Moving tour de veitch

Here is the link to the new blog
http://tourdeveitch.wordpress.com/

Christian Conservation?

I am in Mombassa, Kenya this week discussing theology, ecology, and community development.  It has been an amazing time of thinking about how our theology effects our interaction with others and the environment.  This is a topic that is not talked about in many churches and there are a number of poor theologies that either do not care or disregard the environment all together.  We have been grappling with the idea that our environment is connected to our spirituality.  And, that our theology reflects our treatment of the environment.

A passage that keeps coming up is Colossians 1.19-20.  It has been interesting how we forget that 'all things' means 'all things.'  God is reconciling everything, both humankind and nature.  This morning we were challenged to think about the Gospel as a message to the whole world.  The reconciliation of Christ brings people into right relationship with God as well as right relationship with nature.  The rural poor rely on 100% of the environment to live.  So, the issues facing the poor are environmental issues.  If we simply focus on souls and not the soil, we miss out the central message of the Gospel, which is the reconciliation of everything.  John 3.16, uses an interesting term.  It states that God loved the 'kosmos' (were we get the word cosmos from).  God loved everything, the whole of the cosmos.  It has been challenging and empowering to see the relationship we have to the environment and God's relationship with the same environment.

I had a good discussion with one of the presenters about N.T. Wright's book Surprised by Hope.  That book has been a great influence on understanding a right relationship with the world around us, and how that is reflected in our view of heaven.  Those who do care about the world today, tend to have far off, distant, raptured, views of heaven.  As Wright says, "Jesus is coming, go plant a tree!"

Reading Galatians with a Hebrew Bible scholar and a Rabbinics scholar

In my last class today we discussed Galatians and Romans.  This was an interesting discussion but before I share the insights some general background is in order.  The class is titled "From Sectarianism to Heresy in 2nd Temple Judaism," and we discuss texts that represent different "Jewish" groups self definition and its insider/outsider portrayals.  Needless to say there has been some great discussions and a lot of reading.

So, for todays class we had to read Galatians and Romans in Greek and secondary articles from Stowers, Gager, and Boyarin.  I had at least read reviews of these scholars general views on Paul and agreed with many of there points they made.  What was really interesting was hearing my professors, one a Hebrew Bible scholar and the other a Rabbinic scholar, talking about Paul.  Whether everyone in class knew it or not, we all generally agreed with the shift in thinking brought on by the New Perspective.  That is to say, we all read Paul as a person wrestling with Judaism in a Roman occupation context, in light of his understanding of Jesus.  However, the agreement did not go much further than that.

I was constantly reminded of the limits of our knowledge of life situation of "Jews" in the first century.  I use the quotes because the term is not easily defined nor does it represent a group with common understandings.  A problem that was overlooked by the "old perspective" and continues to be discussed by students of biblical studies.  Thus, when it comes to Paul, we come across ambiguous phrasing that is not a easily understood by simply reading.  The Christian-Judaism divide is nonexistent at this point.  If you read Galatians before reading Acts, you get a different picture of Paul.  Luke-Acts has already made a distinction between Jews and Christians that is not apart of Paul's writings.  I think I might go back and reread Paul's letters.  Once the semester is over and I have time to read.  Let me rephrase that, time to read what I would like to read.

Religion is not for the dumb and faint of heart!

I have had several conversations recently about worship music.  This is a subject I like to mock, complain about, and often I find it helpful in my pursuit of following Jesus.  On one occasion, I was discussing the  tendency of worship musicians to write love songs about Jesus.  This led to my mocking these people, substituting Jesus for the subject of the song.  I wasted more time with this than I should have but it proves the point that we relate to Jesus in overly simplified terms.

My mocking is not the best response but we should be able to engage Christ with more thought than simply stating our affection for him like teenagers "in love."  This is where worship music is symptom of other issues, mainly an inadequate way of expressing our faith in an educated manner.  Being a student at a seminary, I have heard the complaints of many students.  The most common issue is the feeling that what is taught is not practical knowledge that will help someone lead a church.  I usually respond that it is the students job to relate the material taught to the specific situation in which they find themselves.  What is taught is the methods and means of interpretation, not the interpretation.

