Duke Socratic Club Blog

What Would Michael Scott Do?

2010-04-06T15:58:00.002-04:00

I’ve turned a corner writing for LE@DD from asking questions to presenting some of my own thoughts. In this first post, I explore the different leadership styles of Donald Trump as seen on Celebrity Apprentice and Michael Scott (Steve Carrel) of The Office. Check it out. Feel free to challenge! It's the Socratic Club way.

P.S. Go Duke! I had the chance to be there last night and it was an incredible game. My stomach was in knots all night long!

Ehrman and Colbert

2009-09-09T17:40:00.001-04:00

Looks like we asked the wrong person to debate Ehrman when he came to Duke. Instead of Hays, we should have asked Colbert!

God, Family, Church

2009-05-19T20:30:00.002-04:00

I've been contemplating what it means to be a pastor as I begin soon my new appointment at Sycamore Creek Church. I've been asking pastors what their top three nuggets of wisdom are about being a pastor. I often get something to the effect of putting one's family above the church. So the received wisdom of the day is that the priorities of a pastor should be God first, family second, and the church third. But I've been wondering how our baptism changes this prioritization. Is the church our new family? Does the church come before family? If so, what is the difference between the church and the family? Is there anything unique about the covenant between spouses? How does that covenant interact with the sacrament of baptism? Do Catholics have something over Protestants here by also calling marriage a sacrament?

Confessio - New Web Magazine for Duke Div.

2009-04-10T01:02:00.001-04:00

One of our own, Elyse Gustafson, has helped start a new online student journal for Duke Divinity Students. Check it out!

http://confessio.org/

New Socratic Club at Southeastern

2009-03-25T20:40:00.002-04:00

So some students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary have begun their own Socratic Club. Their first big event on April 20th includes Dr. Chapman and Dr. Portier-Young in conversation with two profs from SEBTS. You can find out more here: www.southeasternsocratic.com. This made my day!

Chris Tomlin Song substituted for the Sanctus

2009-02-22T20:34:00.003-05:00

So on the worship-review website, I make the suggestion of substituting Chris Tomlin's song, Sing, Sing, Sing for the Sanctus in the Great Thanksgiving. I'd love some conversation on that blog. Shoot me down or give me an amen. And while you're at it, check out some of the other recent reviews by me and others.

Faith & Leadership Website

2009-02-18T09:30:00.002-05:00

As Wilson reminded me, the launch of LE@DD's website (Leadership Education @ Duke Divinity) is now fully up and running. Here's the link: http://faithandleadership.com/. Check it out and join in the conversation below.
Peace,
Tom

How to say nothing

2009-02-17T13:36:00.002-05:00

Tom, this is one of my main problems with "leadership training", nothing is said but buzzwords are repeated. Par example, our beloved Dean. (Since I'm getting emails I'm assuming the launch is harder than it used to be).

First off, holding things "in tension" is the biggest buzzword cop-out to have emerged from Duke, and it probably doesn't come from Duke, but boy does it piss me off. The problem with saying we need to hold things in tension is that it is like saying we need to build a house. Saying it has little to do with actually doing it. It may even be negative because people think they have done something when the lot is still empty.

Tradition and innovation mean nothing on their own and holding a tension between generalized understandings of tradition and innovation is like tying air and water together.

Enough of my analogies. On the website, I do appreciate all of the links to Wesley's works, but hopefully this gives you a more concrete understanding of why I dislike leadership stuff. If only old Deano could be more concrete himself (another buzzword, I admit, but a far more useful one).

Deleted Post

2009-01-27T09:50:00.000-05:00

Dear Socratics,
I deleted my previous post about LE@DD website because I just found out that we're still in the "soft" launch at this point and seeking corrections/feedback. So we're not yet advertising it. Anyway, when it is a full public launch, I'll post it again.
Peace,
Tom

Hardest moment?

2009-01-12T14:27:00.001-05:00

So where is everyone? Here's a very open-ended question. What has been your hardest moment in your ministry since graduating from Duke in May? You've had five or six months on the ground.

I'm still waiting for Sarah to graduate, but I did serve as the interim pastor at PUMC this summer for three months while my pastor was on sabbatical. The trickiest thing for me was navigating various people's personalities, needs, wants, desires, and demands. This included staff and lay folks and the interchange between them all. I realized it was the thing I had the least experience with and it often took up considerable amounts of time. I'm not sure I always did very well.

Knowledge in other fields

2009-01-04T09:30:00.003-05:00

So I'm currently working at LE@DD (Leadership Education at Duke Divinity). LE@DD is looking to borrow knowledge from other fields of study (business, government, social sciences, etc). So I'm not too interested in the abstract question about the boundaries on this kind of project. Rather, I'm interested to know when and where you've found something helpful for your ministry outside of a theological "source."

Here's a first one from me: I was watching the movie The Story of Us. Not a great movie but there was a scene at the dinner table where everyone went around and said what was the high point of their day and what was the low point. I think those two questions have produced a lot of conversation in various settings for me. My wife even led a girls small group around them.

So what knowledge or resource did you pick up and use for leadership that wasn't specifically theological in nature?

Where does theology speak?

2009-01-02T12:53:00.002-05:00

Or, more specifically, where is it most difficult for theology to speak? This post is mostly going to be a series of questions attempting to refine each other, but since complete inactivity has descended upon this blog, I hope to try and promote some dialogue between students and alums.

Practical atheism is almost axiomatic today, for pastors and theologians as much as for anyone else. What I am interested in looking at is places where this is more apparent than others. What are the aspects of life that people find easier to submit to Scripture or Theology or revelation (i am not so much interested in terminology here)? What are the difficult places? What are the situations where we choose to ignore or dismiss the teachings of the Church? One example, I feel, is the works of mercy wherein it almost laudatory for someone to describe how they fail to feed the hunger, clothe the naked, etc.. Thus, instead of actually participating in the works of mercy, people feel self-satisfaction for their own humility. This is only one example, but I want to brainstorm some other ways in which the teachings of the Church fall on deaf ears to the life of those in the Church.

I am assuming only people with Bloglines or Google Reader will get this post, but if you can, please spread it to people you know so that we can get a variety or thoughts.

Enns & Chapman Audio Now Online!

2008-10-28T22:20:00.008-04:00

Many thanks to all who came to hear Drs. Enns and Chapman last Wednesday.

The full audio of the conversation, including all those great questions, is now available.

http://www.me.com/ix/artboulet/Public/EnnsChapman.MP3

When the page loads, right-click for options to download.
Be patient, the file is +100MB!

Is the Bible Ever Wrong - A Conversation with Peter Enns and Stephen Chapman

2008-09-27T17:14:00.000-04:00

Wednesday, Oct. 22nd, 7pm
Duke Divinity School
Westbrook Building 0016

Peter Enns - Author of the controversial Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns was until recently a professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. His academic interests include: Old Testament Theology, Biblical Theology, Wisdom Literature (esp. Ecclesiastes), the NT’s use of the OT, Second Temple literature, and the general issue of how the historical context of Scripture affects how we understand the nature of Scripture within Reformed and Evangelical commitments.

Stephen Chapman - Stephen Chapman has been a professor of Old Testament at Duke since the fall of 2000. His research centers on issues of canon, hermeneutics and theological approaches to scriptural interpretation. An active participant in the Baptist World Alliance, he is a member of both its Workgroup on Theological Education and its Committee on Doctrine and Interchurch Cooperation.

Website: h ttp://socraticclubtwoviews.blogspot.com/

Wesley and Kelly Johnson's Fear of Beggars

2008-09-06T10:24:00.002-04:00

I sent this email to Dr. Hall after reading Wesley's Sermon On Visiting the Sick. After I sent it I thought I'd post it here for those who have read Johnson's Fear of Beggars or who want to discuss Wesley and his view of stewardship in relation to actually having friendship with the poor. So here it is:

Dear Dr. Hall,
I hope all is well with you in this new school year.

I continue to ponder Kelly Johnson’s Fear of Beggars. Particularly, her critique of Wesley and Wesley’s view of stewardship. While I loved the book and it continues to shape the way I live, I was never very comfortable with her critique of Wesley because I felt it took Wesley’s ideas out of the context of the rest of his life.

I have recently been reading through Wesley’s sermons that I have not read before. I just read his sermon #98 On Visiting the Sick (http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/98/). It actually might also be titled On Visiting the Sick and the Poor. While not everything in this sermon is agreeable, here he makes some of the strongest statements I have ever read on the topic of relationships with the poor and even what the poor can give to others. Here are some quotes:

“One great reason why the rich in general have so little sympathy for the poor is because they seldom visit them” (I.3).

Speaking about whether you can send help via proxy Wesley says, “You could not gain that increase in lowliness, in patience, in tenderness of spirit, in sympathy with the afflicted, which you might have gained if you had assisted them in person” (I.5).

“You might properly say in your own case, “To beg I am ashamed;” but never be ashamed to bed for the poor; yeah, in this case, be an importunate beggar—do not easily take a denial. Use all the address, all the understanding, all the influence you have; at the same time trusting in him that has the hearts of all men in his hands” (II.2).

Speaking about whether the poor ought to visit the sick Wesley says, “If they have no money to give, may they not give what is of more value? Yea, of more value than thousands of gold and sliver?...Can you give them nothing? Nay, in administering to them the grace of God you give them more than all this world is worth! Go on! Go on! Thou poor disciple of a poor Master!” (III.4).

Wesley has a beautiful defense of women’s involvement in visiting the poor and sick. He defends women as being equal with men in every way including being “rational creatures” and not “playthings” and calls on them to throw off any “bondage” that would keep them from ministering in such a way. It is in III.7.

There are other difficult points like his defense of “cleanliness and industry,” but these are relatively few and short. This sermon is possibly one of the best I have read of his. I’d highly recommend it be read in dialogue with Johnson’s Fear of Beggars. Johnson would have found much to rejoice about in Wesley’s sermon.

Peace,
Tom Arthur

God's Justice?

2008-08-13T10:38:00.002-04:00

Helloooo fellow Socratics in lands far and wide. I miss arguing, listening, learning, and laughing with you guys (and few faithful gals). I hope that all is well- for those that have graduated, and for those that are soon to be back in the grind of Duke Div.

On my way into town this morning, after listening to my usual bit of NPR news, I put the radio on scan and came across the meditation of a preacher-- David Jeremiah. I couldn't help myself, and I had to stop to listen!

According to Mr. Jeremiah, God's justice = hell... "if God is a God of love, God also is a God of justice, which means that hell is definite eternal dwelling place for those who choose not to believe."

I have some issues/concerns with this logic, but I'm interested in your thoughts! Anyone?

Augustine On Dragons

2008-08-12T21:30:00.001-04:00

I have been studying Psalm 148 and came across this comment from Augustine on the "dragons" that praise the Lord in Psalm 148. Most modern translations translate it as "sea monsters." But this image from Augustine is too good to pass up:

“Dragons” live about the water, come out from caverns, fly through the air; the air is set in motion by them: “dragons” are a huge kind of living creatures, greater there are not upon the earth. Therefore with them he beginneth, “Dragons and all abysses.” There are caves of hidden waters, whence springs and streams come forth: some come forth to flow over the earth, some flow secretly beneath; and all this kind, all this damp nature of waters, together with the sea and this lower air, are called abyss, or “abysses,” where dragons live and praise God. What? Think we that the dragons form choirs, and praise God? Far from it. But do ye, when ye consider the dragons, regard the Maker of the dragon, the Creator of the dragon: then, when ye admire the dragons, and say, “Great is the Lord who made these,” then the dragons praise God by your voices.

Worship Review New Reviews

2008-07-28T18:56:00.003-04:00

So there are now three worship song reviews up at www.worship-review.com. Two by me and one by the rags-to-riches-King himself, Wes Kelley. Check it out and give us some feedback. Or argue with us. Whatever floats your boat.
Peace,
Tom

Wesley's Ecclesiology

2008-07-10T08:34:00.002-04:00

Wesley, believe it or not, has a sermon titled Of the Church. Its sermon #74 (I've been reading past the standard 52 lately). He makes some rather startling claims. The intro by Outler is probably the most succinct statement on Wesley's ecclesiology:

"The essence of the church for Wesley, need not be sought in it visible institutions, not even some invisible numerous electorum. The church as Body of Chris i the company of all true believers, 'holy' because its members are themselves holy. This is, therefore, an unstable blend of Anglican and Anabaptist ecclesiologies; it is also one of Wesley's more daring syntheses. Its outworks in the subsequent histories of Methodism and Anglican ecclesiology have yet to be probed as deeply as they deserve, which is also to say that its ecumenical significance has yet to be fully appreciated."

You can find his sermon here.

So let's probe it. What do you think? In some of these later sermons I am finding Wesley to totter on the edge of Pelagianism. The emphasis here on the true church being those who are "holy" and thus visibly so, makes me naturally wonder whether I am "holy" and thus, whether I am part of the church. But at the same time I like the "daring synthesis" of trying to combine the invisible and visible church together.

Spiritualist Church Baptism

2008-07-07T19:12:00.003-04:00

So a faithful member of your church comes to you and tells you that they were "christened" with water in the Spiritualist church. They are leader in your church and have been for a very long time. You notice that there might be a problem here. Does the UMC (or the Christian church in general) recognize Spiritual Church "christenings" with water as baptism? And what exactly is the Spiritualist practice in baptism?

