In the coming weeks I hope to delve into salvation issues including the precise nature of saving faith, justification and sanctification. First, however, I want to say a bit about Christian worship and its relation to the Trinity.
Christians Worship a Trinity
My last post sought to highlight the implications that the Triune nature of God had for religious dialog among Christians. Now I want to ask what implications the Trinity should have for Christian worship.
Christians worship a triune God: one God in three distinct persons. Christians worship the Father. Christians worship the Son. Christians worship the Holy Spirit. For high churches and many liturgically oriented Protestant churches, this is obvious. The shape of the liturgy, as it has come to us through the rich Christian tradition, is unmistakably Trinitarian. Prayers are addressed to all three persons of the Godhead. Creeds acknowledge each person. Each person is integral to worship and each person receives worship. For liturgical traditions, at least in form, the worship is Trinitarian.
The Unitarian Danger of Non-Liturgical Worship
A problem arises with certain Protestant traditions that have departed from traditional liturgy. In many Protestant services the sermon, not the Eucharist, is the highpoint of worship. Creeds are absent and prayers are largely extemporaneous. This departure from traditional liturgical forms does not necessitate a departure from Trinitarian worship. However, it does greatly increase the risk. This type of worship often puts extra pressure on the sermon and the songs/hymns to achieve a properly Trinitarian form. Unfortunately, these elements in many Protestant churches fail to highlight or even acknowledge the triune nature of God. The result is that many Christian congregations, who are theoretically Trinitarian in belief, worship in a functionally Unitarian manner.
This Unitarian worship is most evident in contemporary worship music. Robert Parry, an astute Pentecostal theologian, ran a statistical survey of Trinitarian content for nearly 400 songs coming out of the Vineyard churches (an extremely influential contemporary Protestant force in worship). What he found was that many songs were addressed to a generic “Lord” or “God.” When one person of the Trinity was singled out, it was overwhelmingly Jesus who received the nod. An extremely small portion of songs mentioned the Holy Spirit at all, and almost none focused on the Spirit exclusively. Vineyard songs do not represent the totality of contemporary Protestant worship; however, they are fairly representative. Thus, when non-liturgical Protestant churches select worship music (if they are not extremely discerning) they will most likely create a worship music experience that is functionally Unitarian (most often worshiping either a generic “Lord” or “Jesus”).
What’s the big deal?
Besides the fact that all Christians theoretically believe in a Triune God, it is immensely important to worship in a Trinitarian fashion. If God is Triune then we Christians should worship Him as such. We should care about worshipping Him as accurately as possible. Humanity was made in the image of the Triune God. Since we have all fallen into sin, God has continually been trying to get us back into right relationship with Himself. This right relationship is expressed in its highest form through worship. Worship is where we as creatures approach our creator. We as the redeemed Church approach our Redeemer. We as the continually sanctified body approach our Sanctifier. Worship is the closest we get to heaven on earth. It is when we corporately express our right relation of adoration to God.
Through proper Trinitarian worship Christians can come closer to a realization of right relationship with the God who is triune.
What can we do?
My main advice for non-liturgical contemporary churches would be to adopt traditional liturgies. They are ready made triune vehicles of worship; you can’t go wrong. If this is not a possibility or simply not desired there is still plenty that can be done.
1. We should encourage our music leaders and song writers to write songs with substantive Trinitarian content, making sure not to neglect the oft forgotten Holy Spirit.
2. Even songs sung to a generic God can be redirected to one of the persons through a prayer that comes before or after the song.
3. Prayers should be informed by thoroughly Trinitarian language.
4. Other elements are ripe with possibility, including a Trinitarian benediction. Even the very structure of the service can evidence the Trinity.
5. Sermons should explicitly teach the Trinity and use implicitly Trinitarian language.
6. Perhaps a contemporary worship styl;e could be infused with a hymn every now and then. Charles Wesley wrote an entire hymnal (nearly 200 hymns) solely on the Trinity. \
A vision for Trinitarian worship
Essentially worship is when the body of Christ on earth, the Church, joins the Son in his continual worship of the Father in heaven, through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Son is our high priest and main worship leader. He is constantly interceding on our behalf, making our worship acceptable to the Father. Christians, through the power of the Holy Spirit, join in the worship that the Son has offered for all eternity. Ultimately, worship is offered to the Trinity through the facilitation of the Trinity. In inviting us to worship, God is inviting us to join the eternal loving communion of the Trinity.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
What if Truth is a Person?