It is our job as students/disciples to use these methods and creatively apply them to the act of following Jesus.  This is where worship music fails, when it only recreates teen pop, love songs about/to Jesus.  There is plenty of music out there that addresses the complex, thought provoking, beauty of humanity.  This is not specifically "Christian music."  We follow a thoughtful, complex God who expresses himself in a plurality of ways.  We can apply our own thoughtful complexity to worship, as well as to leading churches, interpreting our traditions and scriptures, and serving others.  I like how one of my professors states this idea,  "Religion is not for the dumb and faint of heart!"

Rocking in the Free World

 So, it has been dead here at my blog, but nothing revives a blog like talking about awesome stuff.  I recently purchased something awesome, namely a G&L ASAT Special.  What makes this so awesome you ask?  Well, several things.

One, I have in awe of G&L guitars for sometime.  They are the product of George Fullerton and Leo Fender, after Leo sold Fender in the 60's.  These guitars have the stamp of Leo Fender all over them, from looks to sound.  So, when I saw this guitar in the shop with a low price tag I had to give it a play.

The ASAT series, is G&L's take on Telecasters.  The shape is the same as the Tele (Leo was able to hold onto the patented body style when he sold Fender).  But G&L did not just recreate a classic.  The threw in some new touches, as well.

In the semi-hollow versions the body has two tuned chambers.  This gives it a distinct tone, compared with other semi-hollows with a single chamber.  This is combined with G&L's own pickup design and the result is a fat tone that simply rocks.  G&L took the traditional single coil pickup, the Alnico single coil, and designed a higher output pickup.  This gives the pickup a warmer and darker tone with less noise than the Alnico's.  This gives the guitar the versatility of the classic Tele country twang from the bridge pickup with the bigger full tone of a humbucker like pickup at the neck.  The result is a great sounding guitar reminiscent of the '72-'74 Tele's.

Check out G&L's website here.

Jugen Habermas interview

I was reading  an interview with Jugen Habermas titled, "A Postsecular World Society."  There where several points that stood out to me and resonate with some of my current readings.  Here are some quotes, and I will post the link to the full interview at the bottom.

The debate over the sociological thesis of secularization has led to a revision above all in respect to prognostic statements. On the one hand, the system of religion has become more differentiated and has limited itself to pastoral care, that is, it has largely lost other functions. On the other hand, there is no global connection between societal modernization and religion’s increasing loss of significance, a connection that would be so close that we could count on the disappearance of religion. In the still undecided dispute as to whether the religious USA or the largely secularized Western Europe is the exception to a general developmental trend, José Casanova for example has developed interesting new hypotheses. In any case, globally we have to count on the continuing vitality of world religions.  

It is also in connection with this widespread push toward reflection that we have to view the progressive disintegration of traditional, popular piety. Two specifically modern forms of religious consciousness emerged from this: on the one hand, a fundamentalism that either 

withdraws from the modern world or turns aggressively toward it; on the other, a reflective faith that relates itself to other religions and respects the fallible insights of the institutionalized sciences as well as human rights. This faith is still anchored in the life of a congregation and should not be confused with the new, deinstitutionalized forms of a fickle religiosity that has withdrawn entirely into the subjective. 

Religions do not survive without the cultic activities of a congregation. That is their “unique distinguishing feature” [„Alleinstellungsmerkmal“]. In modernity, they are the only configuration of spirit [Gestalt des Geistes] that still has access to the world of experience of ritual in the strict sense. Philosophy can only recognize religion as a different and yet contemporary configuration of spirit if it takes this archaic element seriously, without devaluing it a fortiori. After all, ritual has been a source of societal solidarity for which the enlightened morality of equal respect for all does not provide a real, motivational equivalent—nor do Aristotelian virtue ethics and the ethics 

of the good. This of course in no way precludes the possibility that this source, protected in the meantime by religious communities, and often used toward politically questionable ends, will run dry one day. 

