Part V. Wondering.
"Not all who wander are lost." -Gandalf (just
going for nerd cred.)
Good, because I feel like this is a wandering book! -Jamie
(yes, I know the difference between wondering and wandering, but at least they
rhyme.)
Still, I think this section has been my favorite so far.
I've experienced these meandering ponderings as the best invitation to deeper
thought so far.
Chapter 22 - Borne in Perplexity
"If the mother of God got to be perplexed, you can be,
too." About what are you perplexed in
your faith, or Christian theology? Me? I wonder why we have permanently
enshrined theologies based on the thought systems of the 1st-4th centuries CE
(e.g. trinitarian theology, the "omni"s, etc.) Could we, should we,
would we, what would happen if we re-examined and/or abandoned some of these
understandings of God?
Chapter 23 - Inconsistent on Jesus
Have you
ever been asked if you are "saved?" How do you respond? I
have been asked many times (I grew up in the South) and I tend to go along with
Daniel: "Yes, yes I have." However, growing up in the South I knew
lots of folks who took great comfort in various forms of conversion rituals,
which are often referred to as "getting saved." In what do you find the most comfort from your own experiences of
living the faith?
If someone
asked you to tell them about Jesus or your faith, what would you say?
Chapter 24 - Quibbling and Quoting
Daniel likes parodies, this time "open-minded"
churches and people are the victims. But she raises a valid question. If somebody asked you what your church
believes or to describe your church how would you respond? As a Lutheran? As a
member of your local congregation? Would what you want to tell them about your
church match up with how it actually functions? For example, I would want
to tell a visitor that my church is open and welcoming to anybody, even if
they're "not from around here," but that probably wouldn't be
completely true. A more accurate assessment would be that we would tolerate
someone as long as they fit in and didn't rock the boat.
Chapter 25 - I Don't Have to Prove It
We can't prove God. Science can't disprove God. But, if an archaeologist or researcher
could produce compelling evidence that the Garden of Eden never existed, or
that Moses never crossed the Red (Reed?) Sea, or that at no point in history
did a single flood encompass the entire globe, would your faith be affected?
Would such "proof"/disproof make it more difficult to believe in God?
As a minister who also has an undergraduate degree in
Physics I take both theology and science seriously. In what ways do you see faith and science complementing one another?
Conversely, how do they hold each other in tension?
Chapter 26 - The Limits of Taste
Daniel discusses the way we communicate who we are and what
we believe to others and seems a little suspect about the effects of technology
and social media on such communication. Do
you agree with her that these have had a negative impact? How do you personally
communicate your identity to others? How does your church communicate its
identity?
Have you
ever been judged by something you posted on the Internet?
In all honesty, I would probably be a little more frank in my posting on this
blog if I didn't have to worry that the Bishop might see it. I wonder if he
would've like the hog story from last week?
This is my last post. Brant will take us home next week.
Thanks to everybody who took the time to consider the book and our musings. I
hope you got something out of the experience!
Peace out!
Jamie
Borne
ReplyDeleteYou lost me describing your perplexity, Jamie. What are “permanently enshrined theologies?”
“… because a little perplexity can be a wonderful thing in the life of faith.”
I wonder why women are still not allowed to be ordained ministers or hold leadership positions in the Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran denominations yet are allowed to teach children in Sunday school, interrupting the Word and feeding it to young minds.
Why do we have the same 3 year cycle with the same readings and Gospel lessons for A, B, and C?
2001 has the same readings and Gospel as 2012.
The faith and obedience of Mary and Joseph always perplexes me. It leaves me in awe. I also wonder about the strong faith of Abraham, Noah, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Daniel, Job, and the disciples. What would I have done in any of their shoes?
I am told by my family and friends that I ask a lot of questions. Inquiring minds want to know!
I'm convinced that there is a desperate need for more inquiring minds in the world!
DeleteHere's a more fleshed out example of what I meant by "permanently enshrined theology." We are taught as children that God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful; and to most it seems beyond questioning that this is true about God because the idea has been passed down to so many generations of believers. I personally had never thought to question it until I was sitting in the office of a Rabbi who has forgotten more about the Bible (even the Christian scriptures) than I'll ever know. He made a pretty compelling argument that the idea that God is all-everything isn't really to the actual God portrayed in the Bible who is sometimes genuinely surprised by human actions, and very rarely gets his way.
Your questions are both good. I'll refrain from answering the first one as my response would only be my opinion. My understanding of why we follow the Lectionary is basically that we've always done it that way. Dating back to times even before the canon of scripture that we now call the Bible was solidified worshipping communities kept lists of scriptures that were to be read on certain occasions. All the way back to the Didache? Brant?
The answer of "because we've always done it that way" is what I thought. Hasn't ANYONE gotten tired of the same verses over and over enough to say let's pick some new ones?
DeleteI would have liked to hear what the Rabbi said that made his argument that God-everything isn't really to (?) the actual God portrayed in the Bible so compelling!!
Everyone, at some point, has gotten tired of the same readings every three years, but then the alternative isn't really that much better. If the decision of what texts to be read is based solely on the whims of a pastor there's a lot that could potentially be left out. The beauty of the Lectionary is that it forces us to deal with difficult passages that we'd rather ignore, but, of course, the converse is also true. There are a lot of passages that many consider important that get left out of the Lectionary, especially in the Old Testament.
DeleteIf I remember correctly, Rabbi Schaalman's argument began with the Holocaust with the thought that a God who was both all-powerful, and all-merciful would never let millions of people be slaughtered.