I told this faithful friend and leader that the UMC recognizes baptisms that were intended to be baptisms and were done in the Trinitarian name (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Then I passed the buck and told this friend that they needed to talk to the pastor when he got back from sabbatical since I have no sacramental authority as the interim preacher.

Thoughts? Did I handle this well? Did I get the theology right? I'd appreciate any feedback people want to give.

worship-review.com

2008-07-03T23:04:00.002-04:00

www.worship-review.com is up and running! So who wants to contribute a review? Pass on the news.

A First Try...

2008-06-28T22:29:00.007-04:00

Here's a first try at a review of a song for this new website that Kevin, Craig and I are putting together. I chose this particular song because as I was picking songs this past week I came across this one in the repertoire of our band and wasn't sure what I thought of it. Upon further more careful reflection, I'm inclined to use it. I'm not exactly sure who the author is as I found different authors listed on different websites. I welcome feedback on the format (how does this work as a review) and the content of the review itself (though I hope you will post any feedback on the content of the review on our new website which should be up shortly). Here's my review:

Beautiful One
By Jeremy Camp(?)

Links:
Lyrics
Jeremy Camp

The primary message of this song is a rhapsodic declaration of one’s love for the Beautiful One, that is presumably the LORD (presumably so given that none of the Trinitarian names are used: Father, Son, or Holy Spirit). Thus, this is not a song that focuses on only one person of the Trinity. In fact upon closer inspection, this could be considered a fully Trinitarian song. The first verse speaks of the Beautiful One in the cross (the Son), the second verse speaks of the Beautiful One in creation (the Father, “creator of heaven and earth”[1]), and the third verse speaks of the work of the Beautiful One in opening one’s eyes and capturing one’s heart (the Holy Spirit?, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit”[2]). In this respect, Beautiful One, avoids the pitfalls of several contemporary praise songs’ singular focus on one person of the Trinity to the neglect or exclusion of the other persons of the Trinity.

But what are we to make of this name “Beautiful One” which is used over and over again? The language used in Beautiful One is probably most clearly connected with the language of the Song of Solomon: “Ah, you are beautiful , my love; ah, you are beautiful ; your eyes are doves. Ah, you are beautiful , my beloved, truly lovely.”[3] Although, in the Song of Solomon the declaration of the beauty of the beloved is always toward the bride from the bridegroom (or from the bride about herself[4]). If a Christian interpretation of the Song of Solomon posits God or Jesus as the bridegroom and the bride as the church, then these declarations of beauty in the Song of Solomon are coming from God to the church. [5] Or maybe because the poetic genre of the Song of Solomon, this kind of interpretation of who is declaring whom beautiful is too rigid. Poetry often has multiple senses for any given line or phrase. Other than this possible interpretation of the Song of Solomon, “beautiful” is not used to refer to God in the NRSV or TNIV translations of the Bible.[6] Perhaps this use of “Beautiful One” as a name of God is influenced more by a romantic notion of the relationship between God and God’s people borrowed from the general tenor of the Song of Solomon than a biblical notion of God’s name.

Several other biblical allusions are used throughout the song. Some of them are: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard” (1 Cor 2:9), “Your glory fills the sky” (Psalm 19:1 or Romans 1:20), and “You opened my eyes to your wonders anew” (Psalm 119:18).

One theological quibble I would have with this song’s implied soteriology is the phrase “you captured my heart.” Coming from a Wesleyan perspective this sounds a bit too Calvinistic to me. I am not sure God “captures” one’s heart though God does work preveniently to allow one’s heart to respond freely to God’s love (“We love because he first loved us”[7]). I suspect the phrase comes again from the Song of Solomon which says, “You have ravished my heart” (NRSV) or “You have captured my heart” (The Message).[8] Once again, in this passage of the Song it is the bridegroom speaking to the bride. If this soteriology is implied it is very subtle and does not appear elsewhere.

Some may take issue with this song’s personal and singular focus and with its repetition of the first person singular pronouns “I” and “me.” And while this is true (the song does not have a community focus), and a steady diet of “me” and “I” songs to the neglect of any “we” songs is probably not a very well-rounded diet, any given song’s singular focus (this one included) is no worse than any given psalm’s singular focus (the Psalms have 786 instances of “I,” 675 of “me” and only 84 of “we”). Moreover, Beautiful One’s phrase, “Your cross has spoken mercy over me” is reminiscent of John Wesley’s sermon Justification by Faith. Wesley says, “Justifying faith implies, not only a divine evidence or conviction that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself;’ but a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for ‘my’ sins, that he loved ‘me,’ and gave himself for ‘me.’”[9]

Conclusion: The song’s implied Trinitarian structure and its abundant use of biblical allusions make this an overall strong song theologically. While it has it’s potential pitfalls (it’s subtle Calvinistic soteriology), depending on one’s theological framework this may or may not be a liability. I would use this song but would use it in the context of other more community focused songs. I would also use this kind of adoration and love language in proportion to its use in scripture. Thus, too many “I love you” or “I adore you” songs might neglect other just as important love emphases in other parts of scripture such as “love your neighbor as yourself.”[10]

[1] Apostles’ Creed

[2] 1 Cor 12:3

[3] Song 1:15-16 (NRSV)

[4] Song 1:5

[5] Rev 21:2

[6] Jerusalem and Mt. Zion are called “beautiful” in Psalm 48:2 as is the “branch of the Lord” in Isaiah 4:2 and Israel in Ezekiel 16.

[7] 1 John 4:19

[8] Song 4:9

[9] http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/5/

[10] Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, and Romans 13:9.

Theology and praxis

2008-06-23T16:21:00.002-04:00

What is the importance of members of a denomination to adhere to the explicit theological positions of a denomination? Should a United Methodist be a Wesleyan? Should a Presbyterian (USA) be a Calvinist? Should a Catholic be a Thomist? Should an Episcopalian be a Hookerite or an Andrewesian? etc.?

The sub question of this is what is the minimum catichetical understanding for church members which you would be satisfied in as a pastor?

A new blog?

2008-06-18T10:16:00.003-04:00

So I'm in the middle of planning worship songs for July. I'm realizing its a daunting task to think theologically about every song our band is able to play. I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a blog or website of some sort to offer theological critiques (postives and negatives) of the widely used praise songs that are out there. Any takers? Anyone interested?
Peace,
Tom

What is faith?

2008-06-14T13:05:00.002-04:00

Faith is a graced belief and trust in spite of uncertainty.

I've been working on this definition for about six or seven years now. I'm curious what you all think. Here's a paragraph from my sermon this Sunday where I flesh that out:

What does it mean to “serve the Lord”? Serving the Lord begins first with faith in Jesus Christ. But what is faith? Faith includes two things: belief and trust. Faith must include trust because if it is only belief, then it does not lead to action. And the book of James says that faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:26). But trust must also have belief lest we put our trust in the wrong thing. Faith is both belief and trust. And faith is also belief and trust in spite of uncertainty. When we have faith our uncertainty does not necessarily go away. If we were entirely certain then we would not need faith. And because faith is in spite of uncertainty, faith is a graced belief and trust. God’s grace works in us and helps us to have faith. It is something that is both God’s work in us and our response to God. Thus, faith is a graced belief and trust in spite of uncertainty.

On the Rise of the Rebel Virgins

2008-06-11T15:18:00.002-04:00

A recent editorial from Christianity Today (CT) raises an interesting and common question: “what if having protected sex with my fiancée seems like it will increase our health and happiness?”

At issue is a movement on college campuses to promote virginity in order to avoid the harmful consequences of casual sex. The writers applaud the trend, but note that, though the rationale offered by the “virginity clubs” points to an ethical result similar to that taught by the Church, the rationale itself is insufficiently theological. The writers quote Lauren Winner, Assistant Professor of Christian Spirituality at the Duke Divinity School (and a member of the Episcopal Church) in noting the distinction between this secular view of sexuality and that of Scripture:

Read it all....

Sermon Feedback

2008-06-02T18:46:00.002-04:00

Dear Socratics,
I've formed a sermon feedback team to give me weekly feedback on my preaching. Below is the preaching evaluation from preaching class. What question do you wish had been added to this form? Or have any of you developed something like this?
Peace,
Tom

P.S. There was one in the Preaching Dictionary by Willimon (I don't remember what entry it was and I didn't end up buying that book...does anyone have it?)

PR30 Evaluation Sheet
Name of Preacher ____________________
Sermon Text _____________

Evaluate using the rating below:

5 Excellent 2 Fair

4 Good 1 Poor

3 Improvement Needed

1. Was the sermon idea clear? 5 4 3 2 1

2. Was the text exegeted adequately? 5 4 3 2 1

3. Were illustrations sufficient and consistent with exegesis? 5 4 3 2 1

4. Was the sermon content connected with the text? 5 4 3 2 1

5. Was the theological perspective clear and accurate? 5 4 3 2 1

6. Was there adequate movement in the sermon? 5 4 3 2 1

7. How well was the idea developed? 5 4 3 2 1

8. Was it clear why this sermon was preached? 5 4 3 2 1

9. Was it clear to whom this sermon was preached? 5 4 3 2 1

10 Did this sermon proclaim the gospel of Christ? 5 4 3 2

Delivery:

11 Was the preaching done with confidence and conviction? 5 4 3 2 1

12 Were enunciation and diction clear? 5 4 3 2 1

13 Was the presence of the preacher consistent with the content of the sermon? 5 4 3 2 1

14 Were gestures enhancing or distracting? 5 4 3 2 1

15 How did the presence of the preacher contribute to the credibility of the

preached word? 5 4 3 2 1

Other comments:

First Week/Month

2008-05-26T17:16:00.000-04:00

So tomorrow I begin and lead my first staff meeting and begin my first week of being a pastor. What are the things you all think I should make sure I do. Give me your top five.
Peace,
Tom

A Socratic Pacifist Loses It

2008-05-10T10:58:00.002-04:00

This was too good not to pass on to everyone else: Martin Rhodes in the chicken coup taking a skunk out with a .22. Who knew?

Socratic Club Reading Level

2008-04-30T11:45:00.006-04:00

I came across this website that rates the reading level required to read your blog. Lest anyone think we are using too many big words, you're good to go to read our blog if you've graduated from Jr. High.

Just for reference, the Order of St. James is a more sophisticated blog. You have to have graduated from High School to read that blog:

Order of St. James Updates

2008-04-22T14:17:00.001-04:00

Dear Socratics,
The Order of St. James had its first fledgling meeting. Some of you were interested. Check out our agenda for next school year at www.orderofstjames.blogspot.com.

Christian Pacifism

2008-04-16T00:04:00.003-04:00

Andy's post and dwl's response reminded me of an issue I've been thinking about during my time in Wainwright and Hütter's Eschatology class. (I confess at the outset that these are only some thoughts, I'm in no way convinced.)

It seems to me like Christian pacifism stems from an overly transcendent eschatology, where the good is seen as something attainable solely in the life to come. So, martyrdom aside, the death of Christians in any conflict situation is always a negative. As the basic argument goes, all Christians should be non-violent, because Jesus endured suffering for political oppressors. Of course then (supposedly), so should we, because we must be like Jesus. However, this view comes from an eschatology that ultimately places the role of the Church in the world as one whose witness is simply, "God will save us in the end, because we believe in resurrection." That is, do what you want with us, we'll win in the end.

This seems to me a very problematic view of the role of Christians in the world. While I am sympathetic to the call for Christians to never resort to violence in situations where one set of Christians fights another set of Christians simply because they live in another nation. Simply acquiescing to evil and hoping that all will be set right in the parousia is a very poor eschatology. Jesus overthrew the people who were misusing the Temple for impure purposes using violence, why should there not be occasions for Christians to do so?

Further, unless one is a simple universalist (and I agree with Wainwright that this is in essence totalitarianism), there is a call for Christians to co-participate with God in bringing him kingdom on this earth. No, I am not a post-millenialist; I do realize this will never be accomplished here. Nevertheless, if we take seriously Jesus' claim that only those who come to the Father by him inherit the kingdom, could not any war be justified that keeps alive people who do not know him in hopes that they will come to know him? (Not even those who espouse a type of eschatology that includes an intermediate state allow for conversion after death. As Garrigou-Lagrange states, one's soul's eternal destiny is set at the moment of death; purgatory is only for those who are being saved.)

Anyhow, these are mostly ramblings, but I would like to hear some responses to this. It has been very annoying to me that the Duke party line of pacifism has not been challenged by anyone I know, whether in class or in personal conversation.

Socratic Audio Files

2008-04-11T19:51:00.002-04:00

Hays on Biblical Studies at Duke
Levine & Witherington
Hauerwas on Hauerwas
Hall on the Yale School
Fulkerson on Schleiermacher
Freeman on Barth
Verhey on Niebuhr

Tony Jones wonders what Hauerwas would think of him being a police chaplain

2008-04-10T23:49:00.008-04:00

Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent Village, a Ph.D. student at Princeton Theological Seminary and a friend of mine, has a post today called "The Hauerwasian Mafia." He describes Stanley Hauerwas and his theological connection to Alasdair MacIntyre and John Howard Yoder. Tony then describes his own role as a police chaplain and wonders if Hauerwas would frown on this close involvement with the state.

Does Tony characterize Hauerwas, Yoder and MacIntyre fairly?
Would Hauerwas (or would you) discourage someone from being a police chaplain?
Are there people here at Duke Divinity School thinking about how MacIntyre, Yoder and Hauerwas might be deployed into the emerging church conversation?