I like the implied connections of religions loss of "other functions" with faith grounded in relation to others and ritual nature of religion.  I think there is a lot to learn from viewing religions in the postsecular setting.  Habermas touches on many of the issues contemporary Christianity is dealing with and offers insights into the future of religion in the public sphere.

Here is the link to the PDF

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/A-Postsecular-World-Society-TIF.pdf

From Solution to Plight

It has been a while since my last post, but today we get into one of the early works that set the point of departure for interpretations of Paul.  E.P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, and then Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People in 1983.  These works constitute Sanders view of Paul and his relationship to Judaism.  Paul and Palestinian Judaism begins with a detailed look at the state of Pauline scholarship and its traditional view.

Sanders argues that the traditional view has seen Paul as arguing from ‘plight to solution.’  According to Sanders, and in agreement with Stendahl, Paul had need for salvation before his Damascus road experience.  Paul had no trouble living according to the Torah.  Paul’s later understanding of God sending Jesus as Savior of the world leads Paul to look for a reason for God’s sending Christ.  Sanders argues counter to the traditional perspective, seeing Paul’s thought as leading from ‘solution to plight.’

After working through Jewish literature and laying out the groundwork of Palestinian Judaism, Sanders turns to Paul’s religious understanding.  Sanders argues that Paul has a different religious understanding than what one finds in the Jewish literature.  Although, Paul still holds many views in common with Judaism, Paul alters ‘justification’.  Zetterholm notes the differences, stating

“‘Justification’ in Jewish thinking means that the individual who lives according to the Torah retains his or her status as a member of the covenant with God.  But with Paul ‘justification’ simply means being saved through Christ, which in turn means that the believer surrenders to the supremacy of Christ.  ‘Justification’…is only related to the issue of how to become a member of the religion, not how to remain in the system” (106).

Thus, for Sanders the relation of Paul to Judaism is not along the lines of the Torah being evil, or represents self-righteousness but that Judaism is simply not Christianity.  In Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Sanders more fully develops this understanding of Paul.  Sanders leaves the opposition of Christianity and Judaism but develops the difference around God’s choice to save through faith in Jesus, rather than through the Torah.

Paul and Palestinian Judaism and Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People are both worth reading, although they are not easy reads.  I found the Paul: A Very Short Introduction, by Sanders as well, to be a helpful introduction to his main points.  I suggest reading the short introduction if you want Sanders line of argument without wading through Jewish literature and scholarly polemics in great length.

"Toward a New Perspective on Paul"

Before, we look at the main New Perspective writers; there is a preliminary scholar that should be discussed.  Kister Stendahl, in the 60’s was already looking critically at the interpretation of Paul.  Specifically, Stendahl noted that the problems Luther dealt with where not the primary issues for Paul.  Paul was interested in the relation of Jews and non-Jews.  For Stendahl the contrast is not “Christianity” and “Judaism” but “the law” and “the gospel.”

This shifts the way Paul’s conversion has been traditionally read.  Paul conversion was not from “Judaism” to “Christianity.”  Paul’s changed outlook was more in line with the calling of prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah.  As Zetterholm notes “According to Stendahl, Paul serves the same God as before, admittedly in a different way, but still directly linked to what was already part of Jewish tradition” (99).  Paul’s theology then is understood as being in line with his own calling to be an apostle to the non-Jew.

“Justification,” for Stendahl is a part of the relation of Jew and Gentile, in Romans and Galatians.  “Justification” should be placed along side the center of the letter, mainly Romans 9-11.  This section deals with the God’s plan for final salvation and the relation of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles, as a part of that plan.  Stendahl argues that God’s salvation plan anticipates the “no” of the Jews and opens to the Gentiles.  Salvation is for the Jews, as well, according to Stendahl, and he argues against a contradiction between salvation offered to Jews and non-Jews.  “Justification” then fits within this overall idea of God’s “victory” and “salvation” and that God’s righteousness will set everything right (99).