In building on my last post concerning proper religious dialog, I now seek to address how dialog partners should approach truth.
The Impetus for this Post
The impetus for this post again, begins with me. When I first became serious about Christianity I approached the truth as something to be sought out ruthlessly, quickly grasped and then immediately propagated. This resulted in me taking truth as an object, wielding it bravely and clubbing others over the head with it.
At seminary we often hear of the tendency (active since the Enlightenment and the advent of modern thought) to approach truth as if it could be completely possessed, controlled, manipulated and scientifically dissected. To a certain degree this is true. I can apply the rules of logic to an argument and identify fallacies. I can run a statistical study on the attendance of baseball games and come up with a pretty accurate picture of attendance on the average spring day. But can I approach religious, specifically Christian, truth in this manner?
While many religious people would say yes (especially fundamentalists who are profoundly influenced by a modernist paradigm); I answer no. This is because, for the Christian, truth is not primarily an object, but a subject. Truth is a person.
Truth is a Personal
More accurately, truth is a group of three persons in one Godhead: the Trinity. All Christians believe this, but many have not adequately let the implications of this doctrine guide how they approach truth and present it in religious dialog. If the truth is most essentially personal, that means that you cannot simply approach it like you would a book of distinct facts, that can be appropriated separately in any context. If the truth is personal, then one will not be able to grasp it by reading a book. One will actually have to enter into a relationship with the truth. In a substantive way, no one can fully realize Christian truth without it becoming personal. In short, if the truth is personal, then it cannot simply be related and appropriated objectively. Christians must have a more subjective approach to truth.
What does this mean for dialog?
If Christian truth is personal and must be received personally, this has clear implications for how we go about pursuing and presenting the truth in dialog. Below I have listed a few of these implications:
1-Revelation is not a textbook; rather, it is a witness to the Trinity.
Christians do not worship the Bible, they worship the persons whom the Bible gives witness to: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible is a revelatory account; written by those who witnessed the mighty acts of the Trinity in history. The Bible is a product of many relationships: (i.e. the relationships of faithful writers to God). The main purpose of the biblical text is not to provide Christians or Jews with a textbook on life. The main purpose of the biblical text is to introduce people to, and remind people of, the Triune God.
In dialog, this means the Bible is not wielded as a weapon. It also means isolated verses cannot simply be lifted out of context and appropriated as a premise in some theological argument. More work, and more engagement with the personal God of Israel is required.
2-At the center of Christianity resides two utter mysteries.
Christianity thrives on paradoxes. These are contraries held in creative tension. Blessed are the poor, yet we should continually work to eradicate poverty; the first shall be last and the last shall be first; in the Eucharist we eat the body and blood of Christ, yet the elements do not taste like flesh and blood. The two chief paradoxes of Christianity center on the Trinity. The first is the structure of the Trinity itself: 3 persons, 1 God. In an important way Christianity actually asserts that 3 = 1. Far from being shoddy math, this equation relates one of the central mysteries of Christianity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all part of one God, sharing the same substance but distinct in person.
The second central paradox in Christianity is the incarnation: when God became a man. Specifically one person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, descended infinitely and became a temporal man. God became a man and then died. God died, and for his enemies no less! This is a mystery beyond all clumsy modernist grasping.
What does all this mean for dialog? Simply put, it means we should approach truth claims with extreme humility. The existence of revelatory scriptures means we can talk about God. God’s mysterious nature means that here is much we can only assert with caution and much we cannot speak of at all. So in dialog, we can express our theological convictions, but we should be extremely cautious about what we essentialize and say we know with a high degree of certainty. Also, when we do encounter theological views that are deficient, we should be careful not to label adherents of these views as ignorant, irresponsible, illogical, etc . . . Also, we should realize that because God is so mysterious, there may be a range of acceptable theological positions. Not all inaccurate theology is harmful, and some errors only result in relatively minor harm. Consequently, some battles are simply not worth fighting, especially if fighting those battles will burn more bridges than it constructs.
In brief, the utter mystery and paradox at the very heart of Christian doctrine should instill in us a great humility and encourage us to pause before making any dogmatic claims to certain truth.
3-The Truth is a Community.
