Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi has written an excellent article published in FirstThings about the meaning of Anglicanism. It should be read in its entiretly, but a couple of highlights...
For the Ugandan church to compromise God’s call of obedience to the Scriptures would be the undoing of more than 125 years of Christianity through which African life and society have been transformed. Traditional African society was solely an oral culture, which limited its ability to share ideas beyond the family level. We couldn’t write our language, and there was nothing to read in our language. The first converts in Uganda were called “readers” because they could read the Bible, the first book available in our own languages. Because of the Bible, our languages have been enriched and recorded. For the first time, we heard God in our own languages. To this day, our people bring their Bibles to church and follow along with the readings.
He then gives several examples of that transformation, from bringing peace to warring tribes to bringing respect and dignity to women to virtually making a unified Ugandan society possible. This is not a "spiritual" transformation, if by "spiritual" we mean of the mind or heart. This is real transformation of living breathing human beings in a society. And it is based on a fairly straightforward reading of the text of the Bible.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 4 - The Silenced Voices
I really have no desire to be mean or nasty or attack Tony Jones personally. I hope my rather miniscule readership will recognize that my admittedly polemic prose is directed at ideas, not personalities. Tony, if you are reading, my tone reflects the seriousness of the topic, not a desire to call names and assault your person. Perhaps my problem is with the imprecision of language, but it would seem in Theology, precision matters, and implications of ideas matter.
Having said that, in this last post I have to take issue with the insertion of power politics into Jones’ reading of history. Of course human beings tend to assert themselves in any and every meeting. Yes, politics happen. But does it necessarily follow that one must “deconstruct” every decision and conclude that power politics played a central role in the outcome? Perhaps he was merely being hyperbolic, but Jones claims:
"The Chalcedonian creed of the two natures-one person of Jesus Christ, as well as every other theological construction from every other council, has human fingerprints all over it. These were messy meetings, rife with power and politics."
Notice the “totalizing metanarrative” Jones suggests. “Every” theological construction is “rife” with power politics. In reference to the debates regarding this or that doctrinal development, he notes that disagreements were sometimes heated – but takes it one step further…
Having said that, in this last post I have to take issue with the insertion of power politics into Jones’ reading of history. Of course human beings tend to assert themselves in any and every meeting. Yes, politics happen. But does it necessarily follow that one must “deconstruct” every decision and conclude that power politics played a central role in the outcome? Perhaps he was merely being hyperbolic, but Jones claims:
"The Chalcedonian creed of the two natures-one person of Jesus Christ, as well as every other theological construction from every other council, has human fingerprints all over it. These were messy meetings, rife with power and politics."
Notice the “totalizing metanarrative” Jones suggests. “Every” theological construction is “rife” with power politics. In reference to the debates regarding this or that doctrinal development, he notes that disagreements were sometimes heated – but takes it one step further…
Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 3 - Tepid Liberalism
Tony Jones claims that EC is a great way to navigate between the “cocksure certainties of conservatism and the perceived tepidness of liberalism.” Odd, he seems pretty cocksure that consensus is a misguided notion. And in the place of “cocksure certainties of conservatism”, Jones inserts what can only be described as, well, tepid.
Jones quotes from a book, “The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event”, by one Jack Caputo:
"To think theologically is to make the mind’s ascent toward God, which means toward whatever event is astir in the name of God, where the name of God is not a linguistic object that can be stretched out on the table for analysis. To use the name of God is an unstable, destabilizing act that exposes us to whatever event is transpiring in that name, to whatever chain of events this name provokes."
Hmm. “Whatever chain of events this name provokes”. In the place of a rule book, be it rules about strike zones or foul balls, we now have the theology of “whatever”. I am looking in vain for what are the precise or even imprecise limits of “whatever”? How do we know if a “chain of events” leads us heavenward or toward the pits of hell? In the absence of definitions, propositions, truth statements, what is the means of discerning the difference between ascent and descent?
Now I’m sure Jones will protest he is not advocating an “anything goes” viewpoint. He writes:
"To look at it from the side of our weakness, orthodoxy is an event and not a statement because, to put it colloquially, not one of us will score a perfect 100 on the Big Theology Exam in the Sky. We’ve all got a little heterodoxy mixed in with all the orthodoxy, and most of us will admit that. I’m wrong about some things; the problem, of course, is knowing what parts I’m wrong about. “O my fellow orthodox theologians, there are no orthodox theologians”.