I am a new Th.D. student and would love to hear your take since I am still learning about "Duke Theology."

Related resources:

David Fitch author of , also notes Tony's post: Why Emergent Needs the Hauerwasian Mafia.
Steve Knight at the Emergent Village blog also notes Tony's post: Tony Jones Takes on the "Hauerwasian Mafia"
There is also a lecture by Stanley Hauerwas on medicine, death, and the Christian community at Emergent Village podcasts.
In a later post on this blog, there are links to Socratic Audio Files. At that link there are talks by: Allen Verhey on Richard Niebuhr, Amy Laura Hall on the Yale School (George Lindbeck, etc.), Curtis Freeman on Karl Barth, Mary McClintock Fulkerson on Friedrich Schleiermacher, Stanley Hauerwas on himself, and Richard Hays on Biblical Studies at Duke. These talks explore various influences on the strain of theology found at Duke Divinity School.
Th.D. student Andrew Thompson notes the Hauerwas on Hauerwas lecture last week.
There are more Duke Divinity School audio recordings at iTunes U / Duke / Religion / Divinity School. (This link will only work if you have iTunes, a free downloadable program, installed on your computer). See for example Wendell Berry, Stanley Hauerwas and Ellen Davis at "Our Daily Bread 2007: 2007 Convocation and Pastor's School" (iTunes link).
My blog Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations has Jürgen Moltmann and Stanley Hauerwas Audio Recordings from Society for Pentecostal Studies and the Wesleyan Theological Society joint meeting

A Proposal

2008-04-10T16:35:00.003-04:00

Dear Socratics,
I've begun to float this proposal around to get feedback. It has come out of wrestling with various issues in Dr. Hall's Ethics class. I put it here both as an opportunity for feedback and as an invitation.
Peace,
Tom

April 9, 2008
Dear Friends,

Peace and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. I've been wrestling with an idea for some time now, and I think it is time to give birth to it.

Here's my dilemma: how does an itinerant Methodist Preacher (don't tune out, non-Methodists) live faithfully following Jesus amidst the pressures of materialism in our culture? Here's my proposal that I'd be interested in meeting with others to help flesh out and covenant together around: a new order, The Order of St. James. This would be a voluntary order of individuals who are willing to covenant around two practices (possibly three): simplicity and hospitality (and possibly evangelism/making disciples).

The mark of simplicity would be voluntarily living as a family (both salaries) no higher than the minimum annual conference standard for a UMC elder (those who aren't UMC would need to discuss how to set such a mark of simplicity).

The mark of hospitality would be to offer at least weekly hospitality in the parsonage (this could be as much as having someone live with you or as small as having a weekly meal for the single parents in your community).

The mark of evangelism/disciple making is a little more fuzzy to me. After speaking with Ron Sider (of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger fame), he suggested this as a third discipline for this order. It's "mark" may not be as evident or clear-cut as the other two, but I think it is a central part of the mission of the church and thus, the mission of the church's elders. And it may help keep the other two disciplines rooted in the grace of the gospel rather than becoming ends in themselves.

This order would share deeply and openly with one another to help one another live in this manner. It would include regular national meetings (probably annually) and regular annual conference chapter meetings. It also could spread to include a lay chapter. It could also include chapters in several different denominations. I imagine several steps into this order (similar to a monastic novitiate, etc.) that would include a progression of becoming debt-free and learning to live at this level of simplicity. It will also have to include spouses in some way given that the commitment would be a family-wide commitment. I also imagine local annual-conference chapters meeting at their annual conference and sharing very openly about how they are doing (think: sharing income tax files, etc.).

Envision a church not hampered by the salary ladder where pastors regularly go “up” and “down” the ladder. Envision pastors living simple lives in such a way that their actions speak as loudly as their words in the pulpit. Envision building friendships with those who are different than we are, and in the process meeting Jesus. This is the kind of vision I have for an Order of St. James. I offer it to you, because I need your help, your community and covenant, to be able to live into it myself. I cannot do it alone. Let me know if you’re interested in further discussion.

Peace,
Tom Arthur

Christians and Jews

2008-04-08T22:26:00.002-04:00

Should Christians share Jesus with Jews?

Audio for "No Male for Female"

2008-04-08T17:17:00.001-04:00

Levine & Witherington

Sabbath

2008-04-05T09:13:00.002-04:00

When I took the DSC survey I got pretty annoyed with all of the questions concerning sabbath and so I think this may be an issue where enough difference exists to allow for healthy debate. Clearly some thought sabbath language important enough to have so many questions, and I think Chapman assigned a book specifically on sabbath, so here are my thoughts baiting a reaction.

Sabbath does not equal rest. Rest does not equal sabbath. Rest does not equal not working. Not working does not equal working on something other than your occupation. (This list would have been easier with not equals signs, but I do what I can).

To say that we can choose our own sabbath is take to completely hollow out the meaning of sabbath, which I hold coming from the end of Genesis 1 and the Decalogue (I would also through in parts of Revelation, but I think that is for another time). Sabbath is a reaction to what God has done and what God has commanded to be done. It is not a method for greater efficiency or stress control. It is not a method for anything. To take the name sabbath for a personally chosen day of rest is to create an idol of yourself in that you can choose when rest is and that sabbath is about you and not God (choosing your own sabbath and devoting it to devotionals is not an answer out of this predicament).

The other main difficulty I have with this conception of sabbath is the understanding of work which undergirds it. If being a divinity student is work, reading something outside of class is work just the same. So are recreational activities, or even service activities. Sabbath is not about keeping us sane. Call it rest. Say your not going to do school work on Tuesdays or on Saturdays because you need rest. That is probably the case, but because we may need it does not make it sabbath.

Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. I really want to start talking about eschatology now, peacefulness, creation, etc., but I think I am going to leave what I have.

Audio Files for Theology Talks

2008-04-03T14:23:00.002-04:00

For those of you interested in listening to the theology talks, please follow these links and you should be able to listen to and/or download the talks.
Hauerwas on Hauerwas
Fulkerson on Feminism - Sorry this talk is not available, there was a problem with the recording. If you made a recording of it that works, please let me know.
Hall on the Yale School
Fulkerson on Schleiermacher
Freeman on Barth Verhey on Niebuhr
Please leave a comment if you have any trouble with these links.

Idolatry

2008-03-16T13:03:00.002-04:00

Is college basketball an idol and how should the divinity school respond to it if it is? Yes, I know it can be an idol for some and not for others. Yes, I know there can be a happy medium, living in the tensions, et cetera. How many people who say that basketball obsession can be healthy are deceiving themselves, and how many people who call it an idol don't care about basketball at all?

Audio Files for Theology Talks

2008-03-12T20:29:00.002-04:00

For those of you interested in listening to the theology talks, please follow these links and you should be able to listen to and/or download the talks.

Hall on the Yale School

Fulkerson on Schleiermacher

Freeman on Barth

Verhey on Niebuhr

Please leave a comment if you have any trouble with these links.

Duke Theology - Linbeck - Propositional Truth

2008-03-06T17:06:00.002-05:00

Can someone explain to me what Dr. Hall read from Linbeck about propositional truth and radical orthodoxy's critique of Linbeck? What does he believe about propositional truth (or not believe)?

How Does Jesus Save mp3

2008-02-28T12:42:00.002-05:00

For anyone who prefers mp3 to wma here is another link. The sound is slightly louder on this link.

How Does Jesus Save?

How Does Jesus Save Us? Audio File

2008-02-26T23:09:00.005-05:00

Here's the audio file for our event.

How Does Jesus Save Us?

Can we move a discussion about this event to that blog: www.socraticclubtwoviews.blogspot.com. I'm curious about reactions.

Theology Talks

2008-02-23T19:49:00.003-05:00

For those of you interested in listening to the theology talks, please follow the following links and you should be able to listen to and/or download the talks.

Fulkerson on Schleiermacher

Freeman on Barth

Verhey on Niebuhr

Please leave a comment if you have any trouble with these links.

Duke Theology Series - Verhey on Niebuhr

2008-02-21T13:45:00.001-05:00

Duke Theology
Intro – Dr. Verhey

Announce: How Does Jesus Save Us?
Feb 26 @ 7:00-8:30 PM
Dr. Randy Maddox & Dr. David Hogg (SEBTS)
www.socraticclubtwoviews.blogspot.com

Welcome to the third lecture/discussion in our Duke Theology series co-sponsored by the Duke Socratic Club and the Women’s Center. If you haven’t been here before and this is your first time, I’d like to direct you to our Duke Socratic Club Blog: dukesocraticclub.blogspot.com. There are at least two reasons that all of you will want to take a look at this:

First, it explains what this series is about and how it is organized. You’ll find opening comments from earlier lectures that describe the assumptions of the planners.

Second, many of you have asked me if these are being recorded. Well, I am recording them, and I don’t know how great the recording is, but the links to those recordings are posted on our blog. A big thanks to Tim Otto, an MTS student who graduated last year and moved back to his community in California. He is making those online postings work for us. Socratic Club now reaches all the way across the nation (and the world…).

I’d like to answer publically a question that was asked me recently. One of you who have been attending this series pointed out to me that the integration of each theologian lectured on with Duke theology has come more in the Q&A time than in the lecture time. This is true, but it will, I think, begin to be more integrated the closer we get to today and living theologians (or recently living). Also, the professors we have asked to do these lectures may not necessarily buy into our conversation assumptions about a convergence of voices here at Duke that we are describing as a Duke Theology. In fact, none of them have even been in the conversation until this point. So one further assumption that the planners of this series hold is that the speakers may or may not agree with our assumptions. And that is fine. Socratic Club exists to bring together different views in various forms of dialogue for the sake of the gospel.

The lectures are intended to give a basic vocabulary and language to help carry the conversation. Many of us third years experienced this phenomena: in our classes we heard Barth mentioned, we heard Schleiermacher mentioned, we heard Niebuhr, Frei, Linbeck, Childs, and so on mentioned but we hadn’t actually read or discussed any of them. Another way to think of this series is as Church History 15. What happened between Schleiermacher, the last lecture given us by Dr. Steinmetz, and Systematic Theology with Dr. Wainwright or Dr. Carter?

That the integration of a particular lecture’s topic with Duke doesn’t happen until the Q&A is just fine at this point in the game. We hope the series as a whole will be more helpful than any one lecture specifically. Stick it out with us.

So enough about that…On to Dr. Verhey and the “good Niebuhr” as he referred to him last time. Dr. Verhey…

Invisible Baptism!

2008-02-13T20:04:00.002-05:00

I just came across this quote in the Ancient Christian Commentary.

"It has happened that an unbaptized person has received the forgiveness of his sins. Was such a person invisibly baptized, considering that he received the gift which belongs to baptism?" - Ambrosiaster

This reminds me of Tom M.'s comment - "If you want an invisible church then you can have an invisible Eucharist." Well, Tom, now we can add to that list an invisible baptism as well. Full speed ahead for the invisible church!

Theology Talks

2008-02-13T19:13:00.006-05:00

For those of you interested in listening to the theology talks, please follow the following links and you should be able to listen to and/or download the talks.

Fulkerson on Schleiermacher

Freeman on Barth

Please leave a comment if you have any trouble with these links.

No Title

2008-02-09T13:56:00.000-05:00

What makes for a good theologian?

"It is living--no, rather dying, suffering, and facing damnation, not reading, thinking and speculating, that makes a theologian" -- Luther

Barth & Race?

2008-02-07T17:04:00.000-05:00

So here's an impression I have. It could be wrong. My impression is that generally people who are interested in Barthian kind of interests (Trinitarian studies, etc.), tend not to be very interested in contextual kind of interests (race, gender, etc.). I see this in myself even at times. Here's my question: Why is this the case when Barth's entire theological project was done in the context of issues of race (i.e. German, Arian race) and conflict (WWI & WWII)? Are these just caricatures?

Recommended Books Feature?

2008-02-04T08:35:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends,

In anticipation of so many of us moving into parish and academic life beyond the Triangle area in coming months (and some of us are already part of the Duke diaspora), I wonder if we might be able to add a feature to this blog to share news of books/resources that we feel are worthy of sharing for each other's attention. I know that sharing with several of you has been a huge part of my Duke education. I have bought countless books because some of you have suggested them to me and I hope that will continue.

To that end, I want to share the news of a new commentary that I appreciate: The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter.

I became a big-time fan of Robert Alter as a result of Ellen Davis' having us use his Five Books of Moses in our 2005-6 OT survey class. He is a great resource for literary analysis of the OT and especially for David.

You can find a review of Alter's latest commentary here.

NT vs OT

2008-02-03T21:04:00.000-05:00

Dear Socratic Scholars,

I came across an interesting passage in Hays’ Moral Vision of the NT and wanted to know what you made of it: “The NT’s witness if finally normative. If irreconcilable tensions exist between the moral vision of the NT and that of particular OT texts, the NT vision trumps the OT.”

Some how I don’t see Davis conceding such a point, ever.

What are your thoughts?
-Steve

Duke Theology Series...Or How Did We Get Here?

2008-02-01T12:30:00.000-05:00

Here's the intro I put together and presented at our first lecture in the series. I thought since I took the time to write it, I'd put it up here for comments.

Duke Theology Series – An Introduction

Welcome to the first of the Duke Socratic Club and Women’s Center series on Duke Theology…or How did we get here?