Christians believe that before anything else existed, the Trinity simply was for all eternity. The Trinity is an eternal community of three persons constantly giving and receiving love. This means for the Christian, the most basic fact of existence is not material, but moral. More specifically, the basic essence of all existence is love or loving community. Furthermore Christians believe that all people are created in the very image of this Trinity. Thus, it should come as no surprise that people are inherently communal beings and flourish most when they are giving and receiving love in community.
Christians also believe that people have fallen through sin. Essentially the majority of the biblical narrative is the story of God trying to bring all of humanity (and creation in general) back into the loving communion of the Trinity. Part of being a Christian is attempting to realize this loving communion now, as much as we can, on earth. This si the coming kingdom of Christ.
What does all this mean for the pursuit of truth in dialog? One thing I think it means is that the truth should be pursued both within community and in ways that promote community.
-Ideally, truth will be pursued from within community. This is why Christians should take seriously the insights of other denominations (through ecumenical dialog) and other times (through the rich Christian tradition). So many errors and poor examples of dialog result in a small group (or an individual) isolating themselves from the rest of the church universal.
-Ideally, truth will be pursued in a manner that builds community rather than tears it apart. At the very least we should be extremely suspect of any rhetoric that divides more than it brings together and builds up. Far too many times Protestants have sought to delineate differences where there are only misunderstandings, or have asserted major differences where only minor quibbles reside. To be sure, there are plenty of real differences to be found within the Christian fold. However, let us suspend our judgment and create a space where community might develop and apparent differences might dissolve.
Until next week . . . peace.
The Impetus for this Post
The impetus for this post again, begins with me. When I first became serious about Christianity I approached the truth as something to be sought out ruthlessly, quickly grasped and then immediately propagated. This resulted in me taking truth as an object, wielding it bravely and clubbing others over the head with it.
At seminary we often hear of the tendency (active since the Enlightenment and the advent of modern thought) to approach truth as if it could be completely possessed, controlled, manipulated and scientifically dissected. To a certain degree this is true. I can apply the rules of logic to an argument and identify fallacies. I can run a statistical study on the attendance of baseball games and come up with a pretty accurate picture of attendance on the average spring day. But can I approach religious, specifically Christian, truth in this manner?
While many religious people would say yes (especially fundamentalists who are profoundly influenced by a modernist paradigm); I answer no. This is because, for the Christian, truth is not primarily an object, but a subject. Truth is a person.
Truth is a Personal
More accurately, truth is a group of three persons in one Godhead: the Trinity. All Christians believe this, but many have not adequately let the implications of this doctrine guide how they approach truth and present it in religious dialog. If the truth is most essentially personal, that means that you cannot simply approach it like you would a book of distinct facts, that can be appropriated separately in any context. If the truth is personal, then one will not be able to grasp it by reading a book. One will actually have to enter into a relationship with the truth. In a substantive way, no one can fully realize Christian truth without it becoming personal. In short, if the truth is personal, then it cannot simply be related and appropriated objectively. Christians must have a more subjective approach to truth.
What does this mean for dialog?
If Christian truth is personal and must be received personally, this has clear implications for how we go about pursuing and presenting the truth in dialog. Below I have listed a few of these implications:
1-Revelation is not a textbook; rather, it is a witness to the Trinity.
Christians do not worship the Bible, they worship the persons whom the Bible gives witness to: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible is a revelatory account; written by those who witnessed the mighty acts of the Trinity in history. The Bible is a product of many relationships: (i.e. the relationships of faithful writers to God). The main purpose of the biblical text is not to provide Christians or Jews with a textbook on life. The main purpose of the biblical text is to introduce people to, and remind people of, the Triune God.
In dialog, this means the Bible is not wielded as a weapon. It also means isolated verses cannot simply be lifted out of context and appropriated as a premise in some theological argument. More work, and more engagement with the personal God of Israel is required.
2-At the center of Christianity resides two utter mysteries.
Christianity thrives on paradoxes. These are contraries held in creative tension. Blessed are the poor, yet we should continually work to eradicate poverty; the first shall be last and the last shall be first; in the Eucharist we eat the body and blood of Christ, yet the elements do not taste like flesh and blood. The two chief paradoxes of Christianity center on the Trinity. The first is the structure of the Trinity itself: 3 persons, 1 God. In an important way Christianity actually asserts that 3 = 1. Far from being shoddy math, this equation relates one of the central mysteries of Christianity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all part of one God, sharing the same substance but distinct in person.
