Vatican Channel at Youtube

Why do we have to have a Christian version of everything? Why am I predisposed to not liking them?

Why am I sometimes predisposed to criticizing or making fun of evangelicals/ism?  What's the deal with this thing called GodTube?  Why do we have to have a GodTube, a "Christian" version of YouTube?  But, then, why not?  Why is that I was fairly sure before even watching one video there that the enterprise was cheesy and that I wouldn't ever want to be caught watching something there by one of my more liberally inclined friends?  I actually do think it is sort of a corny - not to mention unnecessary - idea.  On the other hand, I'm willing to admit that it has many helpful things to offer Christians.  I also won't say it's not very creative, artistically innovative or professional (things evangelicals are often criticized of being, cf. most Christian movies).  The question is why are many people (myself often included) predisposed to thinking this is so cheesey and this is funny.  

The Truth Project - let's be fair

I was complaining to my wife last night that Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project" seems to be very popular - among evangelicals(?) - and at the same time very out of touch with the very thing it claims to be battling: secular culture. Dell Tackett, who wrote the stuff or something, uses the story of the spies examining the land and fearing the giants in Numbers to illustrate a similar situation facing Christianity in America or in the 21st century or in culture more generally. He writes that "we live in a land filled with giants: judicial tyranny, homosexual activism, terrorism that could strike at any minute, a liberal media that seems to spin and distort everything into ugliness, rampant immorality and so on." The problem with this list is not that it names things that are not issues. The list does name at least two real issues in American social and political discourse. To me it is obvious that homosexuality and terrorism are issues in people's minds. ("Judicial tyranny", "liberal media" and "rampant immorality" are simply too vague and vast as descriptors to be counted as issues all by themselves). The problem with the list is that it says nothing about racial injustice, poverty, corrupt business practices/economics, creation care... Regardless of your opinions/positions in these debates, it seems to me to be undebatable that they are major issues in our culture; and if Focus on the Family is going to claim to be confronting head-on a battle with secular culture facing Christians then it at least needs to acknowledge things the culture is emphasizing. I am not saying FoF needs to take its cues from the culture and make the things I've just listed its top priority. It just needs to acknowledge their existence. Correct me if I'm overlooking something.

Here's the antithesis. My wife, Christine, pointed out that what you consider the "real" issues facing society or facing Christians will depend to a degree on what values you are using to determine the issues. It also depends somewhat on what constituency you are serving. So Focus on the Family may be acting in a way perfectly consistent with its core values as a Christian organization. And its organizing mission is to minister to families, and so the biggest issues or problems in culture, from its viewpoint, will be issues directly relevant to families. Christine also noted that if FoF had given as the "giants" facing culture the list I provided, that ought to be just as open to critique for its relativity to a current trend. Her point in noting the trendiness was not that trends are bad; it was just an observation that emphasizing more "social justice" type issues right now is, in fact, trendy. And those who are quick to criticize groups like FoF for pushing their agenda need to be a little more forthright about the ways they are themselves pushing an agenda. If we are unwilling to admit our own issue-prejudices then we are implicitly claiming a certain universality for view. I.e. we are saying "My views are not just an agenda but they ought to be the view of everyone. They are the correct views for everyone. Everyone would be better off if they adopted this view too." Or we are at least saying, "My views are not just an agenda. They ought to be recognized by everyone as the correct view for me." Such thinking is a perfect example of the kind of oppression we all fear.

From here we expanded our conversation into questions of cultural relativity and the ways theology can and should engage times and histories relevantly. We noted how many people we know - dear friends - who think that homosexuality is a settled issue but that American evangelicals persist in making it an issue. They are correct but in a way opposite to their meaning: In all of Latin American, African (excepting South Africa) and Asian Christianity (excepting some expat Asian theologians writing in the States) homosexuality is a settled issue - there's no question in these parts of the world that Christianity opposes homosexual practice. So in this instance it is the non-FoF/mainline protestant crowd that is acutely out of touch. I will continue to remain silent regarding my own views as I have for the last 3 years because people on both sides of such hotly contested issues is this one read this blog and to say one way or the other would be counter to my purposes both here and in continued graduate study. I really want to see opposing sides of divisive issues talk to one another with Christian charity and take one another seriously. But I think it is simply the case that the vast majority (per capita; granting of course that there are exceptions) of the Christian world believes homosexuality to be contrary to Biblical teaching. I love my friends who are gay; my point is not to offend them or to cast my vote on the matter. My point is aimed at the view that ignores the non-western Christian view on the matter.

