It seems theology blogs have finally turned in on themselves. The main theme out there right now . . . blogging.
To Hell with Blogging, and Back Again
Blogging as Theological Discourse
Maybe we need our own print journal?
Of course there is always Jodi Dean’s new release Blog Theory: feedback and capture in the circuits of drive.
States of Exile is the third book in the Polyglossia series which engages the radical reformation tradition with contemporary issues and authors. In this book Epp Weaver explores exile as a theological mode (from a broadly Yoderian perspective) as well as the social reality of exile as it exists in Israel-Palestine.
I went for a walk this afternoon with Salem. I usually head out to our local thrift store and check out the used books. I picked up a collection of poems and prose by William Blake. On my way back I often to stop at an area that has lots of shade and grass for Salem to crawl around on. Before I knew it I realized that I was reading William Blake aloud to my 11 month old in a cemetery. Pray for the boy . . .
A couple of excerpts from Blake though,
The Clod and the Pebble
“Love seeketh not Itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.”So sang a little Clod of Clay,
Trodden with the cattle’s feet,
But a Pebble of the brook
Warbled out these metres meet:“Love seeketh only Self to please,
To bind another to its delight,
Joys in another’s loss of ease
And builds a Hell in Heaven’s despite.”
The Garden of Love
I went to the Garden of Love
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And “Though shalt not” writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore,And I saw it was filled with graves
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
I am slowly re-entering some poetic works but I find I need quite simple rhythm to feel like I am engaging them. I know it is likely my inability or impatience that keeps me from further exploration but for now pieces like this are very satisfying.
I have studied in a few institutions were some (notable) NT and OT profs have claimed that you can’t understand certain biblical passages without a working knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. Now in a sense this is true as English translations have already performed much of that work for us. However, I never sat very easily with the sort of mechanistic approach that some of these profs seemed to work from. I can remember one prof at a chapel expound on a ‘difficult’ text with a sort of swagger, as though he himself had cut the key that would finally unlock its meaning.
If a confessional community approaches the Bible as a text that will help witness to a living relationship with God and a subsequent manner of living then I am not too concerned that we need a high priesthood to distribute ‘technically correct’ readings.
In saying all this though I do feel it is tremendously advantageous for a preaching pastor to have a good handle on biblical languages. Preaching on Jonah last Sunday two of my main moves depended on drawing attention to what was going on in the Hebrew text. Jonah is a highly literary if not poetic piece. This places greater strain on the translator but I think we need to swing back away from a sense of ‘dynamic equivalence’ which does not account for a poetic literalism. The passage below is from the NIV. The words in italic and bold type are the same Hebrew noun while the underlined words represent the same Hebrew verb.
ch 3 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
ch 4 1 But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry.
Maybe its just me but it seems when the same word is being used in relation to all three subjects in such a dense passage it may be helpful to draw some attention to it. The movement of the Nineveh away from her evil and God away from his destruction which then comes to settle in Jonah’s displeasure seems theologically significant. Again I am not saying a careful reflective person could not gather this theological nuance from a translation but there seems to be another path that does not assume an elite distribution of exegetical truth but rather a theological-aesthetic that seeks to unfold and celebrate the layers of the text.
My introduction to him was a little late but if you have not yet met Officer Bubbles from the G20 protests in Toronto then say hello . . . at your own risk!
This tragic scene actually makes me laugh out loud every time I see it. Reduction to absurdity.
I hope I am in good company with other bloggers in being a little obsessive and sensitive when it comes to my blog. I just made a major shift from a longstanding blog that I had run for a number of years. There I tried to engage academically with theology. This mode met with greater and lesser success at times. The shift here was to represent an intentional attempt to shift my manner of discourse to become more particular with respect to my vocation as a pastor.
This past week I was reflecting on this recent shift and as I looked at my blog I suddenly had the temptation to change my tag line, descriptive pastoral theology. The reason for this was both internal and external. Externally I felt that it might project too limited a scope on what I am trying to do here causing people to judge this blog by its (sub)title. The second and more significant motivation is my own internal relationship to the thing called pastoral theology. I hated my pastoral theology course in seminary and I have never encountered pastoral theology text that I have appreciated nor have I come across many pastors blogging who have kept my attention. These are supposed to be the practical applications of theology for the church but they always strike me as impoverished theoretically or simply uninteresting practically. For this reason my academic pursuits have always been a little escapist when it comes to the day-to-day realities of pastoring. At least when I was focusing on biblical studies I was gaining invaluable tools for directly related study. Theology always presented itself as the un-winnable dichotomy between irrelevant systematic theology and weak pastoral theology. I have come to terms with this experience as being a symptom of my choice in educational institutions. However it influenced a trajectory that has been hard to alter.