If you do not attend Socratic Club regularly or have not been involved in the planning of this event, then you are joining into a conversation that is already in progress. There are several assumptions that this conversation has developed. I want to share those with you up front so you are not entirely lost. While you may not agree with the assumptions, they are important to understand because they guide the way this series is put together. Let me share those assumptions by telling the story of how this came be.

The seed of thought for this series began several months ago in a weekly Socratic Club meeting and then continued thereafter for many weeks on our Socratic Club blog (all of you are welcome to read through that discussion: www.dukesocraticclub.blogspot.com and join in). Every week at Socratic Club, students come together to ask one another questions and discuss them. That week’s question was: Is there a Duke theology? And if there is, what are its contours? Another way to ask the question in a somewhat more sarcastic manner is this: What is considered “orthodox” (small “o”) here at Duke and what is considered “heresy” (small “h”) here at Duke?

Let me give you a small example of what we mean by this. One day in Dr. Wacker’s American Christianity class, Dr. Wacker was describing all the different denominations that exist in the United States. The chart was breathtaking. One student raised their hand and asked, “Do you find all these denominations disturbing?” Dr. Wacker responded, “No. Not a bit. I have no problem with it at all. Actually its great. Because what it represents is the rainbow of Christian expression.” There was an audible gasp in the room. At Duke, one isn’t allowed to think that the variety of denominations is a good thing. Ecumenical dialogue on unity is the major voice or major stream of thought at Duke. But how did we get to this place? Is it possible for the fish to examine the stream within which it swims?

This conversation and this series work under the assumption that the answer to the question of whether there is a Duke theology is, “Yes.” This is not to suggest that there is an entirely homogenous or unified voice at Duke (or that there ought to be). But rather that there is a major voice and several minor voices. Or to put it another way, there is a broad stream or current of thought. Alongside this broad stream of thought are certainly several smaller streams or currents. The goal of this series is to understand the major voice of theology at Duke or the broad stream of thought so that we might better engage it both appreciatively and critically. By studying these major voices we also have the opportunity to understand why some other voices are minor. None of this is to suggest that the major voices are better. We’re trying to describe what we see here at Duke. Hopefully this will help everyone better engage, again, both appreciatively and critically, the air that we breathe and the water that we swim in here at Duke.

The second assumption we hold about Duke Theology is the course of this current over time. The source of the stream begins with Schleiermacher. This is not necessarily because Schleiermacher is generally greatly appreciated here at Duke. In fact, Schleiermacher and other “liberal protestants” as they are sometimes referred to, often seem to be what the major voice at Duke is speaking against. Schleiermacher is considered the father of liberal theology. And so our conversation and exploration begin with him. Following Schleiermacher the stream runs through Barth. Barth appears to be the primary foundation upon which much of the major voice of Duke Theology is based. Surprisingly, I will have graduated in May without having Barth assigned to read in any of my classes! Following Barth, the stream jumps the pond to the Niebuhr brothers in America and then travels through Yale divinity school’s George Linbeck and Brevard Childs which is sometimes referred to as “post-liberalism” or “post-critical.” From there the stream flows down south to Duke with Stanley Hauerwas and his sometimes larger than life presence and influence at Duke. Along the way we will take some time to explore some of the minor voices at Duke to understand why they are “minor” here but “major” in many other seminaries around the country.

My description of the stream of thought leading up to Duke is a greatly over-simplified description. Actually, I don’t know it well enough myself. That’s why I’ve helped along with many others (including Phil Anderas, Christa Mazzone, and Leah Welch) to put this series together. If my description of this phenomena of Duke Theology has in some way not been true to your experience here, then I ask you to forgive me and to help me and others see things through your eyes over the next several months. This isn’t a one time event. The Socratic Club and Women’s Center are taking a risk to try to understand and describe more fully the air we breathe and the water we swim in so that we might ultimately be more faithful to the Gospel we are called to preach and the Kingdom of God that has drawn near.

Today we begin with Schleiermacher. Dr. Mary McClinton Fulkerson, professor of Theology, has graciously agreed to begin our series by helping us understand this seminal figure. She will be back again to help us explore womanist theology later in the series. I think you all know her well enough, and she needs no further introduction. Dr. Fulkerson…

A post from Dar

2008-01-18T17:20:00.000-05:00

WHERE THEOLOGY MEETS THE ROAD . . .
(I'm sorry, I don't know how to post a new thread. But this kinda relates to this thread.)

This is what happened in our "living in paradise" city (of Honolulu, HI) yesterday:

Headline: "Babysitter throws toddler off Honolulu overpass"
- full story at www.honoluluadvertiser.com
(on Friday, January 18 -- you may have to go to the archive section if viewing after today)

In one response to this, one blogger commentor wrote, "When these things happen all I'm able to do is curl up in a ball. I won't read anything else about these tragedies as soon as I see the headline. There's no way to extinguish the pain. It happens every day all over the world, over and over. I get my faith confirmed every day: THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Just us out here on a ball, a maddening species with all the free will in the universe. We never seem to tire of killing each other finding, new ways to do it and finding new ways to deny our responsibility. Voices? So what? insanity is no excuse for anything."

I'm interested to know (from all you current or future pastors/ministers/theology teachers), what is your theological response and what does that look like in "real-world" ministry (as in addressing something like this horrible event)?

Anyone there?/ Favorite theologian

2008-01-16T17:15:00.000-05:00

Since this blog has been dormant for some time, I thought I'd test the waters with a question to see if anyone is out there. Who is your favorite theologian, one dead and one living? Give a one or two sentence explanation of reasons why.

We need not be bound by strict disciplinary boundaries. Read "theologian" in a broad sense, i.e. Brevard Childs, Ellen Davis, the Niebuhr's, and others are eligible.

Club Audit

2007-11-28T10:16:00.000-05:00

Dear Socratics,
In considering the longevity of our little club I believe we need a honest self-evaluation. I offer for starting this the following question for your consideration:
1) How can Socratic Club be made better?

Some Thoughts on Inclusive Language and the Trinity

2007-11-27T16:39:00.000-05:00

I know that all of you weren't at our event today on inclusive language and the Trinity. So I thought I'd post my brief paper that I presented as a panelist for continued feedback. So here it is:

Two arguments are made for not tinkering with the language of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The first is that a name can not be substituted by a function (“Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer”), and a functional description of any person of the Trinity is heresy. I agree with this critique. The second is that “Father” is the name that Jesus called the first person of the Trinity and ought not to be changed out of obedience to Jesus. This second argument I have some trouble with. First, if “Father” was the name that Jesus called the first person of the Trinity, then why translate rather than transliterate it into English. We have not translated “Jesus” as “God saves.” Using the actual name that Jesus used would be either Abba or Pater. These would be appropriate transliterations rather than translations. Second, naming God as “Father” goes beyond what the text says Jesus is doing. When I call my own dad and say, “Dad, how are you doing?”, I have not used his name. His name is John. Thus, putting this restriction upon the name of God as only “Father” is more than Jesus does himself. Jesus has two names for God: abba, and pater.
My reservations with the second argument for the language of the Trinity might suggest that I am ready to throw it off quickly and get on with finding my own names. But I am not. This language, while flawed, has been the ecumenically agreed upon language for centuries and has special privilege because it comes from ecumenical councils. To throw it off would be to suggest that I have the authority to decide what is and is not appropriate God language. I am not a democratic nor a populist theologian. Over the centuries, this language has been articulated as not connotating masculinity within the Trinity. The church has the authority to create a narratable world with its own grammar and language that means what it says it means and within which it asks its members to live. Thus, “Father” within Trinitarian language does not mean “male” and ought to continue to be used within key liturgical rites such as baptism. Yet, could this be creatively stretched by using “patros and uios and agios pneuma”?
On the other hand, outside of those key liturgical rites where the Trinitarian name is the standard grammar, the names of God are flexible. We often refer to God in liturgical prayers as “Our Rock,” or “Our Creator,” or “Our…[you fill in the blank with numerous names/functions we give to God].” One name/function that is appropriate in this setting is “Our Mother.” But there is tremendous pressure not to use this name/function at all (regardless of whether the Trinitarian language is being invoked or not). This is unfortunate and is an opportunity for teaching within the local congregation.

Welcome Back to High School

2007-11-17T07:00:00.000-05:00

In my newest reincarnation as a high school Bible teacher, I've been working hard to get my students thinking about the Bible from a christological perspective. One of the ways I've been doing this is using the prosperity gospel as a test case. They're very used to being asked to come up with a "biblical perspective" on issues, but the prosperity gospel can sound an awful lot like a "biblical perspective" to them (since, well, it can be supported with Scripture). I'm in the midst of grading their papers right now, and it occurred to me that it might be fun to see what you guys would come up if you were in my class.

So here's your assignment:

Read this devotional by Dr. Creflo Dollar, a leading prosperity gospel preacher in Atlanta.

In one paragraph (3-4 sentences), summarize Dr. Dollar's argument.

Pick three verses that Dr. Dollar uses in this devotional. For each verse, do the following:
1. In a sentence or two, describe how this verse fits into Dollar’s argument.
2. In two or three sentences, describe the Scriptural context within which this verse appears. Questions to think about might include: Is it in the Old Testament or New Testament? Who says it? What’s going on?
3. In two or three sentences, explore the difference Jesus makes to the way in which we should understand the verse. If the verse seems to promise riches and safety, what should we do with the fact that Jesus was homeless and crucified (but is now reigning in glory after being raised from the dead)? Could we reread the verse as talking about a different kind of riches and safety? Does Jesus show a way of getting riches and safety that Dr. Dollar might hesitate to promote?
Based on your summary of Dr. Dollar’s argument (step 1) and your analysis of the Scripture verses he uses (step 2), write a paragraph that discusses what you think Dr. Dollar gets right and what he gets wrong. If you met somebody who agreed with Dr. Dollar, what would you say?

Your essays are due on ... never mind. :)

from a possible duke heretic

2007-11-13T19:52:00.000-05:00

Hi Everyone,
Thanks Tom A for inviting me to participate. I have been reading your blog on the topic of Duke Theology/Heresy
I am wondering, what do people think metaphysically happens to a heretic, or what are the consequences?
Also, I have been informed that groups like the women's center and sacred worth are duke heretics. So I am wondering in very specific terms, why?
In other words, what does it mean to be a heretic in detail?
In some of your posts you all have been throwing out names and using "code words" that I am not familiar with because I am more interested in folks like Dr. McClintock Fulkerson... Does that make me a heretic, and if so why?
So I ask you to be aware of your language and explain discipline specific terms.
Also one of you threw out Fulkerson's name. I get the notion that she stands for a certain idea or set of ideas but I have no idea what they are....

Kingdom of God and the Church

2007-11-07T10:08:00.000-05:00

Is the Kingdom of God the church?

It's practical

2007-10-21T08:08:00.000-04:00

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?

2007-10-18T21:44:00.001-04:00

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?

2007-10-09T16:52:00.000-04:00

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

2007-10-07T21:51:00.000-04:00

Does catholicity come in degrees?

RSS

2007-09-30T15:40:00.001-04:00

Wilson,
Is there a way to get an RSS feed on this blog so that I know when new posts have been added? If its already set up to do that, can you explain to me how to tap into that?
Thanks,
Tom

Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Church Orders

2007-09-26T06:40:00.000-04:00

The headline above is not mine; it is from the New York Times this morning.

Bottom line: The Episcopal Church bishops seem to have fudged once more, but many feel what they gave is not enough. The schismatic ship of the evangelical right was not given words which might have caused it to turn around.

You can read some interesting analysis of what they actually said, which the NYTimes article does not really "get" at Covenant, where we have five authors who have already done penetrating analysis of what this means.

My question: how will the Methodists and Presbyterians avoid this?

What is Duke Theology?

2007-09-23T15:05:00.000-04:00

So, fish don't think about the water they swim in. Post-liberalism wasn't mentioned in any of my classes until last fall, and I don't know that it's been mentioned since. But that hasn't stopped many from imbibing the spirit of the old time Yale religion: although this hasn't forced us to actually think explicitly about the koolaid. We've been here for a while now; it's time to take account of what we've learned. I'd like to hear what my buddies think Duke theology is. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest some things that it is not. To get the conversation going, here are some proposals of what count as Duke heresies.

It's a Duke heresy to believe in:

1. The magisterial authority of God's Word written. This is best explained by noting the two sub-heresies that coalesce on this point: (a) the inerrancy of Scripture (b) the idea that the Bible can be interpreted apart from the community of faith.

2. "Propositional" theology. Dukies suspect propositions, fundamentally, because they have accepted the postmodern critique of metanarratives expressed via timeless, metaphysical systems. Accordingly, they suspect readings of Scripture that import extraneous philosophical language and conceptualities: that is, extraneous to either (a) the Bible (b) Karl Barth [that is, German Idealism] (c) Wittgenstein. And, despite the fact that Jesus said that he is the truth, this all leaves Dukies wary of making "truth claims" that could be thought to stand apart from the story as it is embodied in the community of faith. Problematically, this all leaves Dukies at odds with most of the greatest interpreters of the community's past; still, Dukies are certain that propositions are not fit for theology--even if they have to use propositions to express their disdain.

3. A strong distinction between Gospel and Church, soteriology and ecclesiology. If someone says something like, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved," Dukies can be sure that he is a heretic, even if he is an apostle or an angel from heaven, because he's ignored the church.