For, consider this. Is not the response from the West to "educate" the entire rest of the world regarding human sexuality a blatantly neo-colonial move: The rest of the world is uncivilized and has not evolved to as advanced a state as we are here in West in this area of human sexuality. Therefore, we should educate them to teach them what their rights really are and how to understand their bodies. That's exactly what America and other European countries are doing. Another, somewhat less loaded example is "Female genital mutilation" - already a politically loaded term by the way. To many women this is not mutilation but "circumcision." See for example the work of Ghanian theologian Mercy Oduyoye. For my own part, it is a difficult thing for me to consider because from my Western context it seems "obviously" harmful. But in holding this view, am I not implying those local peoples in favor of it are "backward" and "undeveloped"?

A few claims and opinions that come to mind relating to this discussion: Americans - liberal and conservative, religious and non-religious alike - are not pluralists despite the claims of some. The paradigm of liberal and conservative is meaningless in American cultural discourse. Either/or truth debates are futile as a way for Christians to engage culture. The genius of American democracy and one of the lasting contributions of the Reformation was the prioritization of the conscience of individuals and individual groups. Pluralism is the way forward for faith Christian engagement with culture.

I would still argue that racial injustice should be very important to people interested in protecting families. To not consider it raises the question of which families you're protecting. My suspicion is that if judges were unilaterally ruling in favor of pro-life positions, small government and opposing gay rights then FoF probably wouldn't have such a problem with judicial tyranny. And I think that mentioning terrorism in this oblique way is just a utilitarian move to get people emotionally juiced. It says nothing about terrorism itself though.

Truth Project Preview:

Faith and Globalization - Volf and Sanneh on Yale panel

How do faith and globalization affect one another?  How is each a function of the other?  These are questions that interest me greatly.  I had a special opportunity to interview Lamin Sanneh yesterday when he came to the Divinity School here in Chicago to give a talk on the topic "Resisting Mission, Redefining Engagement".  I hope to publish some selected portions of that conversation soon, but in the meantime you might enjoy this panel session in which Prof. Sanneh participated as part of the course Tony Blair just taught at Yale, "Faith and Globalization." 

Thesis - Everyone's got some of these too

Yeah, so even though I like antithesis, I still have to write a thesis for my M.Div. It's actually due at the end of March and I have yet to start writing, though I have done a fair amount of preparatory research and writing. Here's something of the premise:

Many theologies have emerged from the non-western world in the last half-century.  Most famously one might think of Liberation theologies of Latin America, Black Theology in South Africa and Feminist /Womanist Theology (the latter two being also found in the West but among socially marginalized populations).  Also Asian and Post-Colonial theologies come to mind.  So there is an exciting production of original theological articulation going on, not only in the West, but all around the world.  

The response in the West has been typically western: namely, we've decided to study it.  That is, there have been all sorts of conversations about contextualization and mission, reforming mission, describing and documenting the growth of Christianity around the world and so on.  But what we don't have so much is western theologians engaging non-western theologians in normative conversations, asking questions about what it would mean to say something is normatively Christian "for us."  

One reason for this that immediately springs to mind is that we in the west have an unfortunate track record of dominating the rest - defiling Christian faith, destroying culture and deleting histories in the process.  So maybe theologians in the West have been a little gun-shy.  I respect this hesitation, if that's what it is. But in so doing, we risk ignoring others in the name of respecting them.  What is called for in this situation is not isolationism; no, I think we've actually got to listen to what the world's emerging theologians are telling us.  The argument will simply be that in order to understand who we really are as Christian requires understanding of who others are as Christian.  One's own Christian self-understanding is always a function of the Christian self-understanding of others.  

The goal of the thesis, then, will be to make some claims about what kinds of needs there are for constructive theological exchange between different theological expressions and then to describe the nature of that exchange.  I won't be proposing a model for unity (cf. ecumenism in the 20th century).  I will be proposing a model for pluralism that, by prioritizing self-understanding, forges cross-cultural relationships and partnerships.

Simplified model - 3 Stages

1) Historical theology. Where do I come from theologically?  (With the idea that I understand best the theological terms and definitions that formed my understanding to begin with.)

2) Anthropological theology. How have others answered question #1? (With the idea that others understand best the theological terms and definitions that formed their understandings to begin with.)

3) Systematic theology. How do answers to question #2 change my answer to question #1? 

The big and small ideas behind antithesizing: initial thoughts

Hi, So I'm just starting this thing - both the blog and antithesizing in public - and time will tell whether it's something that will last. I'm suspicious of myself. But whatever. I like lots of different things, and so the blog will reflect that diversity of interests. From beer and brewing to theology to Africa to cultural critique to academic review. Labda hata kiswahili kidogo (i.e. perhaps even a little kiswahili).