The second central paradox in Christianity is the incarnation: when God became a man. Specifically one person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, descended infinitely and became a temporal man. God became a man and then died. God died, and for his enemies no less! This is a mystery beyond all clumsy modernist grasping.
What does all this mean for dialog? Simply put, it means we should approach truth claims with extreme humility. The existence of revelatory scriptures means we can talk about God. God’s mysterious nature means that here is much we can only assert with caution and much we cannot speak of at all. So in dialog, we can express our theological convictions, but we should be extremely cautious about what we essentialize and say we know with a high degree of certainty. Also, when we do encounter theological views that are deficient, we should be careful not to label adherents of these views as ignorant, irresponsible, illogical, etc . . . Also, we should realize that because God is so mysterious, there may be a range of acceptable theological positions. Not all inaccurate theology is harmful, and some errors only result in relatively minor harm. Consequently, some battles are simply not worth fighting, especially if fighting those battles will burn more bridges than it constructs.
In brief, the utter mystery and paradox at the very heart of Christian doctrine should instill in us a great humility and encourage us to pause before making any dogmatic claims to certain truth.
3-The Truth is a Community.
Christians believe that before anything else existed, the Trinity simply was for all eternity. The Trinity is an eternal community of three persons constantly giving and receiving love. This means for the Christian, the most basic fact of existence is not material, but moral. More specifically, the basic essence of all existence is love or loving community. Furthermore Christians believe that all people are created in the very image of this Trinity. Thus, it should come as no surprise that people are inherently communal beings and flourish most when they are giving and receiving love in community.
Christians also believe that people have fallen through sin. Essentially the majority of the biblical narrative is the story of God trying to bring all of humanity (and creation in general) back into the loving communion of the Trinity. Part of being a Christian is attempting to realize this loving communion now, as much as we can, on earth. This si the coming kingdom of Christ.
What does all this mean for the pursuit of truth in dialog? One thing I think it means is that the truth should be pursued both within community and in ways that promote community.
-Ideally, truth will be pursued from within community. This is why Christians should take seriously the insights of other denominations (through ecumenical dialog) and other times (through the rich Christian tradition). So many errors and poor examples of dialog result in a small group (or an individual) isolating themselves from the rest of the church universal.
-Ideally, truth will be pursued in a manner that builds community rather than tears it apart. At the very least we should be extremely suspect of any rhetoric that divides more than it brings together and builds up. Far too many times Protestants have sought to delineate differences where there are only misunderstandings, or have asserted major differences where only minor quibbles reside. To be sure, there are plenty of real differences to be found within the Christian fold. However, let us suspend our judgment and create a space where community might develop and apparent differences might dissolve.
Until next week . . . peace.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Civil Discourse in the Religious Sphere
Since this is a critical blog addressing issues in theology, I thought it would be good to begin with a post or two on acceptable and unacceptable manners of religious discourse. But at once I run up against the difficulty that few persons have been more guilty of the sins I wish to enumerate than myself. I have been guilty of every single discourse deficiency that I will soon denounce. Perhaps I have such a keen awareness of communication failures now, because I have made so many in the past. So let me disabuse any readers of the notion that I am speaking from some unassailable position of righteousness. I have been uncharitable and overly contentious in dialog and debate. I seek now to clarify some parameters of fruitful dialog so that I myself might follow them throughout my blog.
The impetus for this post
The impetus for this post lies in three areas. First, the general state of religious and theological discourse in the public forum (I am thinking mainly of the United States here) is atrocious. Unfortunately, my own Protestant sisters and brothers appear to be some of the worst offenders. One need only view a variety of televangelist programs to realize that religious discourse is often too contentious, uncharitable and just plain ineffective. Second, while I think my own theological institution has for the most part succeeded in fostering fruitful dialog, I have witnessed several disturbing displays (including class discussions, public dialogs and online forums). This is especially disturbing in the rare instances when faculty members are involved. Third, and foremost, when I first became serious about Christianity, I fervently loved truth (as I still do). Unfortunately I was also a horrible communicator and therefore did “the truth” a huge disservice nearly every time I entered into a debate with another person. In short, I was a jerk.