4. Justification by Faith Alone, according to the "Lutheran" interpretation.

5. Supercessionism.

6. The invisibility of the Church. And, it should be noted, the rejection of this Protestant hallmark goes far in pushing many Dukies to the Roman Church.

7. Just war theory, even of the most rigorous variety (e.g., the Roman variety); and, more broadly, Christianly philosophical attempts to "justify" the "state," its "order," and its "justice." Appeal is sometimes made to Augustine, but only his negative evaluation of Roman claims to possess justice--never to his correlative positive valuation, based on his innovative theory that a commonwealth is a society of rational beings united by common agreement as to the common objects of their love. Exception: Yoder's middle axioms, grass-roots protesting, etc.

It's really very simple to test whether or not any particular idea is a Duke heresy. Just strike up a conversation with a fellow student about something, casually imply that you think, for example, that the gospel is not ultimately reducible to ecclesiology, and watch what happens. So, what do you all think? What is Duke theology?

The Littlest Socratic

2007-09-16T12:51:00.000-04:00

Well, he's here: Josiah James Woodard-Lehman. Over two weeks early, working ahead of schedule already. Here's a photo of his first bedtime story, "On Forgiveness." Watch your back Zizek!

Everybody is happy and healthy. Looking forward to seeing you all soon. And thanks for what I am sure will be overwhelmingly generous and delicious meals.

Operation Diaper Drop 2.

2007-09-14T19:18:00.001-04:00

It seems that the little guy is eager to meet us.

The fun starts tomorrow. Who's up?

--Edit--

Latest SMS message from the big D, says Jed is running a bit shy at the moment. Prayers for mom.

-pkj

Operation Diaper Drop.

2007-09-04T09:31:00.001-04:00

Friends,

Soon there will be one more among us. Tara is more than ready for this pregnant thing to be over, and Derek is maintaining his calm cool and collected self. (Yet we all know he's on pins and needles with excitement!)

When the day and the munchkin arrive, Tara and Derek will be juggling many things. In an effort to let the family recuperate, let us band together to provide them with meals for the family.

The idea is that we can use the comments of this section to sign up for day 1, day 2, etc. Please use day # designators because we don't know when Muchkin Woodard-Lehman will grace us with his presence.

There is an ancillary conspiracy at Peace College, where Tara is a beloved saint. I will be coordinating with the Peace College homies, and posting their selected days in the comments for them. Once the list is setup for a couple weeks, a finalized one will be posted.

NB: If you would like to cook / provide but cannot deliver to Raleigh, sign up anyway and I'll deliver for ya.

Denominationalism and ontology

2007-09-03T16:40:00.000-04:00

With the return to classes many of us (who are still at Duke, I am looking at you Japanese flag) have gone through some sort of scripted introductions, most of which include denominational affiliation. Like most of these sorts of questions, this one is far deeper than can be encapsulated into a 2-minute meet and greet, but it is a pressing one, I feel, especially for ministry. Where is the point that we can affiliate ourselves with a Church, practice at a Church, become a member of a Church, and then become methodist or presbyterian or episcopalian. I know craig has an affinity for the language of ecclesial whore but I wonder if the language of description has been lost amidst denominationalism and so that we know longer describe our Church by saying "I am anabaptist" but actually claim that as a part of our esse, and if this is the case, what does it mean that we can claim something of our esse.

Or maybe I am taking introductions too seriously and this will be another post no one cares about...

Update on questions raised about credit and usury

2007-09-01T10:11:00.000-04:00

In July of this year, Wilson raised questions about credit and usury to which I responded with a portrait of life for a Galilean peasant in an effort to locate Jesus' parables within a context that may well provide helpful interpretative keys in our consideration of questions of usury.

Towards the end of that thread, Wes asked questions about bibliographic sources that help us to examine the ancient context. I responded with several, all of which, as I recall, I found in NT Wright's Victory of God (or the series).

I post now to lift up a single chapter in a book that provides a relatively concise summary of all of this material. Indeed I think the entire book is a treasure. I commend chapter 2 of Ched Meyer's Binding the Straw Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus as the best summary I have found of fairly recent scholarship on the socio-economic and geo-political context of the first century. One caveat I must add is that I have not investigated how that scholarship has evolved since publication of Meyer's commentary. And for those who don't recall, this is the commentary that Dean Sam Wells calls the single most important commentary since Barth's commentary on Romans (or something to that hyperbolic effect).

The Judicious Mr. Hooker and the Episcopal Church

2007-08-31T09:16:00.001-04:00

I'm sorry for yet another Anglican post, but I fear this is of interest to others of other churches as well.

I'm reading a bit of Richard Hooker, often considered the primordial Anglican, or at least the first Anglican rationalist. And for that, he is sometimes enlisted by the liberal strand within Anglicanism as a sort of founding father (itself ironic, for it seems strange that liberals would make appeals to authority. But I digress). Among other things, he got himself in a big broohaha because of a sermon he preached in which he suggested that many of his English forbears, although led astray by popish errors, may well nevertheless, in the mercy of God, be saved. When the puritans flipped out about that, he preached another sermon to defend himself, "A Learned Discourse on Justification."

In it, as we might expect from a very rational thinker, he makes distinctions, perhaps the biggest being the difference between ERROR and HERESY. Error is what we do in our papers all the time, we make mistakes: but if we're corrected by the truth of God's Word, we humbly submit. Heresy is when we obstinately oppose ourselves to the truth of God's Word, even after a brother or sister (or council) has attempted to lead us out of our error. Good stuff, that.

So, his popish forbears were undoubtedly in error, because they believed that they were saved, not by Christ alone through grace by faith, but by works as well. But they weren't heretics, because they sinned in ignorance, and no one corrected them. They were in error; and, to paraphrase St. Peter, love covers a multitude of theological errors. And besides, surely on their deathbeds thousands of poor English farmers said something like, "I am a poor sinner, and I trust in Christ alone, he is my only Savior."

Now for the second distinction. One could either deny the foundation of the Christian faith DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. What might that involve? Well, he's pretty plain about the foundation: "salvation purchased by the death of Christ." This, of course, includes the identity of Christ (viz., Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy), his saving work, and, by derivation, sola gratia, sola fide. In short, Saracens and infidels deny the faith DIRECTLY, because they do not confess what we confess in the Creeds. Papists deny the faith INDIRECTLY: they confess the Creeds, they believe in salvation through Christ alone, but their confusion of inherent for external righteousness denies by consequent that salvation is, strictly, through Christ alone.

Now, the interesting thing is that Hooker pulls together his two distinctions. If a papist, who denies the Faith indirectly, does so merely in error: surely we should not doubt that God, in his mercy, will grant salvation to him as well. But if that same papist obstinately insists that apart from works he cannot be saved, he is a heretic, and his indirect denial of the foundation becomes, shall we say, more dangerous. But there is still hope, says Hooker, because even the stubborn papist still denies the foundation only indirectly: he still confesses the Nicene Creed.

Then he makes this really interesting observation, again because he is a very rational man. He points out that the ancient fathers had two major sorts of arguments on their hands: first, against those who denied the faith DIRECTLY (Origen contra Celsus); second, those who did so INDIRECTLY (Augustine contra Pelagius). Those of the first sort had to prove the foundation; those of the second argued from the foundation, and showed thereby why their opponents were indirectly denying it. It doesn't do any good to argue from the authority of Scripture or the Creeds that, say, God is Trinity, if one is arguing with someone who doesn't accept those authorities. On the other hand, if you're dealing with an Arius who really does believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then your conversation is going to be of a different sort. This is all very much like Thomas, by the way; that's why Hooker is interesting.

Which all leads to my question. Is it really fair to call, say, Spong, a heretic? I have in the past, and I'm starting to wonder about that. I think he's really a pagan. And the same goes for others of a like mind. What do you guys think? And, how do you think this changes the way we should craft our discussions/arguments on this front?

Now the hard question. "All infidels deny the foundation of faith directly: by consequent, many a Christian man, yea whole Christian churches, have denied it, and do deny it at this present day. Christian churches denying the foundation of Christianity? Not directly, for then they cease to be Christian churches; but by consequent, in respect whereof we condemn them as erroneous, although for holding the foundation, we do and must hold them Christian." If Hooker could say that about Rome, and justify the English schism, I can't even begin to imagine why I should have any scruples about "splitting" from the Episcopal "church." That's not my question. My question is simply, has TEC denied the faith directly? Is the Episcopal church, a church?

Mary in the Old Testament

2007-08-21T10:02:00.000-04:00

Gary Anderson has published a good article about Mary that I commend to all. It also provides a helpful reminder of the "two-testaments to Christ" hermeneutic that Ellen and Richard and Kavin teach...Gary Anderson WAS at Notre Dame, but is now headed to Toronto Wycliffe Hall to be a part of the new Centre for Biblical Interpretation that includes Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz. They think they blow away the Duke faculty in talent (insists Seitz).

You may find Gary's article, Mary in the Old Testament, here.

I now await the first wiseacre to note the irony in me of all people posting an article about Mary...

Models of Communion: Performing Our Christian Identity

2007-08-19T15:38:00.000-04:00

Dear friends,

I wanted to let you know about an essay I wrote that I hope you will take time to read. It is published by the Anglican Communion Institute right here.

There is a preface that talks about a vocational change for me - about me seeking ordination within the Episcopal Church. That part was edited by Ephraim Radner, and he knows something about my future that I don't know. He may have found a bishop within TEC willing to take a risk on a conservative, but I don't know that yet. The fact is that I withdrew from candidacy for ordination in the ACN in protest of their public statements disavowing Canterbury and embracing global schism. The preface explains this briefly, and the essay develops the theological case that led me to that decision. And many of my friends have urged me to be ordained instead within TEC, but there are many ways to skin a cat, and I feel quite confident that the Lord will give me both the skinning knife and the cat he wants me to skin in due time.

One question I have of you. It occurs to me that I arrived at Duke in 2005 a liberal Protestant who thought Catholic was a dirty word, and the free church mentality was simply the Gospel truth that Saint Tom (Jefferson) had achieved for us. Now I find myself a frickin' catholic! Did this happen to any of you? And if so, how did this happen? Is it in the water?

This essay will require at least two tylenol and 20-30 minutes to read. All of you will recognize that nothing in it is original, but is standard Duke-ese. But I think you may find it provocative, particularly in light of Tom's question about the nature of being a Christian.

I wish you all God's richest blessings, and I can't wait to be reunited in just a few weeks.

Craig

Who then is a Christian?

2007-08-15T15:17:00.000-04:00

I'm adapting John Wesley's Sermon, On God's Vineyard (#107), for my own sermon this Sunday. As I was reading his sermon I was reminded of an old conversation that Wilson and I had last year. I submit Wesley's answer to the question in the title:

Who then is a Christian, according to the light which God hath vouchsafed to this people? He that, being "justified by faith, hath peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" and, at the same time, is "born again," "born from above," "born of the Spirit;" inwardly changed from the image of the devil, to that "image of God wherein he was created:" He that finds the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him; and whom this love sweetly constrains to love his neighbor, every man, as himself: He that has learned of his Lord to be meek and lowly in heart, and in every state to be content: He in whom is that whole mind, all those tempers, which were also in Christ Jesus: He that abstains from all appearance of evil in his actions, and that offends not with his tongue: He that walks in all the commandments of God, and in all his ordinances, blameless: He that, in all his intercourse with men, does to others as he would they should do to him; and in his whole life and conversation, whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he doeth, doeth all to the glory of God.

Cur Deus Homo: Badiou Redux (aka - my random thoughts from the OBGYN waiting room)

2007-08-13T16:22:00.000-04:00

Socratics (et al): Among the many things I've read this summer was Hallward's excellent treatment of Badiou. I've also spent a lot of time polishing and reworking my Campell essay in which Badiou plays a significant part. Thus, Alain and his notion of Event, Subject, and Truth have been rattling around my head all summer. And, as he and Campbell are frequently invoked in our discussions and posts, I thought I'd post this (semi)random reflection about he and Anselm, with a cameo by J Denny Weaver. It is literally a transcription of some journal paragraphs I made in the waiting room of our OBGYN this past week. (If you somehow have not yet heard, we're expecting our first child this fall.) It's not so much an argument, as a rumination about how Badiou might allow us to retool Anselm in such a way as to better achieve what Weaver unsuccessfully attempts in Nonviolent Atonement.

Cur Deus Homo: Badiou Redux

"None but man should satisfy God's justice, but none but God can satisfy man's debt" - Anslem
"That which he did not assume, he did not redeem" - Naziansus
"God became man, that man might become God" - Athanasius

Badiou contends that the crucifixion/death are not constitutive of redemption. "Death as such counts for nothing in the operation of salvation...Resurrection alone is a given of the event which mobilizes the site whose operation is salvation...For death is an operation in the situation, an operation that immanentizes the evental site, while resurrection is the event as such" (70). Death and the crucifixion belong to the configuration (state) of this present age - the flesh. Resurrection is the irruption (event) of the age to come - the spirit. Though the rhetoric is perhaps overstated, the logic seems right. It is, perhaps, a better articulation of what J. Denny Weaver attempts in Nonviolent Atonement. How does this map onto Anselm's Cur Deus Homo? First there is the Chalcedonian insistance, "That which he did not assume, he did not redeem." And second there is Anselm's own formulation of man's obligation and God's ability. Though the penal (and/or economic) inflection is incompatible with Badiou. The "should" and "can" cannot be construed as debt and payment. That is, contra Anselm, redemption cannot be achieved via a satisfaction reducible to death/crucifixion.