While admitting that we all have a mixture of orthodox and heterodox ideas rattling about in our limited brains, he again throws down the “provocative” gauntlet, “there are no orthodox theologians”. None. Wonder why so many who might consider themselves to be orthodox theologians were upset with him.
Jones quotes from a book, “The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event”, by one Jack Caputo:
"To think theologically is to make the mind’s ascent toward God, which means toward whatever event is astir in the name of God, where the name of God is not a linguistic object that can be stretched out on the table for analysis. To use the name of God is an unstable, destabilizing act that exposes us to whatever event is transpiring in that name, to whatever chain of events this name provokes."
Hmm. “Whatever chain of events this name provokes”. In the place of a rule book, be it rules about strike zones or foul balls, we now have the theology of “whatever”. I am looking in vain for what are the precise or even imprecise limits of “whatever”? How do we know if a “chain of events” leads us heavenward or toward the pits of hell? In the absence of definitions, propositions, truth statements, what is the means of discerning the difference between ascent and descent?
Now I’m sure Jones will protest he is not advocating an “anything goes” viewpoint. He writes:
"To look at it from the side of our weakness, orthodoxy is an event and not a statement because, to put it colloquially, not one of us will score a perfect 100 on the Big Theology Exam in the Sky. We’ve all got a little heterodoxy mixed in with all the orthodoxy, and most of us will admit that. I’m wrong about some things; the problem, of course, is knowing what parts I’m wrong about. “O my fellow orthodox theologians, there are no orthodox theologians”.
While admitting that we all have a mixture of orthodox and heterodox ideas rattling about in our limited brains, he again throws down the “provocative” gauntlet, “there are no orthodox theologians”. None. Wonder why so many who might consider themselves to be orthodox theologians were upset with him.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 2 - Vincent of Lerins
Back to Tony Jones' paper and it's rejection for publication in a book detailing the conference at Wheaton in which it was presented.
My quibble with Tony Jones' use of the strike zone as an analogy to the task of theology is pretty much just that, a mere quibble. When Jones takes on Vincent of Lerins and the very definition of orthodoxy, I believe he goes way over the edge and “disaster”, a word used by his critics at the Wheaton Conference, seems an accurate description of his position.
The title of his paper is “Whence Hermeneutic Authority?“ so he has declared a purpose. He also clearly identifies himself as “Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent Village”, so we should all agree that Tony Jones claims to be a leader in the emerging church movement. His positions cannot be dismissed as just a singular tentative opinion in a large “conversation”, but are instead positions that carry a certain amount of weight and influence. That is why they are troubling.
Jones begins with a quote: “Tipp O.Neill famously quipped that .All politics are local.. Maybe so, but the postmodernists have argued that all hermeneutics are local. It is our local communities that shape how we see the world”. This quote is critical to understanding emerging church viewpoints. The postmodern epistemology that flows through the veins of key EC thinkers colors everything. The disdain for “metanarratives” can only lead, in their view, to one conclusion, that “micronarratives” are the logical replacement.
My quibble with Tony Jones' use of the strike zone as an analogy to the task of theology is pretty much just that, a mere quibble. When Jones takes on Vincent of Lerins and the very definition of orthodoxy, I believe he goes way over the edge and “disaster”, a word used by his critics at the Wheaton Conference, seems an accurate description of his position.
The title of his paper is “Whence Hermeneutic Authority?“ so he has declared a purpose. He also clearly identifies himself as “Tony Jones, National Coordinator of Emergent Village”, so we should all agree that Tony Jones claims to be a leader in the emerging church movement. His positions cannot be dismissed as just a singular tentative opinion in a large “conversation”, but are instead positions that carry a certain amount of weight and influence. That is why they are troubling.
Jones begins with a quote: “Tipp O.Neill famously quipped that .All politics are local.. Maybe so, but the postmodernists have argued that all hermeneutics are local. It is our local communities that shape how we see the world”. This quote is critical to understanding emerging church viewpoints. The postmodern epistemology that flows through the veins of key EC thinkers colors everything. The disdain for “metanarratives” can only lead, in their view, to one conclusion, that “micronarratives” are the logical replacement.
Deconstructing Tony Jones - Part 1 - The Strike Zone
Tony Jones is miffed that the paper he presented at Wheaton has been rejected for publication in a book that includes the papers presented by others. On his blog he expressed a bit of frustration that some theologians characterized his paper as a “disaster” and a couple of others wrote him detailed responses, critiquing specifics. Of course the several students who approached him later saying they appreciated his talk, in Jones’ estimation were sufficient counterbalance to the concerns of the theologians for him to characterize the response as “mixed”. Hmm.