A few things to keep in mind to produce and facilitate fruitful discourse in religion
One could easily write a lengthy textbook on proper conduct in contemporary religious discourse. The following is a list of helpful points to keep in mind when entering into religious discourse with anyone and in any forum. This is not meant to be comprehensive and I certainly reserve the right to return to this topic often.
1. Critical thinking and the pursuit of truth is not an excuse to be overly contentious.
In the scholarly and unscholarly evangelical circles in which I run, the most common excuse for overly contentious dialog is that the offender was simply pursuing truth or engaging in critical thought. At times phrases like “the ruthless pursuit of truth” are lauded in theological and irreligious circles alike. But something is wrong here. Should we really be “ruthless” in our pursuit of truth? I would say not. Christians have a paradigm for speaking the truth and it is not ruthlessness; rather, Christians are called to speak the truth in love. Now the truth may still hurt, but it will not be meant to hurt or degrade. It will not be stated in unnecessarily contentious and uncharitable ways. And it will always be stated with humility.
Ultimately, in lieu of a comprehensive textbook, what qualifies as overly contentious will have to be decided inductively (through assessing many individual examples of dialog). Some of the guidelines below will help to distinguish proper, civil and fruitful dialog from improper, ruthless, and ineffective dialog.
2. Watch your tone
Unfortunately, much of today’s religious dialog has only one volume (SHOUTING) and one speed (fast). This often results in unfruitful tones such as: annoyed, angry, irate, triumphalist, condescending, etc . . . Effective communication will always be mindful of tone and its overt and subtle consequences. This is especially important in religious dialog when people are dealing with substantive, and often sensitive, issues.
3. Effective communication means that you have to care about both content AND delivery
If your goal as a communicator is to simply state the truth, then you need not worry about delivery at all. However, if you wish to actually communicate that truth in such a way that other people will actually listen to you (and even possibly be convinced of your position) then you will need to care very much about your delivery. Simply put, if you speak the truth and no one hears you, you have not engaged in communication of any kind and certainly not fruitful religious dialog. Oftentimes religious leaders or theologians (both amateur and professional) will speak “the truth” in such a contentious way that only the most ardent ideologue will listen (either to affirm their already held positions, or in preparation to rebut the point made). Many more silent observers will simply stop listening to the speaker or will stop taking her or his points seriously. The speakers tone can effectively nullify their message, even if it is the truth.
Here is where many conservative Protestants will often interject, “But look at how Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and look at how Paul entered into heated debate with those preaching a false gospel.” This is a valid insight. It shows that there is a time and a place to engage in heated rhetoric. Unfortunately, these same Protestants often ignore a few qualifiers, such as:
1-The heated dialog of Jesus and even Paul is only a small portion of their overall communication in biblical materials.
2-The biblical materials only represents a small portion of the overall communication of Jesus or Paul. It would seem safe to assume that Scripture highlights a disproportionate number of heated encounters in order to make certain important points.
3-You and I are not Jesus, or even Paul. Perhaps some of their heated debate comes from a legitimate authority that you and I do not possess.
So, please, do not hide behind the lame excuse, “well at least I proclaimed the truth!” Yes you did, and very few people received it. Congratulations, you just participated in a futile exercise of speaking to the wind.
4. But lots of people are engaging me in fruitful dialogue
At this point our representative religious ideologue will object, “But lots of people are listening to me. I know this because whenever I speak in this way I get a lot of response.” This may be proof of effective dialog. More likely it is proof of the sad truth that overly contentious debate and bold uncharitable claims will attract a lot of superficial attention and chatter. Never mind that you are discounting the large number of folks who have stopped listening to your diatribes. The people left listening often only listen so they can respond in an equally contentious manner. What results is a lot of heated chatter and posturing, very little genuine listening and learning, and most often no changed minds. This is painfully obvious on the internet where all those involved in a dialog (a debate really) will start and end with the exact same positions, having learned very little of the opposing side. What is worse, the debate has actually polarized the sides and resulted in much ill will and harmful bias. This is not fruitful dialog and is a poor example of communication.
5. If you shout people might not hear you
So to briefly summarize, “if you shout people might not hear you.” Fortunately the converse is also true, “if you quiet your voice you may gain many more genuine listeners.” It is true that blowhards often gain a lot of attention and adherents. It is also true that they do little to advance mutual understanding or fruitful discourse of any kind. This is usually accomplished by someone who is a bit quieter, a bit slower and therefore more respected. Such people do not ignore differences or even deficiencies; they simply do not seek to harpoon others with them. Too often I have seen Christians claim that they are speaking the truth in love when the gleam of anger is all too clear in their eyes. We need more people who care about truth and about being winsome communicators.