What then? First, in order for redemption to be real, for a truly new subjective path to be opened, Christ must be fully human. If his obedience and resurrection are purely and solely predicated on his divinity, they are unrepeatable and thus unavailable. But this does not merely reduce to a reiteration of the subsequent Abelardian "moral exemplar" paradigm. Christ is not just an example to be followed via imitatio; he is the prototype and paradigm of participatio. This is the real, ontological, subjective import of being the second Adam.

This leaves the second clause of the modified Anselmian dictum; "only God can." And here the moves become more challenging. Two things are necessary. First, one must specify why the above subjective path and participatio not only are not, but further cannot be made available otherwise. And second, one must specify how the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection make these available, without adverting to a substitutionary-satisfaction schema. What, then, are the possibilities for nonviolent redemption (even Weaver's choice of "atonement" betrays his point)?

The first collapses back into the "man must" clause. Only by actually being human is participatio (and thereby imitatio) possible. This is problematic for two reasons. First it is open to an adoptionist schema. God could adopt and divinize a human, and subsequently do the same with every other human. Second, there is no way to justify this other than as a dogmatic claim. And I do not mean dogmatic in the Barthian sense of "on grounds internal to the Church, her Scriptures, and her Tradition. Absent the substitutionary-satisfaction motif, this claim is itself specifically dogmatic, within the Barthian generic sense of dogmatic. Or as Badiou would prefer it if he were a theologian, this can only be declared axiomatically. But this would leave the substance and rationale of the "only God can" clause ill-defined.

A second possibility is to argue on narratological grounds. This is, in nuce, Weaver's line. The focal text here would be the Parable of the Vineyard (Matthew 21, Mark 12, Luke 20, Thomas 65-66). The can and must relate as an narrative imperative of divine self-disclosure as the longsuffering, forebearing, and forgiving God whose own self-son is sacrificed before an ultimate retributive intervention. God must do so in order to sufficiently reveal the peaceful and reconciliatory character of the Trinity's immanent life and redemptive movement toward humanity. While compelling on narratological grounds, this does nothing to clarify why participatio is necessarily unavailable otherwise, or how it is available subsequently. Thus it collapses into the previous dogmatic-axiomatic declaration, albeit as an amplification. And/or it amounts to a theological iteration of the exemplar model, except that in this case the exemplification is of God's own self, rather than a moral ideal.

Thus it seems we must seek another option, something approaching the Christus Victor paradigm, but with ontological and ethical import for human subjects. On this paradigm, the necessity is full and absolute submission to the powers - obedience even unto death on the cross, and then their overcoming. "Only God can" overcome and make a show of the powers via resurrection. Only God can take their ultimate dominion and turn it into their ultimate destruction. Thus the specific necessity of death is not payment (juridical or economic), but instead is the demonstration that worldly/imperial power/violence in extremis - the state-sanctioned torture and lynching of the Holy One are ultimately powerless. To be clear, this necessity is a negative one; death and crucifixion demonstrate the impotence of worldly power/redemption. Resurrection, the correlative positive necessity make possible redemption (cf. Sarah Coakley Powers & Submissions).

Still this is insufficient. While this retains the necessity of incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection for redemption and avoids the substitiutonary-satisfaction misstep, "the only God can" remains somewhat elusive. For this still does not definitively exclude adoptionism. To rephrase this as a question, Why must the second person of the Trinity, as preexisitent logos rather than adopted human, be the one to submit to, and suffer at the hands of the powers in order to defeat them by resurrection?

Again, what options, possibilities, and avenues are available? It seems that the Ascension must somehow figure into the discussion. But again, how is the ascension of an adopted human to be precluded (as it must)? Perhaps the descent-ascent is required for participatio in that humanity must be assumed by/into the divine life of the Trinity. Still though this narrows the adoptionist avenue, it does not definitively exclude it. Somehow resurrection must exclusively be the possibility of divine being. Yet this must also, subsequently, be(come) a possibility for human beings. And if this is the case, are we not then compelled to take an Orthodox position concerning theosis?

And again, is there any means of making such assertions other than on (specifically) dogmatic grounds? It seems that the necessarily peaceful and nonviolent nature of the Trinity (and thus the cosmos) require that the person who submits and suffers at the hands of the powers in order to defeat and to make a show of them via resurrection not only must be God's own self, but must always have been God's own self. That is, an adopted second person would amount to a coercively conscripted second person, and thus not fully escape the paradigm of redemptive violence.

This seems to be an adequate "Badiouan" rearticulation of the Anselmian dictum (man must, but only God can) that escapes the taint of redemptive violence implicit in substitutionary-satisfaction paradigms of atonement. And it precludes any recourse to adoptionism. It also gives a correlative account of both participatio and imitatio compatible with Badiou's formal account of Event, Truth, and Subject. And while the relationship between participatio and imitatio remains generically dogmatic (Barthian sense), the additional specific sense is removed.

Gradualism and the pastorate

2007-07-30T19:13:00.000-04:00

Okay, so, for those of us directed towards the pastorate, the overarching narrative of the biblical illiteracy and theological illegitimacy of many people in the local parish is supposedly going to be disarmed by biblical preaching and sound doctrine. Does this sound familiar?

Kind of jumping off of Phil's experience at the beginning of the summer, I would like to hear (for those willing to divulge) if there are any heresies, real or perceived, which they would not answer with gradualism?

If your interested in how I myself am framing this, I am thinking of as two poles Yoderian patience and Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech and what it says about gradualism. I know I have lambasted hypotheticals in the past (for good reason), but where would your foot go down and where would smile to yourself.

Also, this question by one of Stanley's patent responses. During the Youth Academy, after he gave his regular Spiel, one of the students asked how they should tell their church about this stuff. Stanley responded, kind of like how Porcupine's screw, very carefully.

Summer Project Advertisement

2007-07-24T14:58:00.000-04:00

I am the blogmaster, so I can do these sorts of things.

This summer, what has grown out of a personal challenge is nearing a completion of sorts. Tentatively titled, To consume and not be filled: A theological account of diet and food, it is both a study and critique of contemporary concepts of food and diet, and a sustained account of what Scripture and tradition has to say. It is also a methodological exercise in how to do theology for the lay reader.

I have rough drafts of six chapters of which I need profuse criticism. Since I have written this with two sets of eyes, I need readers who are willing to read with two sets of eyes: one looking at the meat of the argument to see if it is sound, the other to look at the language and exposition of the argument, to see if it is too technical. Those are my main concerns.

If you are interested in helping me out, please make a comment or send me an email and I will give you the link to what I have completed so far.

The basic outline is:
Chapter One: description of the Problem
Chapter Two: Old Testament
Chapter Three: New Testament
Chapter Four: Desert Fathers, Augustine, and Gregory of Nyssa
Chapter Five: Maximus the Confessor, Thomas, and Julian of Norwich
Chapter Six: Protestant and Catholic thought up through Wesley
Chapter Seven: Barth, Niebuhr, and contemporary thinkers
Chapter Eight: Vegetarianism
Chapter Nine: Dieting and eating disorders
Chapter Ten: Eucharist, Hospitality, and reversing analogies.

I have finished the chapters in bold, and I may combine chapters six and seven because, while I feel that they are important, I am just not as interested in the time periods (i.e., all of theology from 1500 to the present).

So again, just let me know.

Credit and usury

2007-07-14T13:41:00.000-04:00

I am curious about the silence of the church on usury when (nearly) every single building campaign is based upon this system, as is the rest of society. Can there be a Christian witness against usury (and I am broadly defining usury as all interest loans)? Oh, and then there is student loans and personal mortgages etc., credit cards, plus (to add a twist to the picture) the historic anti-antisemitism surrounding the Christian association of usury as a Jew-thing. It is not a clean-cut issue.

My overriding trouble with the system is that I feel like here is one of those situation that the contemporary Church ignores, or only talks about 'short-term' loans or 'variable-rate' loans, or some other way to make themselves feel good about defending the 'unfortunate.'

Or am I thinking to macro and need to just witness to Jesus Christ in the life of the church in any and every way possible.

re: Campbell's Quest for Paul's Gospel

2007-07-05T16:30:00.000-04:00

I did not take Douglas Campbell’s course on Paul last year as many of you did, so I took the time to do a close reading of his “The Quest for Paul’s Gospel” on my own. It is provocative, and I see resonances in the work of Carter and Eastman. In a recent discussion, I learned that at least one brother considers Campbell heretical. My question: what do you think of Campbell’s argument in favor of the PPME model and against the “Justification by Faith” model? And, in particular, what do you make of his case study on the question of gay ordinations?

My purpose in posting this is to learn by encountering your own critical engagement of his work, since I studied it alone. I am hopeful to read some real specific engagement on this that will help me to process it critically, rather than vague generalizations that condemn or adore without explanation. Thanks!

Theologian as Doctor of the Church

2007-07-04T02:08:00.000-04:00

"Doctor of the Church" is, of course, an official designation of honor and authority conferred by the Roman Catholic Church. But both Luther and Calvin (the latter especially) held a more generic sense of this as the office of the theologian. That is one charged with the duty of studyung, teaching, and explicating the doctrine of the Church. Regrettably, this office is not officially recognized by my connection (PC-USA) as an ordained office in the sense that Calvin commends. Thus, most Presbyterian theologians are not in fact ordained, and therefore not meaningfully under the authority of the Church. Put rather crudely, most contemporary theologians are freelancers of a sort.

As someone undertaking MDiv study en route to PhD study who hopes to become a Doctor of the Church in the sense held by Calvin, this concerns me. I hope that someday the situation might be different. Perhaps the PC-USA, or Protestants in general, ought to create an order of theologians akin to the Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. This came to mind recently as I've been reading through Barth's PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY. Barth himself is a compelling example of someone whose theology, like that of the Fathers, was developed in the midst of ongoing pastoral ministry.

In general, this text has surprised me. I was expecting something more in keeping with the tone of his famous "Nein!" to Brunner. Perhaps an earlier companion volume to Milbank's THEOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY. But instead, the text is perceptive and nuanced. An example of close and charitable readings of theologians with whom he deeply disagreed. The chapter on Schleirmacher is particularly exemplary. Which brings us back to the issue under discussion. Consider the following description of Schleirmacher.

"And we cannot overlook the fact that he (Schleiermacher) felt himself responsible for the interest of the Christian Church in this very field of learning (theology and philosophy), in answering the question of truth which was directed also at Christian preaching...We cannot be mindful enough of the fact that Schleiermacher was not one of those theologians who are in the habit, under some pretext or other, of dissociating themselves from the most difficult and decisive theological situation, that in which the theologian, without security of any kind, must prove himself solely as a theologian. I refer to the situation of the (person) in the pulpit. Schleiermacher did not only not avoid this most exposed position, but actually sought it, throughout his life, as the place of his 'own office' (i.e. the office of the theologian, or the Doctor of the Church)."

Thus my questions for those of us who are inclined to pursue a more professorial expression of vocation: 1) Do we think this description of the theologial office and its decisive locus (the pulpit) is valid? 2) If so, does our personal practice reflect this? 3) If so, does theologial education (particularly the "academic track" MTS program) reflect this? 4) What are the implications for our future educational and professional practice?

Graduation

2007-06-21T14:17:00.000-04:00

With Tom's upcoming graduation party in mind, I wanted to make sure that Tom and any others who are graduating (or when we all graduate) know that we still want participation in the Socratic Club Blog after graduation. What a way to stay connected and continue to challenge and sharpen one another for God's kingdom. So Tom, don't drop out.

A Permit to Beg

2007-06-21T13:59:00.000-04:00

Coming home from Efland, I drove up the exit onto Alston and a man was sitting there with a sign that said, "Homeless. Hungry." I had just come home from a funeral and was looking forward to getting back home and relaxing a bit, but the Holy Spirit got to me, and I was unable to ignore this man. So I went home, packed a lunch and went back out. I sat down next to Allen and gave him the lunch bag. I sat there as we talked for about five minutes or so. As we were talking a policeman came up the ramp, put his lights on, and stopped at us. He said, "You all have to leave. You have to have a permit to beg. Or else I will have to fine you." I stayed quiet while Allen began an argument with the police officer. I'm not sure Allen was telling the truth, but by the end of the argument he was claiming to have a permit. The policeman didn't request it but told us to leave. After he left, Allen said he was leaving so he didn't get arrested. I'm not sure we were ever threatened with arrest (I don't remember everything the policeman said), but I got up an left as well. So here's my question: should "begging" require a permit? I'm inclined to say "no", and its probably the closest moment I've had to being willing to "risk arrest" to challenge the issue. But I'm not sure. What do others think?

Reflection Paper on the Middle East Travel Seminar

2007-06-18T10:13:00.001-04:00

I have just posted my reflection paper for three weeks in the Middle East. I think it is relevant to Socratic Club discussions. I invite you to check out the blog and engage me in conversation there.
Peace and grace,
Tom
www.adventuresoftom.blogspot.com

On Owning our Words.

2007-06-09T15:02:00.000-04:00

Recent events in the life of this blog have led me to consider the ethics of anonymity. Specifically the ethics of anonymous theology. Can or should Christians claim anonymity, to any degree, in the production of theology?

