It's practical

One of the troubling things I find about local-church theology (id est theology lived out in local churches) is how by saying the words "practical" or "it is just not practical" is able to bracket out all other theological reflection, plus all considerations of community and reduces people back to the automatons the church tries to eliminate.

For example, it is not practical to invite strangers into your home (they could be psychos). It is not practical to leave home with only a robe and not even a staff. It is not practical not to save money for the future. This could go on and on and I do not mean this in a demeaning way. I am not saying that seminarians get it right (by God they do not, I do not), what I am interested in is how, as a pastor, this realm of practicality can be broken down. How do we teach that there is no realm of life where Jesus is not Lord without the self-righteousness of my own tone here? Plus, what does practical theology have to do with this, where I see 'practical theology' as a passive aggressive attempt to diminish impractical theology. Am I wrong in this dismissal of the practical?

Pack up the Polity?

So what did you all think of the conversation today? Alongside seeing a spark in Dr. Wells that I would not have guessed was there, I have a lot to continue to think about. As per our other conversation, we heard a Duke heretic today talk about polity like it was dead weight that just needs to be abandonded. Here's what I continue to wrestle with: how much can I borrow from cultural forms around me before I so change the gospel that it is no longer the gospel? Can I borrow from marketing and the business world? I think that it can be done and that these tools can be sanctified and used for the kingdom without turning church and the gospel into a theraputic deism. This kind of borrowing is already taking place in our biblical studies department. We beg, borrow, and steal from the English school, the philosophy school, the history school. We take their methods and appropriate them for the Bible. How can we do otherwise? The gospel is, I think, always situated contextually. We must run the risk of altering it by situating it firmly in the cultural context, this is, I think an incarnational approach to minsitry.

Ecumenical Communion?

I am currently in my field ed placement at Efland. EUMC participates in an ecumenical worship service with the other Methodist churches, the AME church, the Presbyterians, and the holiness church every Thanksgiving and Easter. I was excited to hear about this, particularly because there are two black churches and two white churches (there may be a couple of other churches too). When I went to the planning meeting this Sunday I was surprised to see that they celebrate communion together. I was maybe even a little more than surprised. I was hesitant (yes, you all do rub off on me even though I fight it kicking and screaming). So having some supervisory time today, I had planned on arguing against this with my supervisor. I went to our position paper, This Holy Mystery, and was surprised again to find that it encouraged ecumencial participation in communion (this paper is full of contradicitions, me thinks)! What do others think? Participate? Or not?

On Catholicity

Does catholicity come in degrees?