterns of belief and practice. They might be right.

3) But even then – can we look to other Christian traditions for wisdom and insights and even specific ways of practicing the Christian faith? I do not ask others this so much as myself. To what extent can one study Anglicanism or Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Judaism and so on – and learn/borrow/adapt from them – without going ahead and converting?

4) It was concern for (the health and survival of) Anglicanism that led to increased interest in Orthodoxy. I have been haunted by a conversation with a friend who is the only evangelical Episcopal clergy in the diocese in which he said that if the Anglican Communion falls apart that would mean “the Protestant experiment is a failure”. I also have been haunted by something Episcopal Bishop Charles Jenkins said when a close friend was ordained a deacon: “It is the nature of fallen humanity to seek community which pleases”. I wonder if Protestantism is inherently incoherent. By that I mean so much comes down to what you (singular) think and feel. Yes we speak of biblical authority and the lordship of Jesus Christ – but how we understand and interpret and apply these is still largely a matter of personal feeling and opinion. No wonder then if Protestantism (by nature?) fragments. I could be wrong about this – just sharing thoughts and impressions.

5) Which is why I have been wondering if Orthodoxy offers solutions to many of these problems that seem to plague Protestant Christianity. My “orthodox” Anglican clergy friends agree strongly. I can understand if Baptist friends do not. Maybe I should just convert. I do not know that and am not planning on it.

6) So yes – there are times I would like to see more “orthodox theology” in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Although one can understand if people are uncomfortable with that given the excesses they experienced in the Southern Baptist Convention. And I am indeed impatient with the whole “more Baptist than you are” debate – which one hears from Southern Baptist and moderate Baptists alike. I acknowledge this attitude may reflect a lack of appreciation for “Baptist battles” and those who experienced them. My seminary professor Cecil Sherman would probably give me a compassionate pastoral scolding. But I do believe “we should be more concerned with being Christian than with being Baptist”.

7) To make a short answer long – I think both our excellent friend in Texas and in Kentucky are largely correct. Even if it looks like they are disagreeing. But then that is how I handle a whole bunch of issues – that the answer is not either/or but more both/and.

Posted in Anglicanism, Baptists, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Fun and Geek Stuff, Orthodoxy, Personal, Southern Baptist Convention | 2 Comments »

Metropolitan Jonah and Anglicanism as Western Orthodoxy redux

Monday, June 29th, 2009

One of my very first posts on this website was about Anglican Christianity as Western Orthodoxy. That is – if Anglican Christianity either reinvents or rediscovers itself as Western Orthodoxy – as a Western expression of Orthodox Christianity. One does not necessarily need to convert to Orthodox Christianity in order to appreciate that Orthodoxy offers much to Protestant Christianity. Indeed I would argue that Orthodoxy may offer solutions to the many problems which threaten Protestant Christianity – which I would argue is in serious danger of becoming a failed experiment.

Enter Metropolitan Jonah and his presentation before the Anglican Communion of North America 2009 on June 26 – just three days ago.

H/T Fr Cantrell at Apostolicity.

Posted in Anglicanism, Ecclesiology, Orthodoxy, Theology | 1 Comment »

God and the compression of time

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

This evening I attended Vespers (with a chrismation) at St Matthew the Apostle Orthodox Church. Fr Mark greeted me and then we had a brief exchange about how today is both Holy Saturday (for me – Western calendar) and Palm Sunday and Holy Week (Eastern Orthodox calendar). Then he concluded (paraphase but pretty close):

“All time is compressed together in the presence of God”.

This struck me as a remarkable statement.

Consider the issue of death and the final resurrection. What happens to the “soul”? Does the “soul” go to be with God and then at the final resurrection is reunited with the body – and then we are in the presence of God not only as disembodied souls but as whole and transformed (metamorphosed) beings – spiritual and physical?

Do we not speak of those who have died as being “asleep” in the Lord? And yet this seems to veer all too near a teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses – “soul sleep”. We are asleep until the final resurrection.

But perhaps the question makes no sense and has no meaning. If “all time is compressed in the presence of God”. What do I mean? I mean that within this world of linear time (the past now the present then the future) we can speak of now this person is dead and then they will be with God after the resurrection. (Or can we?)

But in the presence of God the one who is “asleep” in the Lord is with God in what we call the “now”. And so we can speak of all the saints who are with God that somehow are aware of what is going on in this world. Hence venerating the saints – even asking them to intercede on our behalf.

And there were Moses and Elijah speaking with him.

A few weeks ago I was enjoying lunch with two Chinese families and they asked many questions about religion in general and the Christian faith in particular. I admit that some of their questions were challenging and probably I answered poorly. “What is the purpose of religion?” (Meaning your religion.) Sounds simple – but try to answer it. But they also asked about what happens at death – they seemed to be aware of precisely the theological problem(?) described above.

What happens to the soul “between” death and the final resurrection?

But if all time is compressed in the presence of God we are asleep in the Lord – and we are with the Lord.

Posted in Orthodoxy, Religion, Theology | No Comments »

« Older Entries