I come at this question of anonymity through the question of suffering. As Yoder is want to point out, the concrete way in which we are called to follow Christ is to follow him to the Cross. Thus, as Christians we are called first and foremost to willfully suffer. As such, our work as theologians, ethicists and pastors is to willingly and joyfully follow Christ to the cross in our theology, ethics and pastoral work. The cross is therefore, if nothing else, a call to vocationally suffer along with Christ. DWL's recent post on suffering illustrates, in part, how this call to suffer plays out. What it fails to do, however, is connect our actions in theology with the potential for suffering. This is not necessarily what DWL intended, or set out to do. It is, however, critically important to connect our work in theology, et. all, to the potential for suffering as described by DWL's typology. Surely there is potential not only for subjective and intersubjective suffering, but also for redemptive (1&2) and liberative suffering in our work.

While DWL is quick to point out that his recent typology of suffering is descriptive not prescriptive, there is a sense in which any descriptive typology of inevitable events --in order to be complete-- must also be, at least tacitly, prescriptive. In other words, given the inevitability of suffering within the human condition, any typology that strives to be remotely complete must shoulder not only the responsibility of describing past suffering, but also the burden that comes with the knowledge that any description of suffering will also be used to judge and sort future suffering.

With our call to joyfully suffer vouchsafed in the cross, and the descriptive-cum-prescriptive typology of suffering established by DWL, the question of anonymity with regards to theology can be addressed from it's ability to enable or hinder the potential for suffering. In as much as our anonymity hides our identity from those who may persecute us for our proclamation of the gospel, our anonymity prevents our willful suffering, our willful following of Christ to the cross, and inhibits, if not outright prevents the redemption of suffering. Because of this, as Christians, we must own our words and ideas --even our blog posts-- by name so as to not willfully avoid the suffering we claim to embrace with every bite of the bread and sip of the wine. Our recourse to anonymity, be that for reasons of fear of reprisal or general concern for the future, is therefore a recourse against the call of Christ to suffer. Because of this, can we post here under the anonymity of our initials or nicknames and not turn away from that which we are called? If we wish to carry on theological conversation in the public sphere --for that is where a blog resides-- can we do so ethically without owning our words?

Technorati Tags: Ethics, Suffering, Theology

The King is Dead, Long Live the King!

2007-06-09T09:08:00.000-04:00

After reading two books of modern theology which make unsubstantiated passing generalizations like they are pork for southern cooking, I felt I needed to slightly expand my grosse generalization about the coherence of constantinianism within a monarchy.

Now much of this statement is pure reactionary response to the anti-liberal-democratic rhetoric espoused by liberal democrats I know. I mean, what is an anarchist who pays taxes? A liberal.

The gestation for this thought came last year after reading Avery Cardinal Dulles' memoir where he spoke of a teacher he had at Harvard in the thirties who, upon being asked what he would do with a million dollars, immediately responded, "Give the money to Franco to buy tanks." This blew my liberal mind and opened up a new horizon, "what if the socialists in Spain weren't the righteous ones orwell and hemingway paint them out to be?"

I don't have a quick answer to that, the question opened up the possibility that there is a place for fascism, which is the heir of the Louis quatorzien absolute monarchy, and so with that brief preface, my briefer argument begins (like people from Michigan) in earnest.

Constantinianism is a pejorative epithet for a Christian state. The Christian state lasted (explicitly) for over a thousand years; longer than the Roman state it sprang from. There is a valid argument for the counter narrative of such works as the Martyr's Mirror, but there is also the issue which Christian's find within new readings of history of trying to move the date of the fall and challenge the power of the holy spirit. Now, my reactionary readings also have a difficult challenge of baptizing history and oppression, but I shall let someone else make that argument.

The coherence of constantinianism within a fascist or monarchist government is due to the fact that fascism and monarchy are based on communities. A fascist, even (to go a head and throw the bomb) hitler received his power from a community of people supporting him and a community Goebbels was able to continually deceive. Democracy (or the governments we have now, whatever they might better be called) are about pods, compartments, platforms, issues, topics, interests, profits, capital in the most pejorative sense. No matter how much it tries, from the time of Washington's farewell address, we have known that he virtue of democracy is in the ability of the individual to stand against factionalism. Now, whether this has happened much is a broader question, but America was founded on the optimism that we can be magnanimous. Washington did not become king of America because he believed in the possibility of humanity. This is why constantinianism fails in a democracy for it is rightfully cynical about humanity while democracy is the most optimistic. Democracy's feel like we can make choices, constantinianism says that the choice has been made by God, and for good or ill, it will be followed.

Oh, and Bush is not a fascist, he is a democrat of the worst stripe. He is a public deist (at least the language of his speeches) who thinks that the Christian God Billy Graham showed him has put him where he is, but he will soon be gone. Fascists aren't elected by less than a 98% majority, kings by 99%.

There are a lot of holes here, but push it. I am curious to see what will hold up and what will fall away. It is mostly provocation, but like the great provocation artist we have at Duke, it is not about tight theology put pushing us to faithfulness.

A Practical Question

2007-06-04T14:05:00.000-04:00

Brothers, sisters:

If the preacher during a Methodist worship service manages to squeeze two trinitarian heresies into one sermon, what should someone sitting in the pew do? What is her responsibility as a disciple in that situation?

Take another situation. Say a preacher has proclaimed overt, nasty racism, sexism, something like that. I have to think that if I were sitting in the pew, and the pastor did something like that, I wouldn't be able to just sit there. I'd have to do something. Right?

Or, say the pastor gets up there and starts talking about how all religions are really just various expressions of one underlying faith in the divine being. Now, granted, this is a UMC congregation, not a TEC. You guys don't believe that stuff, you're Christians. So, I'd have to do something, right?

So, what if the pastor--in the same sermon!--says that God has three parts (tri-theism), and that the one God has expressed himself in three ways (modalism), all in the same sermon? Does the pew-sitter who recognizes the problem have a responsibility to do something about it?

Now, I'll lay my cards on the table. Yes, this just happened last Sunday, "Trinity Sunday." No, I didn't make a scene; I did try to correct his heresies, however, during Sunday School. But here's the thing: why is it that--I'm guessing here, and I know that's dangerous--why is it that most of us probably agree that something needs to be done in the first situation, less so in the second, and even less in the third? Does that worry anyone besides me?

Apparently St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face at Nicaea after the heresiarch had declared that there was once when the Son was not; he later apologized, and now... he's a saint! So... maybe...

Though it might be crass self-promotion,

2007-06-04T07:35:00.001-04:00

If you wanted evidence that a fellow socratic went through with his marriage, check out my web log.

(Radical) Evil & (Redemptive) Suffering?

2007-06-02T23:08:00.000-04:00

This is a tale of two contentious and contestable concepts: radical evil and redemptive suffering. I've gone a few rounds on these internally, and I just wrote a paper for Coles that addressed some of what I want to shop around here. So while this is not quite off the cuff, needless to say this is all DRAFT/BETA quality. While these may seem to be very different concepts, both concern the meaning of pain and suffering. My basic argument is that the usual deployments of these concepts are counterproductive, and that use of the former ought to be abandoned altogether and the latter largely limited. To make this case, I'll define the concepts, problematize them, and then suggest a constructive gesture.

First, radical evil. The concept, of course, originates with Kant (see Religion Within the Bounds of Reason Alone). It is the necessary subjective precondition of freedom and autonomy. In order for humans to be free in the terms Kant sets out, one must not only be free not to do the good - or to do less than the good (i.e. the traditional Christian privative view of evil), one must also be free to choose evil in itself as one's "maxim. That is, one must be able to assert evil as one's guiding principle and stated objective. In subsequent literture and contemporary discourse, this takes on a slightly different inflection; especially in the aftermath of Auschwitz whose scale (both scope and severity) has been deemed qualitatively unique and historically singular. For the sake of present discussion, this latter definiton is in view. Namely, radical evil is the doing of evil as an end in itself (i.e. not in service of some greater good, or in aversion of some greater evil) and the inflicting of suffering for its own sake (i.e. sadism).

Thus, radical evil is that which must be avoided at all cost, hence the twin-dictum of the Shoa: "Never forget; never again." While these are indeed worthy aims, they are profoundly problematic. First, as Badiou and Milbank (among others) observe, this gives evil the logical, ethical, and ontological priority. This inverts the traditional Christian account of evil as privative. That is, the Good now becomes the absence of evil; the right to non-suffering. Second, and I think more importantly, radical evil transposes the sources/causes of evil into a suprahuman and transcendental register which actually debilitates resistance to the very evil that is to be avoided at all costs. Because of the horror of "modern extreme evil" (Milbank), any mundane or ordinary explanation is deemed both inadequate and obscene. Rather than being seen as the result of a "political sequence (Badiou), the Shoah remains ineluctable. And thus, irresistible. Thus, radical evil serves to distract from the mendacity of the mundane, or as Arendt puts it, "the banality of evil"; the ways in which even radical evil is/must be seen as (the consequence of) our action. (Think of the rhetoric of "the axis of evil," "operation infinite justice," "operation enduring freedom," etc.)

Now redemptive suffering. This strikes me as a concept so often invoked as to be meaningless. Everything from a migraine to MLK is described as redemptive suffering. The basic sense seems to be whatever suffering is under discussion is somehow meaningful beyond itself in such a way as to be justified by a greater good. Though not explicitly stated, this seems related to what is usually termed the "eschatological" view of theodicy and a correlative commitment to insisting this is "the best of all possible worlds." This too is problematic on a number of counts: 1) It implicitly (if not explicitly) suggests God (in)directly causes/allows suffering for the purposes of moral pedagogy; 2) This also makes the suffering itself intrinsic/necessary, rather than an accident/consequence of sin and the fall; 3) Such loose usage doesn't seem to comport with the biblical witness concerning "taking up one's cross" and having a "koinonia in Christ's suffering."

This being said, I suggest a typology based on the criteria of: 1) intrinsic/extrinsic relation between suffering and redemption; 2) causal/chronological relation between suffering and redemption; 3) self-consciousness of the suffer; and, 4) historial and/or eschatological horizon of meaning. This, I think, works out as follows:

Type | In/Ex-trinsic | Causal/Chronological | Consciousness | Horizon of Meaning

Subjective | Extrinsic | Accidental/Posterior | N/A | Personal

Intersubjective | Instrinsic | Intentional/Prior | Self-Conscious | (Inter)Personal/Eschatological

Redemptive 1 | Intrinsic | Intentional/Prior | Self-Conscious | Proclamational/Eschatological

Redemptive 2 | Intrinsic | Intentional/Prior | Unwitting/Anonymous | Eschatological

Liberative | Intrinsic | Intentional/Prior | Unwitting/Anonymous | Historical

Now inasmuch as this chart/typology is not self-interpreting, let me offer examples that can flesh this out:

SUBJECTIVE suffering is that which is usually called "natural evil." That is, the evil, pain, and suffering endemic to the human condition after the fall; for instance, cancer. While God might act redemptively in such circumstances, this action is extrinsic to the suffering itself (i.e. God's working need not be predicated on suffering). It is after and accidentally related to the circustances of suffering. The suffering is not self-consciously undertaken. And its horizon of meaning is limited to the personal.

INTERSUBJECTIVE suffering is mundane suffering undertaken out of love for neighbor. It is undertaken self-consiously/intentionally and the redemptive element is intrinsic to the suffering itself. Its meaning is personal, interpersonal, and eschatological in that it has the quality of witness. E.g. bone marrow donor.

REDEMPTIVE 1 is the traditional/biblical notion of suffering for the sake of Christ, the gospel, the kingdom. This is suffering occassioned by speech or action that is explicitly and intentionally witness. This would be persecution in the traditional sense, and also actions of civil disobedience aiming at social justice. E.g. traditional martyrdom, or Civil Rights demonstrators.

REDEMPTIVE 2 (and this is one that I wonder about) is a suffering occasioned by confrontation with the powers and principalities, without being undertaken on confessional grounds - explicit or implicit. That is speech and actions which inherently bear witness to the kingdom, and/or stand agains the powers and thus are taken up into the horizion of eschatological significance.

LIBERATIVE suffering is what might be considered "secular" redemptive suffering. That is suffering untertaken intentionally and self-consciously in the interest of a cause. This is the same as redemptive suffering (1), but limited to the horizon of history and may. or may not have eschatological significance.

In summary, redemptive suffering (in the technical/scriptural sense) is that which is undertaken self-consciously and intentionally on behalf of others as a means of witness (perhaps even unwittingly), it is intrinsically and necessarily related to the Immediate (personal, interpersonal, historical) and ultimate (eschatological) redemption achieved in/through it, and has eschatological significance beyond the individual.

Politico ex religio

2007-05-15T20:56:00.000-04:00

So as the presidential primary candidates continue to bombard America with their lack of patience, a thought struck me about what it takes to be a president. This thought comes about due a combination of some of the issues discussed at Fight Club last year: a Christian's ability to be a government officer and Mormonism. What if Mitt Romney is the best candidate precisely because he is not a Christian though he has (many of) the values of Christianity. Yeah, yeah, the war, the death penalty, but he is against stem cells and gave massachusetts insurance: this is just a hypothetical. Could it actually be an assett in looking for presidential candidates if the person is quasi-Christian? Part of the problem with Stanley, RBH, et al and their lambasting of Bush is the implicit challenge to his faith. If there isn't a challenge to the persons faith, how would the Duke Christian (this is a caricature, not a real person) react politically?

Summer season

2007-05-07T10:19:00.000-04:00

As Summer is imminent, emminent, and immanent, it is time for those of you out there to start checking the blog more often so our dialog can occur outside of the chapel steps and/or fight club.