I believe in the Church and I'm committed to her well-being. I'm not Roman Catholic (yet), though I imagine my deep appreciation for the Roman Church and frustration with Protestants who slight it will come out in posts from time to time. I've never really had to identify with any branch of Protestantism. I spent many years in a generically evangelical setting. My early years were spent in fire-and-brimstone baptist circles, and while that bugged me for a while, I've come to see the many ways it has formed me - I think - for the better. Now, I'd probably fall into some category of Reformed Christianity, very broadly speaking. That is, if Reformed to you means Schleiermacher and co., then I'm Reformed; if the Reformed, however, are found strictly in the company of the Westminster Divines then I'm probably not. Calvin + the Westminster Assembly + a certain reading Schleiermacher = Evangelical Presbyterian Church as the best fit for me right now. Unfortunately, there are no nearby EPC churches. And Christine and I are trying to commit to going to church where we live. But if I continue on towards ordination, my hope at the present is still to pursue ordination in the EPC. I'm still working on a friend of mine who "knows people" in the EPC to advise me along the way.

I usually don't care much for sectarian line-drawing, but I indulge it momentarily because sectarianisms and labels and identity boundaries are so deeply imbedded in American socio-cultural experience that being upfront about them can be helpful for sorting out who we are and who we'd like to be.

And one of my purposes - if not the purpose - in staking this electronic space here is that I am looking for a place to be transparent about what I think about, what concerns me, what I love and what frustrates me. It's called "Antithesis" because all of those thoughts that we all have that we don't share because they might not come out right or because it's not really something we actually hold or believe - all of those thoughts are integral to what we do actually think and believe. But often we probably fear being misunderstood or misrepresented and can't pose a counter-point to the prevailing view. Well, to some degree, this thing for me is all about the counter-point. It's not about cyncism; I find I'm often cynical about cyncism. See, that's an example of antithesizing: at least giving the alternate view some airtime. Not because I think alternate views are always correct or the truth or because I want to support others' views or whatever, but because there's simply value in hearing another view clearly and understanding it well.

So... There are only ideas and actions. Here, idea = action and action = idea. And now I'm getting to bogged down into my own unsettled philosophical questions. Am I a pragmatist yet? A Hegelian too? Is meaning a function of social use and performance? In studying Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia the other day, I started to wonder if Paul was a Kantian. Hah! Well, we'll see what happens. Enough for now since this kind of self-statment and introspection is one of the least popular genres of blogging among the blog-reading public.

To any who may read this: participate as you like, ask questions, voice concern, offer insight, correct and critique, criticize, encourage. "Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ." (Ephesians 4.15)

Why I am not complaining about Rick Warren's invocation

I know many people are upset both about Rev. Rick Warren's gave the invocation prayer at President Obama's inauguration. While I do not share Rev. Warren's understanding of aspects of Christian faith (or at least the one he describes in his Purpose Driven Life), I must say I do not think he spoke in a way that was divisive or sectarian.

Some people were opposed to his giving the invocation to prayer on principle since he has expressed views in the past (like his stance on homosexuality) that offend many. These views, however, encourage and do not offend many others. So I cannot oppose his being chosen solely on the grounds that some people do not like his views.

I spoke with dear friends today who noted he used individualistic language like "my" and "me", that he insisted on being sectarian by using the name of Jesus five times and that when he a had chance to be large he was small.

I will respond to each point in order: Concerning the first matter, he used first person singular pronouns twice ("me" and "my") and first person plural pronouns 49 times ("we" "us" "our"). Thus I am unable to judge his prayer self-centered, and I actually thought it focused nicely on the well-being of the whole nation.

Second, I feel Warren's invocation was not sectarian for two reasons. One, he used a great deal of inclusive language, including "You [God] are loving to everyone you have made," "When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us," and "Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all." Second, he noted that not all Americans share the same faith and carefully restricted his closing in the name Jesus to be representing only his own personal religious experience by saying, "I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua," etc.

For my money, I did not think it was a particularly good prayer. But neither do I feel any need to find something wrong with it.

Finally, changing gears, perhaps Obama's choice to have Warren give the invocation is reflective of why we elected him president: namely, he seems to aim at actually representing the people. Greatest common denominator religion - i.e. restricting ourselves to what everyone believes - doesn't finally represent what very many believe. And I fear it may rob us of the kinds of unique contributions that make us strong.

Read the transcript here.