Stendahl’s writing points towards many of the ideas of recent scholarship and it is the overwhelming dominance of the traditional view, at the time, that made Stendahl’s ideas hard for many to understand.  It will be a short move from Stendahl to the next several scholars.

Normative theology, meet Biblical Studies

The last two posts have been some background for our discussion of the New Perspective on Paul as well as, areas of study that have moved beyond the NPP.  We have seen that several influences have led to the “traditional” or “standard” Lutheran view of Paul.  These influences come from Luther, Augustine, and other theologians and philosophers, like Hegel, as well.

The mixture of ideas created a view of Judaism as rejected by God and inferior to Christianity.  This way of thinking was widely assumed in the Post-Enlightenment period.  The theological assumptions remain intact, as the next group of scholars reconstructs history in light of theology.

Bultmann can be seen as the main influence for this final step of paradigm formation.  It is not Bultmann’s understanding of Paul but his marriage of Biblical Studies and Theology.  Bultmann was both an academic scholar and theologian, using each field to enlighten the other.

Ernst Kasemann was one of Bultmann’s disciples, although he broke from Bultmann’s interpretation, was influenced by his teacher.  Kasemann wanted to “build a bridge between the historical Jesus and the gospel of the early church” (78).  Kasemann saw Paul’s doctrine of justification coming from the teachings of Jesus.  It is this interconnected notion of the gospel of Jesus and justification that constitutes the issue for Kasemann. 

“The principle problem of Israel is not sin, Kasemann claims, but ‘pious works’…According to the doctrine of justification by faith, salvation is only possible for the lost and the damned - the ungodly – while the ‘good’ and the ‘pious’ imagine they can escape the impending judgment by means of their deeds” (80).  Kasemann’s view clearly rests on Reformation theology.  Even as we get into the New Perspective scholars, normative Christian theology will not change drastically.  Zetterholm sees this, the arguments over normative theology as the reason for so much of the debate amongst scholars and theologians.  The connection between normative theology and Biblical Studies, put forth by people like Bultmann and Kasemann, sets the tone for the next group of scholars and goes unquestioned until we look at those who have taken Paul beyond the New Perspective.

Zetterholm part 2

Yesterday, I introduced the book I will be going through this week and next week, “Approaches to Paul” by Zetterholm. In the last post, the foundation of the “traditional” view was laid. Today, we move into the theological explorations that marked the difference between Judaism and Christianity. This next step is, as Zetterholm points out, a construction of Christian theologians.

After working through the ancient sources that led to Christianities separation/distancing from Judaism, Zetterholm turns to Augustine, who will pave the way from Luther’s doctrine of grace. It is in response to Pelagius that Augustine developed his theology of sin and grace. Augustine emphasized the divine aspect of redemption against a human action. Divine intervention was necessary for both the ability and will to perform good deeds. As Zetterholm summarizes, “No human effort to please God is possible, which in the long run means that God decides who is to be saved and who is predestined to perdition” (59).

Luther would then start with the divine intervention, leaving the human action of good deeds to be result of grace. Righteousness is accessed through faith alone, a complete reversal of the Occamistic theology of the time (Which maintained that good deeds where met with grace leading to salvation). This left the Law in a very specific place, mainly for certain people at a certain time. Zetterholm points out,

“With Luther, the Law thus represents something good, in fact, the will of God, but its fulfillment is at the same time something unattainable. Anyone who imagines that he or she by means of the law can attain a relation to God is guilty of the of the most fundamental sin of all- self-righteousness- based on the false assumption that God can be pleased through human effort. For such a person, the law does not lead to grace and forgiveness, but to punishment and damnation” (61).

This theological formation with the Hegelian evolutionary process puts Judaism in a terrible place. Luther’s theology meant a complete rejection of Judaism. Zetterholm stress that Luther was not reading Paul for historical reconstruction, but to address theological issues. Luther’s formulation was a Christian theological construction. It will be the later Biblical scholars that apply this reading to their reconstructions of Paul. In the next couple of days, we will look at Zetterholm’s third chapter, “The Formation of a Standard View.”