I decided to keep my tag line because I see the value, potential and role of pastoring. Given my congregations I have experienced a greater freedom in my intellectual formation. I am no longer on a track of greater and greater specialization making sure I can account for all secondary literature on a given person or subject. I now read broadly with a sense of imagination in how various themes can engage with each other. The problem remains that this process has still largely confined itself to the pulpit. It is my hope that this space will eventually lead to the exploration of other areas of pastoral work (pastoral care, baptism, Lord’s Supper, ‘mission’, etc.). In this way I hope to engage and also challenge the intellectual trends that have been formative in spaces marginal or outside the church. And of course that those trends would also challenge the practices within the church.
For this reason I also want to maintain the title descriptive pastoral theology. Again, this is no claim to objective understanding of task or concept. This points rather to a practice or discipline which is meant to slow things down and takes for granted that things are already in motion and so shifts in perspective and articulation will already announce and enact shifts of practice and understanding as this is worked in particular.
In his conclusion to Works of Love Kierkegaard introduces the words of beloved apostle,
Beloved, let us love one another
These are words of consummated love that we novices are not yet able to speak. These words are somehow transfigured and blessed. They speak of the old law that is ever-new. We do not speak these words as we cannot leave the school of commandment prematurely but we must become hearers of these words. From here SK begins his final exposition.
Now only one thing more. Remember the Christian like-for-like, the like-for-like of the eternal.
For a quick and sobering overview of global circumstances take a look. These sorts of snapshots are simply crushing, at least they can be for me. They are often evoked to create a sense of urgency. Predictions about increased severity are brought to the present so that increased leverage can be applied for ill or good. One thought has come to me. The thought is that perhaps urgency is precisely the wrong response. We often characterize this age, or the modern age in general, as lavish, excessive, decadent. But it is not. Our age could perhaps be more appropriately defined as being fiercely restrictive. And no where is this more clearly seen in how time is viewed. Nearly every aspect of our culture is bound to the desire for speed. I would argue (off the top of my head . . . and would be happy to be proven wrong) that a vast majority of the factors that have led to our global situation are directly or indirectly connected to our inability to be lavish and excessive with time. Increased speed fuels the illusion of omnipotence. Speed secures us, keeping us ahead of disaster (that is keeping us ahead of the less speedy). Speed is killing. Greater urgency will likely only fall prey to the beast of speed. I offer tentatively that an expansive view of time in my practices may be the most effective response. This is a fearful and cautious position open to revision.
I wonder to what extent the primary factor in the forming of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai was patience, the people’s inability to rest from activity and production?
Even the most rugged SUV is overall far less efficient at tackling a given terrain than walking is. It only makes the movement a little faster.
As I mentioned below I was at an interviewing weekend at a church recently. After my sermon the floor was opened up for questions directed at me (there were about 350 people there). I was quite surprised at the range of topics. Now bear in mind I do not have a traditional church or education background for this particular church so I suspect at least a few individuals felt some red flags go up over my resume. One question was whether I held to the reformed doctrine of predestination (the right answer here is no). Another question was whether I took a literalistic reading of the Bible. There were of course other questions. Some had to do with my background and intention for this position. After a day or two of reflecting on this part of the weekend I began to feel how problematic this was. In almost all cases I think I knew what they were really asking but the questions themselves placed unnecessary parameters on how the question could be answered. Ultimately the questions were of a yes/no nature. And perhaps I should have simply answered them as such. Do you hold to the doctrine of predestination . . . no. This, I suspect, would not have been well received and so I tried to build context around my response framing out why my yes or no could be intelligible for my particular situation. But this was framing from nowhere as I did not know what was really being sought after.
In the end this was a highly unsatisfying time. I think for these formats to have any validity congregations must learn the basic posture of invitation as opposed to inquisition. Share with us . . . Describe for me . . . As it stood this environment seemed to enforce the sort of subtle and indirect communication that can leave people inside and outside of churches wondering whether they are in fact inside or outside (or perhaps upside down).
Being clear in communication does not mean being blunt it means being clear first of all with yourself. Why are you asking this, have you expressed this motivation in the question? Do you already have a pre-determined answer you are looking for? Does this question aim at helping you to know and understand the person you am talking with better? Does this question place inappropriate parameters on how the person is able to respond?
I don’t actually mind being in the hot seat I just find that in situations where someone’s potential livelihood is at stake care should be taken educating a group towards an appropriate method of inquiry (well, appropriate by my standards).
David CL Driedger 