6. Clear a space for synthetic dialog
Readers should not misunderstand me at this point. I love debate (indeed I love it too much) and it is certainly a legitimate form of communication. Debate has its place and time; however, that place is not EVERYWHERE and that time is not ALWAYS. Debate should be an occasional form of religious communication, not its default. If I could only make one change to the state of religious discourse in the United States in general, and among evangelical Protestants in particular, it would be to reduce debate oriented speech and make more room for synthetic forms of discourse.
Religious commentators are notorious for turning every discussion into a debate. I have actually witnessed a respected Protestant scholar turn what was supposed to be a chance for ecumenical dialog and mutual understanding into a heated debate. This was my chief problem when I first converted to Christianity. All discussions had to be debates (in fact the two words had become synonymous in my mind) and all debates had to come to their end (either the other side conceding my point, or the other ending the debate because they did not care enough about truth). How wrong and harmful I was in my speech and thought.
Synthetic, cooperative and learning oriented communication is both viable and fruitful. I have heard Protestants claim that they already know where they agree with others (such a Roman Catholics) the real area of live interest is the differences between the traditions. First, let me suggest that the majority of Protestants do not know the true extent of similarity that they share with Roman Catholics (especially some of the Wesleyans I have had the pleasure of conversing with). Second, sometimes similarities need to be carefully uncovered. Oftentimes Protestants and Roman Catholics use the same terms in very different ways and so end up talking past one another. If more of our dialog was centered on cooperative learning rather than heated debate, we would more readily notice these instances. Third, there is great value in dwelling on similarities and suspending debate when we encounter differences. Part of being charitable is temporarily (or permanently) suspending debate or critique when one first encounters a difference. This creates the space necessary for genuine understanding to develop. In this process, opposing sides might discover that the difference was only apparent, or that the difference is not as crucial as they once thought, or, perhaps more rarely, that their own tradition is the one that is in the wrong.
So much could be written on religious dialog. I have only given the barest of indications here towards what constitutes fruitful dialog and what should be avoided. For anyone who has actually read to the end, I would be interested in your thoughts concerning any of the above points.
Until next week . . . peace
The impetus for this post
The impetus for this post lies in three areas. First, the general state of religious and theological discourse in the public forum (I am thinking mainly of the United States here) is atrocious. Unfortunately, my own Protestant sisters and brothers appear to be some of the worst offenders. One need only view a variety of televangelist programs to realize that religious discourse is often too contentious, uncharitable and just plain ineffective. Second, while I think my own theological institution has for the most part succeeded in fostering fruitful dialog, I have witnessed several disturbing displays (including class discussions, public dialogs and online forums). This is especially disturbing in the rare instances when faculty members are involved. Third, and foremost, when I first became serious about Christianity, I fervently loved truth (as I still do). Unfortunately I was also a horrible communicator and therefore did “the truth” a huge disservice nearly every time I entered into a debate with another person. In short, I was a jerk.
A few things to keep in mind to produce and facilitate fruitful discourse in religion
One could easily write a lengthy textbook on proper conduct in contemporary religious discourse. The following is a list of helpful points to keep in mind when entering into religious discourse with anyone and in any forum. This is not meant to be comprehensive and I certainly reserve the right to return to this topic often.
1. Critical thinking and the pursuit of truth is not an excuse to be overly contentious.
In the scholarly and unscholarly evangelical circles in which I run, the most common excuse for overly contentious dialog is that the offender was simply pursuing truth or engaging in critical thought. At times phrases like “the ruthless pursuit of truth” are lauded in theological and irreligious circles alike. But something is wrong here. Should we really be “ruthless” in our pursuit of truth? I would say not. Christians have a paradigm for speaking the truth and it is not ruthlessness; rather, Christians are called to speak the truth in love. Now the truth may still hurt, but it will not be meant to hurt or degrade. It will not be stated in unnecessarily contentious and uncharitable ways. And it will always be stated with humility.
Ultimately, in lieu of a comprehensive textbook, what qualifies as overly contentious will have to be decided inductively (through assessing many individual examples of dialog). Some of the guidelines below will help to distinguish proper, civil and fruitful dialog from improper, ruthless, and ineffective dialog.