"Approaches to Paul"

I thought I would go through a book this week and in to next week.  Over the Christmas break, I had dinner with a friend, who works in a church but not heavily into Biblical studies.  Over dinner, he asked me to explain the New Perspective on Paul.  He had heard about it at church and in the Christian media.  So, along that line I thought I would go through Magnus Zetterholm’s “Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship.”

Zetterholm does an exceptional job of over viewing the history and current trends in the study of Paul by analyzing the major works that have contributed to Pauline scholarship.  He broadly lays out three main groupings, the standard view, new perspective, and beyond the new perspective.  These form the main portion of his work with some introductory and concluding chapters.

I wanted to skip the first chapter, which is a history of Paul and his missions, and jump into what has lead to the necessity for a new perspective on Paul.  Zetterholm begins with the Tubingen School and the influence of Hegel.  Hegel’s philosophy, in many ways, and was understood as open theology back up in light of the Enlightenment.  Hegel’s understanding of reality functioned in a process.  Each generation gives rise to a higher ordered understanding, followed by another even higher understanding.  This view sees the past as “a lower evolutionary form than the present, and the future always holds something better in store.  The reason for this s that the dialectical process is not governed by chance…The history of the world is thus a process run by reason, which in reality is the true lord of the world” (34).

This influenced the way Biblical scholars viewed Judaism, mostly in theological terms.  Zetterholm notes the work of F.C. Baur who was influenced by Hegel and the Tubingen School.  In Baur’s writing of history, Paul argues against Judaism.  Paul represents a later, higher understanding than earlier Judaism.  With Hegel’s ideas in mind, it is easy to see how this can lead to anti-Semitic notions of Judaism.  Zetterholm draws on the historical nature of anti-Semitism in Christian communities, noting that distinctions where made between Jews and Christians from an early point in Christian history.

It is with this background that Zetterholm discusses the nature of Luther’s writings, as well as Augustine.  Which we will turn to next time.

Religion verses Relations

I recently was reading a friends blog about her experience in Africa.  This post was dealing with the nature of the church in Africa that brought up some ideas on which I wanted to comment.  She was frustrated with a range of things, many of which are frustrations I share.  The biggest was the popularity of “Prosperity Gospels,” which was recently spoken of as the worst religious idea of this decade in The Washington Post.

However, amidst the frustrations of locals becoming pastors, orphanage caretakers, or teachers so that they have a steady job that can pay, the real frustration was that Africans struggle with understanding Christianity as a relationship and not a religion.  I think this is the wrong way view Christianity.  The religion/relationship dichotomy fails to see the function of religion/s.  Marx’s definition of religion serves as an example of this unintelligent reasoning.  Marx’s states that religion is the opium of the masses, so the relational Christian states, “Marx’s maybe be right but it does not matter because Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.”  In short, it turns into a way of sidestepping the harder question of the function and meaning in religion, in spite of definitions like Marx, Freud, Fuerbach, and others.

Christianity is a religion.  It constructs a world-view that orders and makes sense of the world around the individual.  It provides rituals, sacraments, and a liturgy to reinforce this understanding of the world.  But what is bad about this?  All world-views do this. 

When applied to many African communities, this dichotomy is often to initially misunderstood.  To the Westerners, it seem as though the Africans do get it.  That’s right, they don’t.  They did not get the Enlightenment hammered into their heads from grade school.  They did not group up with spirituality and physicality completely separated.  That is our inheritance.  We make the distinction between religion/relations and spirituality/physicality.  Spirituality is a part of physicality for them.  They are in relationship with their religion.  So of course, they “don’t get it.”  The spiritual realm is in relationship with the everyday.  That is why the “Prosperity Gospel” is appealing.  That is why the everyday notions of religion are just that, everyday notions.  This is an area where we should be learning from each other.  Not simply imposing the Western understanding and getting upset because they are not “doing it” the way we do.  In many ways, we could use some physicality in our spirituality.