Two artists worth noting – one Israeli/Jewish and one Indian

Posted on June 24, 2011 by admin

I cannot explain how but starting about five years ago in two thousand and six began to include works of art in our worship guides. So if one of the Bible readings for that day 1 Samuel 3 would include “Samuel and Eli” by Gerrit Dou (1613-1675) just to pick one example. I think this was partly because pictures can help prompt us to think in different ways about biblical texts. Because some people are primarily visual learners/thinkers. And because sometimes the artwork is from non-Western nations and cultures. For example the work of Chinese Christian artist He Qi. Or the stories of Jesus in an African setting/context at Vie de Jesus Mafa. Part of my ministry is to look for ways to communicate effectively across cultures. But more than that to celebrate other cultures which God creates – and that is one of my theological convictions – and the ways biblical stories can be expressed in the artistic conventions of these other cultures.

The response was tremendous. Since then people have frequently expressed how beautiful and interesting is the artwork we include. University Baptist Church – the American church of which Church of the Nations is a ministry – also began to adopt this practice on occasion.

Anyways wanted to share a couple new artists I have discovered. One is Bhanu Dudhat who appears to be an artist in(? from?) Gujarat in north India. He and his wife – also an artist – have an excellent website where one can see many paintings of stories from the Bible but done in an Indian cultural style.

The other is Yoram Raanan who is a Jewish Israeli artist born in the United States and moved to Israel in 1977. He works largely with oils and acrylics but also does collages and paintings on unusual media such as used book covers. He has several paintings of biblical subjects some of which are quite interesting. I commend to you his painting of the Aqedah aka Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22. That is one of the lections for his Sunday and the focus of the sermon I am preparing which is how I came across Raanan in the first place.

Whether it be Bible study or catechism or worship – how can we include all the human senses in the life of the church? What are the many ways we can incorporate visual art?

Posted in Art, Bible, Ethnicity and race, Internationals, Judaism, Worship and Liturgy | Comments Off

When you know those Christians on the news being arrested (or) Shouwang Church

Posted on June 22, 2011 by admin

This looks like bottom floor of television studio where I first encountered Shouwang Church in June 2010

In May-June 2010 spent four weeks journeying through the People’s Republic of China. That journey ended with a second visit to Beijing during which had the opportunity to worship with two house churches. One a house house church. Several people who met in a small two(?) bedroom apartment. After which we went to visit Shouwang Church which at that time met in the bottom floor of a television studio building. I had joy and privilege of talking for about one hour with an intelligent young professional man who spoke impeccable English about the state of religion in general and of the Christian church in China particularly.

What that young man told me was different from what I am reading one year later. That apparently the Chinese government has enacted newer stricter rules regulating religious activity. And apparently Shouwang Church had been forced to leave the space it had been renting. And so come Easter they were attempting to worship outdoors. But the Chinese government would not allow even this. Members of Shouwang Church were arrested and hauled away in buses.

A recent article by David Aikman in the June 2010 issue of The American Spectator brought this back to mind.

Foreign correspondents in Beijing were alerted to something strange going on with China’s Christian community on April 10, 2011. Hundreds of members of the prominent Beijing Shouwang house church (whose name means “Keeping Watch”) were preparing to gather in a prominent open-air space in the Zhongguancun high-tech commercial area of northwest Beijing for an outdoor Sunday worship meeting. Many of the worshippers, arriving at the site, were barred by the police from coming any closer. Others were herded into buses and taken away by the police for questioning. Still others, anticipating a blanket police clampdown of their corporate worship, gathered in small numbers nearby, including in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, where they went through the order of service that had been preprinted for that Sunday.

…

Though no one was formally arrested for the attempt to conduct Christian worship in an unauthorized location, by Easter Sunday, two weeks later, the authorities had clamped down even more fiercely. All of the top church leadership, all members of the choir, and hundreds of other prominent members of the congregation, more than 500 people in total, were physically prevented from leaving their homes by police planted outside their front doors. There was no letup the following Sunday, when even more church members were kept under house arrest, and dozens again detained for showing up at the Zhongguancun site.

