Context and modernity

Is contextualization really different from relativization? Isn't it all part of the modernist project (and most if not all pomo stuff is still out of the modernist paradigm)? Would the Fathers ever talk about contextualizing sin?

Sudan, Uganda, and the Bullshit of Duke Divinity School

I just left the lunch panel discussion led by an Anglican Bishop from southern Sudan and a Catholic priest from Uganda. They were here at Duke to talk about the wars in their respective countries, and especially to talk about the church in that connection. The lunch was in the big lecture room. While my wife and I were walking to the meeting, she wanted to hurry, because she figured that by the time we got there, there might not be any seats left in the room. On the contrary...

Here is the question for anyone who wants to respond:

Why is it that, when there is a panel about homosexuality in that very same room, I can't get a seat because there are so many dookies crawling over each other to get there, but when two churchmen come from east Africa to talk about genocide, no one seems to give a damn?

PA

Having something to say

I am probably one of the more evangelistically incompetent persons out there (a lot of reasons for that, none of them good) but after an interesting theology precept where I was forced (by popular demand) to field the strong and doubting questions of an improving fellow div student, I am reminded of a part of our by-laws or whatever they may be called, which we have not done besides the Hays-Ehrman (if that comes close) or the Habermas-Marcus one coming.

As I've said, I am for the most part evangelistically incompetent, what that means in practical terms is that I would rather kick a wall barefooted for an hour than bring up God with a stranger. But if someone brought it up to me, it would be a different story. All this goes to say is that I think we should start thinking out loud about anything we could as socratics for the wider duke community not just in an academic way, or if that section should be taken from the bylaws. I yield to the king for clarification.

Oh, and it's the fifth anniversary of the invasion of afghanistan. Pray for peace, no matter how you view war.

Toward a Theology of the Pre-cut Bread

In this post I propose to begin a conversation on whether a theology can be imagined that would give meaning to the symbol of pre-cut bread. I don't know whether it is possible, but we'll see what happens.

1. A theology of accomodation (i.e. the incarnation)
1A. Practical Issues of Accomodation
It seems that one of the primary impulses to use pre-cut bread is to accomodate certain practical elements within the worship space. These might be (1) hygenic elements (its "cleaner") and (2) time elements (its faster...is it really faster?). It seems to me that the idea that something is more practical for worship is not neccessarily a strike against it. In a very strong sense, the incarnation was a very practical event. It was, dare I say, an accomodation to our humanness. In the incarnation we see a God who cares about the practical issues of being human taking on the practical limitations of humanity. Therefore, practical considerations are sanctified and made holy. Therefore, the practical consideration of accomodating hygenic concerns could be a legitimate choice in the worship space. Taken to the extreme on the other end (an anti-accomodationist perspective) one would have to get rid of all sorts of human accomodations (buildings, pews, sound system, scheduled meeting time, bulletins, heat and air-conditioning, lighting, asthetic beauty, etc.).

1B. Relational issues of accomodation
In my field education church, I found that many accomodations in communion were taken to help appease various concerns individuals had about various practices. For example, people were a little "grossed" out by the idea of dipping bread into a cup that had other pieces of bread floating around in it. The solution: have two cups on hand to play tag-team. The acolyte was then "fishing" out the pieces of bread with a spoon in the wayward cup. At first glance this seems silly to me. But it is accomodating people's "needs" in this act. I don't want to say that worship is about accomodating people's needs, but I do want to say that in the incarnation, God accomodated our physical needs, relational, and material needs. They are not unimportant. And so if having a tag-team cup helps bring someone to the table to begin with, then I'm up for making the "accomodation" to get them there and then working with them once they're there.

2. A theology of Hygine
2A. "Ceremonial/Cleanliness Laws"
It seems to me that any problem the NT has with "ceremonial" laws in the OT have more to do with priorities than the existence of them. For example, its not that the pharisess were following these laws but that they were choosing to follow certain laws (sabbath laws for instance) over other more important laws (justice laws). Jesus never seems to categorically throw out these laws. But rather reprioritizes them. Some of these OT laws certainly seem to have a hygenic function (see for example my favorite backpacking verser: Deut 23:13). So hygine is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing and may even be a good thing to think about in a spiritual way.
2B. A Call to Physical Healing
Jesus came to heal the sick. What does it mean that we would institute a form of communion that could (probably does) lead to physical unhealth? Our call to help people heal physically should have some ramifications for our practice of communion.

So that's about it for now. I look forward to your responses.
Tom

Point of Clarification

This is in regards to the king's comment today about baking bread. My point was that it is ludicrous because it has no basis within the act or within the history of the act; it has no teeth within the practice to grab onto. His comment about the one giant loaf has some teeth because it does take the one loaf model to another level. And frankly, I like it. It just takes a large oven to make a large loaf of bread and so big churches should now have big ovens. Nevertheless, his point about taking a symbol too far is still present.

The problem is that we still talk as if it doesn't matter. This might be a practical issue because our practices vary so strongly, but it is still a troubling one. If it doesn't matter what we do then we have no reason to do it. If the Holy Spirit works equally no matter how we come together or perform the liturgy, and Christ is ambiguously present no matter what we eat, then, as the chaplain put it, all food is sacrament; there is no distinctive or purpose for Eucharist.

I don't think that that is the case. I think that it matters. The procedures matter because of the history we are a part of, the history which is defined by the presence of the Holy Spirit, not incidental to its presence. The history that comes to me and my tradition in a certain way and in which I and we (my tradition) participate. It is not a history friendly to the novel, it is not a practice friendly to the novel, just like theology is not a pursuit friendly to the novel (Arius and Pelagius were very novel theologians).

And it comes down to heresy, Can there be a heresy today? Can there be a heresy without excommunication? Hopefully that will get a response.