The assignment, apparently, was for Jones to give some perspective on how the emerging church includes the patristic fathers in their “conversation”. Wheaton apparently told him that his talk was “off message” and “provocative but less than helpful”. Having read the entire paper now more than once, I have to say Wheaton could have been less gracious.
Since Jones chose to “deconstruct” Vincent of Lerins’, a rather important figure in the “new ecumenism” espoused by Thomas Oden and others, to refer to Vincent’s famous charge to seek what has been believed “always, everywhere and by all” as “hollow”, perhaps a bit of deconstructing of Tony Jones will be both “provocative” and “helpful”.
The assignment, apparently, was for Jones to give some perspective on how the emerging church includes the patristic fathers in their “conversation”. Wheaton apparently told him that his talk was “off message” and “provocative but less than helpful”. Having read the entire paper now more than once, I have to say Wheaton could have been less gracious.
Since Jones chose to “deconstruct” Vincent of Lerins’, a rather important figure in the “new ecumenism” espoused by Thomas Oden and others, to refer to Vincent’s famous charge to seek what has been believed “always, everywhere and by all” as “hollow”, perhaps a bit of deconstructing of Tony Jones will be both “provocative” and “helpful”.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Debates Worth Reading
I have liked many of the things Christopher Hitchens has written over the past couple of years. He is articulate, witty, fearless and you know what you are reading is exactly what he thinks. His defense of the war in Iraq and scathing critique of Michael Moore are both a treat to read.
Now he has written God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He seems to have taken on all religion, including Islamo-fascism and Christianity. Ordinarily I would be rather disappointed and leave it at that, but for the debate Christianity Today hooked up between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, author of Letter from a Christian Citizen. What strikes me about this debate is how literate both participants are, how forthright, how much fun they seem to be having. Neither pulls any punches. They blast each other regularly, but with delightful prose. I think Wilson does a very good job of holding Hitchen's feet to the fire on the basic question of whether morality is even a legitimate term to use if there is no higher purpose in the universe.
Just read the whole thing. Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.
And then, when that is all done, read the response to Hitchens' book by his brother Peter here. More great reading.
Now he has written God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He seems to have taken on all religion, including Islamo-fascism and Christianity. Ordinarily I would be rather disappointed and leave it at that, but for the debate Christianity Today hooked up between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, author of Letter from a Christian Citizen. What strikes me about this debate is how literate both participants are, how forthright, how much fun they seem to be having. Neither pulls any punches. They blast each other regularly, but with delightful prose. I think Wilson does a very good job of holding Hitchen's feet to the fire on the basic question of whether morality is even a legitimate term to use if there is no higher purpose in the universe.
Just read the whole thing. Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.
And then, when that is all done, read the response to Hitchens' book by his brother Peter here. More great reading.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Frank Schaeffer - Over the Cliff...
Frank Schaeffer. What in the world happened to this man? The son of Francis Schaeffer, a voice that stirred a generation, seems to have completely cut all ties to his father.
There may be a few good reasons, at the risk of trying to psychoanalyze someone I don't know. He was raised in a home that had the influences of 1950s fundamentalist behavior codes, which is true of most anyone born in the 1950s. He was sent off to boarding school while his father's fame and influence took off. Francis is known to have had a temper.
On the other hand, the rigid fundamentalist tag seems a difficult one to make stick. No one, twenty to thirty years ago was more in favor of engaging the culture than Francis Schaeffer. Few were as critical of legalistic insistence on unbiblical absolutes, of being "absolutist about everything". Few were more supportive of Christian involvement in the arts, in simple citizenship, in the full spectrum of living a life as if all things were God given gifts. All the things Franky accuses fundamentalists of depriving him of, his father supported. Odd.
There may be a few good reasons, at the risk of trying to psychoanalyze someone I don't know. He was raised in a home that had the influences of 1950s fundamentalist behavior codes, which is true of most anyone born in the 1950s. He was sent off to boarding school while his father's fame and influence took off. Francis is known to have had a temper.
On the other hand, the rigid fundamentalist tag seems a difficult one to make stick. No one, twenty to thirty years ago was more in favor of engaging the culture than Francis Schaeffer. Few were as critical of legalistic insistence on unbiblical absolutes, of being "absolutist about everything". Few were more supportive of Christian involvement in the arts, in simple citizenship, in the full spectrum of living a life as if all things were God given gifts. All the things Franky accuses fundamentalists of depriving him of, his father supported. Odd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)