It feels strange to read about this sort of thing happening to people that one has met and talked with and with whom one has worshiped.

Strangely enough have not been receiving the usual periodical emails from the aforementioned young man. The person who put me in touch with Shouwang Church his wife is battling advanced cancer and am reluctant to ask if he has received any word. Will keep you posted.

Note – This is the 500th post on this website. Woohoo!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Recent poor attempt to address(?) same-sex relations and Christian tradition

Posted on June 21, 2011 by admin

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

Posted in Christianity, Culture, Family, Hamartiology (sin), Hermeneutics (Interpretation), Logic and Reason, Religion, Same-sex, Sexuality | 11 Comments

SERMON – “Tradutore no sempre traditore (or) “Truth, Translation, and Transluscence” (Acts 2)

Posted on June 15, 2011 by admin

 

Andrea Da Firenze (1343-1377) Descent of the Holy Spirit

 

Truth, Translation, and Translucence: <Traduttore (no) Traditore!>
(or)
The Flesh/Word Became Word/Flesh and
Pitched His Language Among Us
(Acts 02)

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
Pentecost Sunday (A)
June 12 2011

Everyone speaks French. Not really. But we think my father is funny.

For five years my family lives in England. My family does not travel very much. But during those five years we take many trips each year to different parts of Great Britain and to different countries in Europe. Spain / France / Italy / Germany / Belgium / Luxembourg / Switzerland. Now my dad can speak a very small amount of French. And what we think is very funny is that no matter where we go no matter what language people speak in that country we visit my dad tries to speak French. Because if people do not speak English and we do not speak their language for some crazy reason my father thinks maybe French will work.

One of my favorite stories is when we are in Rome. We are walking from our hotel to the coliseum. We walk by this very ordinary looking church. And there are cars and people everywhere. Something special is happening. So my father walks up to a police officer. Tries to ask him in French what is happening. Does not work. So my dad – the master of all languages – in his best Italian points at the church and says (shrug). The police officer points at his watch and says Il Papa! Il Papa! The Pope! The Pope! The Pope is coming to visit this little church.

Not everyone really speaks French. But my dad tries.

In our Bible story for this morning from the book of Acts chapter two no one speaks French. Not everyone even speaks Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Not everyone speaks the same language.

When the day of Pentecost comes, they are all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind comes from heaven and fills the whole house where they are sitting. 3 They see what seem to be tongues (Greek gloossai) of fire that separate and come to rest on each of them. 4 All of them are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in other tongues (gloossais) as the Spirit makes them able. 5 Now there are staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they hear this sound, a crowd comes together all confused? amazed? because each one hears them speaking in his own language (Greek dialektos).

Today is my favorite day in the Christian calendar. The Day of Pentecost. The day when the family of God celebrates and perhaps experiences again when God sends the Holy Spirit upon the early Christian church. Last week on Ascension Sunday we hear the story of how Jesus appears to his followers after his resurrection for forty days. He shows them that he is alive. He teaches them about the kingdom of God. He tells them Wait for the gift my Father promised which you have heard me talk about. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will tell people about me in Jerusalem (your home city) in Judea (your home province) in Samaria (the country or province next to yours) and to the ends of the earth.

There is a small but very powerful very important detail in this story that almost no one notices or talks about. Think about this for a moment. You have all these people from different provinces different nations different cultures who speak different languages. The story tells us they are all Jewish. Maybe there is one language that they all can use. Maybe they all know Greek or Hebrew although probably not. Maybe the followers of Jesus can speak in Greek or Aramaic and the Holy Spirit can make all these people understand one language.