The three year lectionary is actually an improvement over the old one year lectionary that was in use when I was a youngster. If you think about it, the three year lectionary gives us 4 readings for 52 sundays over 3 years = 624 possibilities for preaching. We cover a lot of the Bible in the course of three years, though Jamie is right, a lot of important passages are overlooked.
DeleteThere are new approaches to the lectionary that are interesting, eg. the narrative lectionary.
I know that lectionaries were in use by the 4th century. I'm not sure how much earlier than that. The Didache does not prescribe readings.
And I think you have the Rabbi's argument about right, Jamie. He does make the point that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous god comes from Greek philosophy. It is not in the Hebrew Bible, and I don't think you can really find it in the New Testament, either.
Inconsistent
ReplyDeleteDaniel’s question: “Is it wishy-washy to perceive Jesus in many different ways?” stimulated some thoughts: I always sense Jesus in different ways and have never thought of it as wishy-washy! Jesus is and was both God and human. Therein starts the confusion. He comes to us as a brother, a Father, a helper, a teacher and our God. Not wishy-washy at all, just different.
Again, Daniel describes various times when she felt the presence of Jesus from the hospital chapel to the glaciers. That is what she has been criticizing the SBNR people throughout the book.
When Jesus was on this earth, his teachings turned the world upside down! The authorities could not understand or grasp it. His followers loved him, but still had a hard time with the things he did and said. Topsy Turvy: The first must be the last; Leaders must first be servants; touching the untouchables; breaking the social rules. I think of the courage He needed to those things!
I was born into the Lutheran faith and my father was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor. So I say “yes” when someone asks me if I’m saved. I am lucky that I have always known Christ!
As far as your LOADED question about someone asking me to tell them about Jesus or my faith…. I would first of all make sure there was enough time to discuss my answer. Enough time for the person to ask questions and time for me to listen to them. I could write several pages on Jesus and my faith. Bottom line: Knowing that Christ granted me grace by dying on the cross makes me behave and think with more love and understanding.
Quibbling
ReplyDeleteI liked this short chapter. I totally agree with the author’s last paragraph. “You can be open-minded and still know what you think.”
If someone asked me what my church believes, first of all I would clarify that I define the church as the Lutheran denomination of my congregation and not my congregation specifically.
I met with a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor last month while visiting one of my childhood churches and the neighborhood in Indianapolis Indiana where I spent 2 years of my life. When I told him I was a member of an ELCA parish, his eyebrows raised and he said, “It’s too bad the ELCA no longer believe in the Lutheran theology.” Whoa! Needless to say I did not take the bait on that. I didn’t have time for the discussion that would have followed.
Back to Jamies’ first question. I would tell the person that our church believes that all people are children of God whom He loves unconditionally; no matter their color, sexual orientation, past history (good or bad), or past beliefs. All are welcome to hear how much God loves them and how much grace is available through Him. I would tell them the congregation to which I belong follows that belief.
Your next question is a hard one for me! How does the church match up with how it actually functions? I think I am a little naive when it comes to that observation. Unless it is blatant, I don’t think I would see any incongruences. I am too busy and moving to the next thing to do to see those kinds of things.
It is wise, I think, not to engage the kind of knee-jerk criticism that the LC-MS pastor voiced. I am always tempted to be either a. argumentative, or b. snarky. Neither is helpful.
DeleteProve It
ReplyDeleteAnother good one! “… a litigious, factoid-hungry culture…”
Like you Jamie, I am a nurse and see science and faith augmenting each other. I have often thought - what if both Darwin and the Bible were correct. God’s days could be thousands of years. You cannot ignore the scientific evidence of life before us.
My belief in God would never be made more difficult by any scientific proof, no matter how persuasive. I figure God’s ways are in a dimension beyond our capacity. Also, the Bible was written by humans and therefore subject to error.
You cannot ignore the writings in the Bible as they have survived thousands of years. Neither can the archaeological findings be overlooked. The possibility that they could both be right at the same time holds them together. What if? That’s what I am always thinking when comes to proving what I believe in!
In college I studied philosophy. I read all of the classical "proofs" for the existence of God. None of them is convincing. But, neither can I deny the reality of God in my own experience. Faith requires no proof.
DeleteI believe that the Bible is the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. It does not have to be factual in every aspect in order to point us to God. It does not have to be literal to be true.
Science necessarily omits God from its investigations. It addresses a different kind of knowledge than theology. With Martin Luther I am of the opinion that God's word is also written in the leaves of natures book. God's word can be read in the microscope and the telescope. This is what theologians call "general revelation." Scripture and tradition are the "special revelation'--God's self-disclosure to God's people.
Taste
ReplyDeleteI don’t tweet, blog, LinkedIn or do Facebook. We do not have a TV in our house. My 2 kids and my husband and I have only have flip phones. (Yet we seem to survive!) I don’t know what I’d do with all that “noise” in my life. I love doing this book discussion on line (although, I wonder where everyone else is!?), but I would prefer to do it live and in person.
The author comments on the lack of details in the book of Mark when Jesus came home. The truth is, the Bible is full of lost details.
I think her opinion about the worship service being directed only toward God (p. 173) and not about the individual worshiper is not entirely true. What about the confession of sins and the sacrament of Holy Communion? I think the fellowship and renewal we need for the coming week comes from the worship service. Part of the service is worship for God and then there is the Word for us.
Identity for congregations now is communicated big time on a web page. Mission statements, the “about us” tab, and the links all communicate identity to the seeker.