So if you have any theological issues that pop up and or politico-culturo-aesthetic issues, please post them or email me (gryngamour at gmail dot com) and I will make you a member so that you can post it. I'm sure to have an opinion, the king is sure to disagree with me, and patristic tom will surely pose a counter-question with marston mentioning mcclendon, Anderas being sarcastic, craig posting a 3000 word response, the prince trying to keep craig in check, and somebody I don't know responding as well.

New King

2007-04-30T15:11:00.000-04:00

Just in case you all missed it (which is everyone basically...except Sarah and Matt), we have a new king. Steve Palmer will be the new coronated Socratic King next year. He's got some ambitious plans. So everyone give a hail to the new king.
Peace and grace,
Tom
P.S. But I'm not giving up my Blog title "Socratic King"

Wilson's Favorite Luther Quote EVER

2007-04-24T15:14:00.000-04:00

"So it is not all in keeping with the New Testament to write books on Christian doctrine. Rather in all places there should be fine, goodly, learned, spiritual, diligent preachers without books, who extract the living Word from the old Scripture and unceasingly inculcate it into the people, just as the Apostles did. For before they wrote, they first of all preached to the people by word of mouth and converted them."

From "The Gospel for the Festival of the Epiphany," 1522

This is for our friend who was saved from liberalism by Jurgen Moltmann

2007-04-02T18:19:00.000-04:00

Hypothetical Situation

2007-03-12T21:36:00.000-04:00

Let's suppose for a moment that there existed a hypothetical Christian Community in an urban area. And let's add to this community the desire among community members to take communion together. And let's add to this desire a number of United Methodists, among others (Let's throw in some UCC, pentacostals, etc.). Mix all this up and this question comes out: is it appropriate for a "mixed" community to invite their United Methodist minister to come and serve the community communion? Why or why not?

Updated Schedule

2007-02-26T20:05:00.000-05:00

Dear Socratics,
There have been a couple of updates for our schedule. Notice particularly the event with Dr. Richard Hays has been moved to March 28 & 29. As well, a dialogue with the Islamic Student Association on Duke's campus has been scheduled for April 12. Hope to see you at all these events.
Peace and grace,
Tom

Homosexuality Discussion Group Series
Sacred Worth & Socratic Club Co-Sponsors
February 14 @ 12:20-1:20 – Eugene Rogers:
February 15 @ 12:20-1:20 – Discussion Groups

March 28 @ 12:20-1:20 – Richard Hays: What Makes for Peace and Upbuilding? Dealing with Our
Differences in the Homosexuality Debate
March 28 @ 1:30-2:30 – Discussion Groups Part I
March 29 @ 12:20-1:20 – Discussion Groups Part II

April 11 @ 12:20-1:20 – Organizer’s Dialogue
April 11 @ 1:30-2:30 – Discussion Groups

The Jesus Seminar?
March 27 @ 12:20-1:20 – Mark Rutledge (Associate Member of the Jesus Seminar)

Sacraments & The Emerging Church Movement
March 20 @ 12:20-1:20 – Ed Phillips & Tim Conder

Islamic Student Assocation Dialogue
April 12 @ 5:00-6:30PM

The Communicability of Blogs

2007-02-17T12:32:00.000-05:00

It is such a curious genre, this. Offense boils out of every letter and all kindness seems only trite and condescending.

I am interested, after the devolution of a thread recently, what people think are the overwhelming difficulties of faceless communication of this nature? When does it become unhelpful and why do reactionaries and fundis seem to flock to it so much.

What blogs do you read and why and do you participate in any? Is the internet the death of moderatism because you never have to see a person' face or break bread with them? How do we, who see and know each other, embody a different reality on the internet?

On Natural Theology

2007-02-17T09:07:00.000-05:00

People often point to the possibility of natural knowledge of God to justify God’s judgment on those who have never heard the gospel. The text for this position is Romans 1:18-23 (and following):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. (RSV)

Now, let me put this alongside another famous passage from the same epistle, Romans 10:14-17:

But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. (RSV)

Here are my questions:

Can a person learn enough about God from the sort of knowing described in Romans 1 to avoid condemnation? If yes, then does not Paul’s string of rhetorical questions in Romans 10 fail (i.e., sent preachers are not necessary for men to call upon the Lord)? If no, then in what sense can the Romans 1 sort of knowing help us understand why God condemns those who are “without a preacher”?

Some might try to solve this problem by appealing to our broken epistemic apparatus that prevents us from seeing what “has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” Fine. But then the question is, When did that apparatus break, and what difference does that make for God’s condemnation?

I’d like some help on these issues from our illustrious Socratics.

Christological Dialogue

2007-02-14T16:02:00.000-05:00

This post is dedicated to Tom A. Tom, please read the whole thing this time, I took a good 45 minutes to write this for you. I write with hope that the Duke socratics will be able to enact a properly christological dialogue that, I think, has rather fallen by the wayside of late--much to the chagrin of our beloved spiritual founder, no doubt (not Tom, but Clive Staples)--not at all a surprising development, given the fact that christologically shaped things usually end up getting crucified (Mk. 8.34). I had earlier suggested this defition of dialogue:

"A provisional definition: what we do when we (a) do not know what is
true (b) do not have the courage to tell the truth."

That was based on the exegetical examination of the clear meaning of John 18-19. Yes, my friends: I fear that we have followed rather in the footsteps of that coward, Pilate, of late. But that is not true dialogue. Now we shall examine Jn. 4. We find there the christological defition of dialogue that shall prove to us invaluable (of course we might have learned it already from Jesus' example in Jn. 18-19--but perhaps that strikes us as too overbold). That is this:

"Dialogue is what we do when we know what is true, and we love people who are trapped in falsehood. Knowing that these people (for whom Christ had died) will not listen to the direct statement of the truth, we seek, gently, through conversation, to lead them to the truth by roundabout--but never false--means."

My my: that sounds rather Socratic. Well, to the exegesis.

Jn. 4.1-6: Note that Jesus intentionally strays into foreign territory. Good shepherds seek to save the one that is lost actively; we might say that they go looking for a fight--but that is, rightly, denounced as overly belligerent language.

4.7: "Give me a drink." The Word of God asks the woman for a drink. Clearly he doesn't need the water. He is the well of life from whom streams of living water flow. He says this, not to quench his thrist, but to begin to show the woman that she is thirsty. She doesn't know it. She thinks she knows what is true. She has drank from wells that are not exegetical--i.e., she drinks from wells other than the Word of God who is the well of life. Drinking from these poisoned waters--no doubt appropriating the latest sociological and pyschological theory--she is in fact dying of thirst. But she does not know it. Jesus must ask her a question that will, so to speak, through water over her sleepy head.

4.9: "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" The woman assumes that Jesus must be a samaraphobe. Surely he must be. Samaraphobes are afraid to even speak to Samaritans, let alone share water from a well. Clearly she is dumbfounded.

4.10: "If you knew the gift of God." She does not know the gift of God, and Jesus isn't going to beat around the bush about that. She is dying of thirst, and if she doesn't come to know the gift, she will surely die. He who eternally is the way, truth and life doesn't have the time for anything but the truth. "If you knew the gift of God... you would have asked [me], and [I] would have given you living water." Unabashed proclamation of the Gift.

4.11-12: "Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep." The woman is still trapped by her critical theory. Jesus claims that he has living water--but this simply cannot be, because her canon of reason cannot allow it. The well is so DEEP! "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" There are so many important scholars, so many books to read, even a man name Eugene who has written something about Barth and Thomas and many fine sounding people--how could I leave off all of that to just drink from this water you offer me? You, a Jew, with nothing to draw water with. Are you greater than all of these?

4.13: "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again." She feeds her desire with critical theory, but her desire is too great to be satiated by the merely faddish. She is created for eternity and she knows this in her inner-being--although she doesn't seem to know this, and rebels against it with great force. But note how Jesus dialogues with her. He recognizes that she thirsts, that she has desires--he recognizes these are real and legitimate because they are created by God. They are natural. But in the woman they are disordered. She pursues the good, and good is the pursuit: but she goes by a wide path that leads only to destruction and, woe of woes, in the end shall find only the pain of unrequited love. Jesus knows all of this. And so he tells her: you will thirst again, if you keep on drinking from these poisoned waters.

4.14: "But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty forever." Jesus does not hide the truth from her, not for the sake of an easy conversion, not even for the sake of a too-easy friendship--which of course would only be a false friendship. He tells her the truth. Why? Because he loves her. He loves her too much to let her keep on drawing water from poisoned wells. He offers instead the water that gives life eternal. "Come to me, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters, and he who has no money, come, buy and eat!" (Is. 55.1).

4.15: "Sir give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water." The woman sees the truth partially. She realizes that this water is far better than her critical theory and pyschology; but she still thinks that it will satisfy her in the way that those earthly things were attempting to do. She still has her mind set on temporal things, and not eternal (2 Cor. 4.18). Her mind is set on things below, not on things above (Col. 3.1-4). But she has progressed, and Jesus does not sneer at the progression. She is coming to the truth.

4.16: "Go, call your husband." I need not complete the conversation. Jesus goes directly to the problem at hand, the issue that is keeping the woman from a total conversion. Note carefully that the issue is not intellectual. It is moral, it is spiritual. That is the way it always is. Those with whom we dialogue, those for whom Christ has died, are, in the end, rebels. We know that this is true because we are rebels ourselves, conquered in part by God's love--but conquered imperfectly, as yet. But note Jesus courage here in telling the truth. In this case the problem is sexuality. The woman is, as they say, 'living in sin.' It need not have been sexuality, it could have been any number of things, worst of all--worst--that which afflicts my sorry flesh, the sin of pride. But in this case, as in many cases, it is fallen sexuality. Jesus does not mince words. He speaks the truth that surely is painful, but he speaks it as one who is offering to this woman streams of living water. He is offering her life, love, friendship with God. He loves her. And so he speaks truth to her. And so he loves her. They are one and the same--for God is simple, and God is truth, and God is love. We are called to speak in the same way.

Well, we have to look at two more points.

First point. 4.27: "His disciples marveled that he was talking with a woman." When we are engaging in christological dialogue, not the world, but the CHURCH, will marvel at us. Why? Because the sight of a man who loves and so speaks truth and so loves, and loves so perfectly that he loves all without reserve and without partiality--that sight shocks us, offends, convicts (and that is the real problem, isn't it?). There is no room for samaraphobia in the church, but much there remains nevertheless. It will only be cast out by love. Why? Because perfect love casts out fear (1 Jn.). Now remember: perfect love is truth is God. There is no need to "balance" speaking truth and speaking love, because love and truth are, in the divine simplicity, one.

Second point. The woman becomes a great evangelist. "Many believed in him because of the woman's testimony" (4.39). The end, the telos, of truly christological dialogue, is the creation of a new person. And the new person is always an evangelist. How can they not be? One who was dead, and is alive again: one brought from death into life: this one cannot help but preach the good news.

Perhaps then we are still dead?

Duke Socratic Club Blog

What Would Michael Scott Do?

Ehrman and Colbert

God, Family, Church

Confessio - New Web Magazine for Duke Div.

New Socratic Club at Southeastern

Chris Tomlin Song substituted for the Sanctus

Faith & Leadership Website

How to say nothing

Deleted Post

Hardest moment?

Knowledge in other fields

Where does theology speak?

Enns & Chapman Audio Now Online!

Is the Bible Ever Wrong - A Conversation with Peter Enns and Stephen Chapman

Wesley and Kelly Johnson's Fear of Beggars

God's Justice?

Augustine On Dragons

Worship Review New Reviews

Wesley's Ecclesiology

Spiritualist Church Baptism

worship-review.com

A First Try...

Theology and praxis

A new blog?

What is faith?

On the Rise of the Rebel Virgins

Sermon Feedback

First Week/Month

A Socratic Pacifist Loses It

Socratic Club Reading Level

Order of St. James Updates

Christian Pacifism

Socratic Audio Files

Tony Jones wonders what Hauerwas would think of him being a police chaplain

A Proposal

Christians and Jews

Audio for "No Male for Female"

Sabbath

Audio Files for Theology Talks

Idolatry

Audio Files for Theology Talks

Duke Theology - Linbeck - Propositional Truth

How Does Jesus Save mp3

How Does Jesus Save Us? Audio File

Theology Talks

Duke Theology Series - Verhey on Niebuhr

Invisible Baptism!

Theology Talks

No Title

Barth & Race?

Recommended Books Feature?

NT vs OT

Duke Theology Series...Or How Did We Get Here?

A post from Dar

Anyone there?/ Favorite theologian

Club Audit

Some Thoughts on Inclusive Language and the Trinity

Welcome Back to High School

from a possible duke heretic

Kingdom of God and the Church

It's practical

Pack up the Polity?

Ecumenical Communion?

On Catholicity

RSS

Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Church Orders

What is Duke Theology?

The Littlest Socratic

Operation Diaper Drop 2.

Operation Diaper Drop.

Denominationalism and ontology

Update on questions raised about credit and usury

The Judicious Mr. Hooker and the Episcopal Church

Mary in the Old Testament

Models of Communion: Performing Our Christian Identity

Who then is a Christian?

Cur Deus Homo: Badiou Redux (aka - my random thoughts from the OBGYN waiting room)

Gradualism and the pastorate

Summer Project **Advertisement**

Summer Project Advertisement