But the Holy Spirit does not bring all these people together by making them the same. By making them one culture or able to understand one language. The Holy Spirit does something much more interesting. Makes the disciples able to speak in other languages so that each person can hear the good news about Jesus in his or her own language. Continue reading →

Posted in Bible, Ethnicity and race, Internationals and immigrants, Language, Missiology, New Testament, Personal, Sermons | Comments Off

Falling prey to propaganda (or) Afternoon coffee

Posted on June 15, 2011 by admin

When enough media outlets pound us enough with the message that someone is odious or venal or stupid one starts to believe the propaganda. “Oh man sure hope Michele Bachmann does not become the Republican presidential candidate because she’s crazy and dumb too”. Enter Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online who boils it down for us in “Bachmann Smart, Media Dumb”:

Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb… [L]ate last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”

Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

Same thing applies to Sarah Palin. Came across an article about the recent efforts to go through thousands of her emails. Some people leave comments along the lines of “she is still stupid” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Just naked prejudicial assertion. I frankly am increasingly tired of being told whom we should like.

Walter Russell Mead has made significant contributions to our national social-political conversation with “The Death of the American Dream I” and “The Death of the American Dream II”.

The one thing I do know is that change is on its way — more fundamental, more challenging, and also perhaps more exhilarating than many of us are ready for. The health of the American economy is going to require us to move away from the credit card economics of the consumer republic.  The health of American society and democracy require that we move beyond the life of the last eighty years.  We should be looking at new ideals in which domestic partners are enterprise partners, the home is more frequently a place of business, and education moves away from big box buildings and toward forms of community schooling somewhere between home schooling and charter academies.

One way to summarize the kind of change we need.  During the farm era the focus of American domestic policy was to create the most favorable possible environment for millions of ordinary Americans to launch flourishing small businesses.  Rather that focusing on home ownership, American social policy should probably be looking at small business formation as the key to mass middle class prosperity in the next fifty years.

The American Dream is not in the last analysis a farm or a home and a good job.  It is the dream that through hard work and good choices the average American can be prosperous and independent, and that ordinary people with these life experiences can govern themselves wisely and well without the ‘guidance’ of their ‘betters’.

Even many so-called/self-proclaimed conservatives might not get this. That they confuse “progressivism Lite” with true classical liberalism and the American Dream before the vision of Thomas Jefferson lost out to that of Alexander Hamilton. Mead’s important articles remind me strongly of an important and interesting podcast by Clark Carlton on “My Two Cents on Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a modernist economic system and progressivism is a modernist palliative—not an alternative.

The only real alternative to capitalism is something along the lines of what Jefferson envisioned. This is similar to the vision of the Catholic distributivists, such as Belloc and Chesterton, and to the third way of the Protestant economist Wilhelm Röpke. The foundation of such a system is widespread property ownership and decentralized government.

I should point out here that the Greek word economia means household management.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Media, News, Politics, Propaganda, Society and Culture, Women | Comments Off

Luke 24 as paradigmatic text (or) This story is our story

Posted on May 16, 2011 by admin

Notes from Evensong talk on Emmaus narrative from Luke 24 last night May 15 2011. Newly called co-pastors Mike Massar and Griff Martin were present. Got a lot of strong positive feedback on this.

Paradigmatic texts of the Bible – those that summarize or frame life in relationship with God

microcosms – deep rich inexhaustible stories of the Bible
Isaiah 6
Romans 8(?)
Luke 24

Microcosms -> astronomy
color picture = 3 pictures in 3 different colors
not one color picture but 3 combined

Luke 24
3 post-resurrection stories of transformation
3 women :: empty tomb and angels (no Jesus)
2 of them :: recognize Jesus in breaking of bread
11 :: direct encounter of risen Christ

So we can read Walk to Emmaus as one of a series of three stories

3-4 years ago staff meeting
Jay and plan to share vision over 6 months
focusing on Luke 24
his read of the story
my read of the story – not against his but different
cannot remember what I said

If in astronomy take 3+ pictures in 3+ different wavelengths -> what are 3+ ways to look at Luke 24?

1) Relationship

2) Presence

3) Knowledge/Understanding

1) Relationship

2 of them – deliberate ambiguity (men? married couple?)

Jesus is the stranger = paroikos = lives somewhere not their home
2 disciples welcome the stranger
talk with him = questions and listening and answers

note – not we go there but they come here
the paroikoi come to us – what do we do when they come here?

consider Acts and Passover and Pentecost
nations come to Jerusalem
then Jerusalem to the nations
centripetal and centrifugal movements in Christian mission (David Bosch)

conversation
hospitality
welcome to our home
share a meal together
(separation?)

2) Presence

Where is Jesus? -> Where is God present? (main issue of post-resurrection narratives)

dualities of divine presence in Luke 24

1. individual and communal

Jesus and me
Jesus and us – we overlook?

2. Bible and sacrament

word and ritual
is Jesus somehow present in communion?

3. memory and experience

recognize presence in the moment
but also in memory -> now I see how God was there!

3) Knowledge/Understanding

Movement from not knowing/understanding/recognizing -> recognize/understand/know/proclaim

not know – where is Jesus? what now?
not recognize
not understand – here the Scriptures

conversation with questions – although Jesus asks first

kerygma – basic story of Jesus who he is what he did
not theology and not Bible – just telling the basic story
summary of Christian faith ~ Apostles Creed?
for Baptists :: hymnal?

Scripture

Eucharist/Communion/Lord’s Supper -> ritual worship

then they recognize // understand // (memory) // know

the Lord is risen indeed!

testimony -> share what they know (experienced) with others

(Still room for mystery -> Jesus disappears from their sight)

Is there a way to put these 3 pictures together and form one? one pictures that represents the life of the Christian community centered around liturgy (word and ritual)? the story of Emmaus is our story – story of this church family?

We are on a journey. Sometimes a journey to Baton Rouge / always within Baton Rouge / sometimes from Baton Rouge. We have questions. About the news. About life. About God. This is a place where people can ask questions. Where someone listens to us. Is interested in who we are where we are from and what are we doing here. Where we share the basic message about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Where we study the Bible together. Where we worship together. Practice hospitality together. You come to my house. You invite us to your apartment. We share meals together. Friend chicken / beans and spinach / tea eggs and bigos / fufu and Kigali and grapefruit jello. We experience the love and presence of God together. We share our stories with each other. We discover and learn things together. And although it breaks my heart sometimes we get up and return to where we came from. And always we hear and carry with us and share the paschal proclamation It is true! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! (from sermon on Luke 24 to Church of the Nations in May 2011)

 

Posted in Baptists, Bible, Ecclesiology, Internationals, Ministry, New Testament, Sermons, Worship and Liturgy | Comments Off

The president’s new high score (or) Morning coffee

Posted on May 13, 2011 by admin

Remember Tucson? How heated political rhetoric was somehow responsible for the shootings? How even mentioning targeting could give someone ideas? Remember the fine (seriously) words President Obama spoke at the memorial service?

Charles Krauthammer once again helps us understand better how President Obama operates in “Demagoguery 101″.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith.

This.

And while politicians may often distort or misrepresent the facts one does not often catch them making statement that are one hundred percent verifiably false. Jim Geraughty calls out President Obama for managing achieve a new high score for outright falsehood.

CBS’s Mark Knoller, covering a town hall on the economy with the president this morning, reports: “President Obama blames high unemployment rate on ‘huge layoffs of government workers’ at federal, state and local levels.”

This is completely wrong. Extremely and mind-bogglingly wrong. Epically wrong.

…

Again, the numbers are stable, and even indicate that local government employment is increasing, not decreasing.

Obama is not even a little bit right. Will anyone call him out on this?

Good question.

For the record am not accusing him of lying because that requires being able to divine what someone is thinking. We can be generous and suggest lazy ignorance combined with a desire to say whatever in order to score political points with a particular audience.

You can tell a lot about a person by the pronouns they {sic} use.

Victor Davis Hanson invites us to notice something about the speech our president gave after Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan:

The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.

Ace of Spades HQ takes this a step further and compares the heavy use of the first person singular pronoun with a speech then President Bush gave after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

President Bush’s speech is completely outwardly directed. He speaks of the momentous occasion and gives all credit to the military and the intelligence community. There is no attempt to highlight his part in the story. Quite a contrast.

I know the above seems harsh. But we need to be clear about the nature of this administration.

Posted in Internationals and immigrants, Issues, Media, News, Politics | Comments Off

Holy liberation (or) Sabba-, part V

Posted on May 12, 2011 by admin

James Tissot, "The woman who had been crippled for 18 years" (1886-1896)

First published in The Window (November 2006)

Sabba- (or) Holy Liberation, part V
Richard M. Wright

(The Sabba- is going somewhere…)

Last week I suggested that Sabba- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps liberation. And therefore asked, If we choose not to practice Sabba- are we choosing (a kind of) slavery over freedom?

In Luke 13 Jesus heals a woman on the Sabba-. “On a Sabba- Jesus was teaching… and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years… When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity’” (13:10-12; NIV).

What is strange is that Jesus does not use the language of healing. Not “woman you are healed” but “woman, you are set free (Greek apolúoo “set free, release, pardon”; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 96b). And when some complain that Jesus is healing on the Sabba- he replies, “Should not this woman… whom Satan has kept bound… be set free (Greek lúoo “loose, untie, release”) from what bound her?” (13:16).

Jesus uses the language of liberation. Of untying… of forces of evil (spiritual? psychological? socio-economic? even physical?) that hold prisoner and that keep in bonds… of release. This is not just about healing a sickness. This is about setting a human being free from the forces that make her a prisoner and hold her down. The Sabba- is a day for rest and worship… for playing and praying… The Sabba- is also a day for liberation and for setting human beings free from whatever holds us prisoner.

Two questions.

First. Does the Christian community ever turn this day of liberation into a day of… bondage? slavery? drudgery?

Second. How do we – as individuals, as families, as a church family – practice Sabba- even more as a day of liberation?

Arthur Waskow describes Sabba- as a revolutionary act – and Sabba- keepers as guerilla soldiers who liberate time. I would add that Sabba- must become even more a liberating time and Sabba- keepers as those who not only liberate time but set human beings free.

Posted in Bible, Christian Practice, Culture, Hebrew Bible, Sabbath | Comments Off

Two of “them”? Reconsidering the Emmaus pericope in Luke 24

Posted on May 5, 2011 by admin

"Supper at Emmaus" by Caravaggio (1601)

Two of them?

Observe this remarkable painting by Michelangelo Caravaggio. Notice anything different or strange about it? Apparently people criticized it partly because (1) the risen Christ has no beard and (2) the fruit on the table is the wrong season. But there is something it shares in common with every single painting of the Emmaus story – as far as I am aware.

One of my best teachers at Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond was Sandra Hack Polaski with whom I took two required classes on New Testament and later two electives. No other teacher in seminary (a) was so prompt in returning tests and papers and (b) was so thorough in her comments.

(With the possible exception of Dean McBride across the street at Union Theological Seminary who wrote voluminous notes and comments all over my exegetical paper on Exodus 20:22-26.)

I will never forget the day she invited us to reconsider the journey to Emmaus narrative in Luke 24. She did not tell us the answer and then defend it. She just made some observations about the book of Luke in general. Asked a couple open ended questions. And left us to reach the obvious conclusion. Nicely done.

Permit me to quote myself from a sermon given to Church of the Nations on April 04 2005:

[BEGIN] Our story for this morning comes from the book of Luke – which often uses pairs. Pairs of stories or characters usually next to each other that work together speak together strengthen each other. The beginning of the book of Luke – first the story of Zechariah father of John the cousin of Jesus then the story of Mary the mother of Jesus. Chapter two – Jesus is born his parents take him to the temple in Jerusalem where we meet Simeon a holy man and Anna a holy woman. Chapter seven Jesus heals the slave of a centurion – a Roman soldier – then Jesus heals the son of a widow – a Jewish woman. Chapters thirteen and fourteen Jesus heals a woman who has a problem with her back then Jesus heals a man who has a disease. Chapter fifteen Jesus tells the parable of a man who has many sheep and loses one and finds it then tells the parable of a woman who has some coins and loses one and finds it. Man woman / man woman / man woman / woman man / man woman.

On that same day two of them - in Greek duo ex autoon – two of them are going to a village called Emmaus about twelve kilometers from Jerusalem. They talk with each other. We learn that one of them his name is Cleopas we do not learn the name of the other. These two walk together talk together stay at the same place in the village perhaps this is their home they live together they invite Jesus to eat with them they eat together.

Two… of them.

What is the question I am not asking? What is the answer I am not telling?

When you see a picture of this story… when you imagine this story in your mind – what do you see? Two men? Perhaps – and I am careful to say perhaps – a man and a woman. Perhaps husband and wife. Perhaps like another story from the book of Genesis chapter eighteen when Abraham and his wife Sarah invite three strangers – who are actually three angels or the Lord and two angels – husband and wife invite strangers to stay and eat with them.

So let us work backwards from the end of the story. Perhaps husband and wife explain to the other disciples what happened to them. Husband and wife proclaim the good news, The Lord is risen indeed! Husband and wife talk together about their experience of Jesus participate in a meal with Jesus – a meal that is very much like the ritual of Communion / Eucharist / Lord’s Supper / a meal that represents a central act of Christian worship. Husband and wife practice hospitality and invite a stranger to stay and eat with them. Husband and wife study the Bible with Jesus talk with Jesus travel with Jesus. Husband and wife tell a stranger the story of Jesus – a prophet from God powerful in what he said and did suffered died crucified Messiah raised from death on the third day – the basic kerygma or message of the early Christian community. Husband and wife follow Jesus together.

We see in our story for this morning from the book of Luke the power and potential of husband and wife who follow worship serve proclaim Jesus Christ together as partners. Later in the book of Acts – part two of the book of Luke the same person or persons wrote the book of Luke part one and the book of Acts – later we meet Aquila and Priscilla. Husband and wife who for a while work with the apostle Paul – traveling and helping to form new Christian communities and helping to teach new followers of Christ. Notice especially in our story from the book of Luke how one of the most important things that Cleopas and perhaps his wife do is to practice hospitality. How they welcome the stranger who is away from home open their home and share a meal.[END]

So back to our wonderful painting by Caravaggio. Do we not always assume that the two of them are two men? Are we to understand that the book of Luke presents us with two unmarried men who live together? (Think about it for a moment.) Does it not make much more sense that sure Cleopas is a man but the unnamed and unspecified other is…

His wife? That is – a woman?

Posted in Art, Bible, Hermeneutics (Interpretation), New Testament, Women | Comments Off

Holy Liberation (or) Sabb-, part IV

Posted on April 29, 2011 by admin

Philip Ratner, "Remember the Sabbath"

Originally published in The Window (November 10, 2006)

Holy Liberation (or) Sabb-, part IV
by Richard M. Wright

(The Sabb- is going somewhere…)

Are we slaves?

(Say whaaa-?)

That is an offensive question but bear with me. One of the speakers at the (can you guess?) Catalyst Conference was Gary Haugen, who works with the International Justice Mission which basically finds and rescues people from slavery. No kidding.

Even in countries where it is illegal some people sometimes engage in slavery. Haugen described a brick-making complex somewhere in Asia where people – including husbands and wives and children of all ages – were forced to make bricks 12-14 hours each and day and 7 days a week. Beatings for failure to keep quota. No escape. And no rest from work.

That – among other things perhaps – is a key characteristic of slavery. Working without ever resting.

Rewind a few millennia. The Hebrews are former slaves about to enter the land of Canaan. God through Moses reminds them of ten things. The fourth – which is the longest commandment so maybe it is rather important – says:

“Observe the Sabb-day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabb- to the Lord your God. On it, you shall not do any work, neither you, you’re your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the foreigner within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God broutht you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord you God has commanded you to observe the Sabb- day.” Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Fascinating. Why should you observe this day of rest/fun/worship/prayer? Because once you were slaves but now you are no longer. Sabb- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps freedom. Liberation. (More about that next week.)

(So, if we choose not to practice Sabb- are we choosing to live like slaves?)

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galations 5:1)

Posted in Bible, Christian Practice, Hebrew Bible, Law and Justice, New Testament, Sabbath | Comments Off