2. Watch your tone
Unfortunately, much of today’s religious dialog has only one volume (SHOUTING) and one speed (fast). This often results in unfruitful tones such as: annoyed, angry, irate, triumphalist, condescending, etc . . . Effective communication will always be mindful of tone and its overt and subtle consequences. This is especially important in religious dialog when people are dealing with substantive, and often sensitive, issues.
3. Effective communication means that you have to care about both content AND delivery
If your goal as a communicator is to simply state the truth, then you need not worry about delivery at all. However, if you wish to actually communicate that truth in such a way that other people will actually listen to you (and even possibly be convinced of your position) then you will need to care very much about your delivery. Simply put, if you speak the truth and no one hears you, you have not engaged in communication of any kind and certainly not fruitful religious dialog. Oftentimes religious leaders or theologians (both amateur and professional) will speak “the truth” in such a contentious way that only the most ardent ideologue will listen (either to affirm their already held positions, or in preparation to rebut the point made). Many more silent observers will simply stop listening to the speaker or will stop taking her or his points seriously. The speakers tone can effectively nullify their message, even if it is the truth.
Here is where many conservative Protestants will often interject, “But look at how Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and look at how Paul entered into heated debate with those preaching a false gospel.” This is a valid insight. It shows that there is a time and a place to engage in heated rhetoric. Unfortunately, these same Protestants often ignore a few qualifiers, such as:
1-The heated dialog of Jesus and even Paul is only a small portion of their overall communication in biblical materials.
2-The biblical materials only represents a small portion of the overall communication of Jesus or Paul. It would seem safe to assume that Scripture highlights a disproportionate number of heated encounters in order to make certain important points.
3-You and I are not Jesus, or even Paul. Perhaps some of their heated debate comes from a legitimate authority that you and I do not possess.
So, please, do not hide behind the lame excuse, “well at least I proclaimed the truth!” Yes you did, and very few people received it. Congratulations, you just participated in a futile exercise of speaking to the wind.
4. But lots of people are engaging me in fruitful dialogue
At this point our representative religious ideologue will object, “But lots of people are listening to me. I know this because whenever I speak in this way I get a lot of response.” This may be proof of effective dialog. More likely it is proof of the sad truth that overly contentious debate and bold uncharitable claims will attract a lot of superficial attention and chatter. Never mind that you are discounting the large number of folks who have stopped listening to your diatribes. The people left listening often only listen so they can respond in an equally contentious manner. What results is a lot of heated chatter and posturing, very little genuine listening and learning, and most often no changed minds. This is painfully obvious on the internet where all those involved in a dialog (a debate really) will start and end with the exact same positions, having learned very little of the opposing side. What is worse, the debate has actually polarized the sides and resulted in much ill will and harmful bias. This is not fruitful dialog and is a poor example of communication.
5. If you shout people might not hear you
So to briefly summarize, “if you shout people might not hear you.” Fortunately the converse is also true, “if you quiet your voice you may gain many more genuine listeners.” It is true that blowhards often gain a lot of attention and adherents. It is also true that they do little to advance mutual understanding or fruitful discourse of any kind. This is usually accomplished by someone who is a bit quieter, a bit slower and therefore more respected. Such people do not ignore differences or even deficiencies; they simply do not seek to harpoon others with them. Too often I have seen Christians claim that they are speaking the truth in love when the gleam of anger is all too clear in their eyes. We need more people who care about truth and about being winsome communicators.
6. Clear a space for synthetic dialog
Readers should not misunderstand me at this point. I love debate (indeed I love it too much) and it is certainly a legitimate form of communication. Debate has its place and time; however, that place is not EVERYWHERE and that time is not ALWAYS. Debate should be an occasional form of religious communication, not its default. If I could only make one change to the state of religious discourse in the United States in general, and among evangelical Protestants in particular, it would be to reduce debate oriented speech and make more room for synthetic forms of discourse.
Religious commentators are notorious for turning every discussion into a debate. I have actually witnessed a respected Protestant scholar turn what was supposed to be a chance for ecumenical dialog and mutual understanding into a heated debate. This was my chief problem when I first converted to Christianity. All discussions had to be debates (in fact the two words had become synonymous in my mind) and all debates had to come to their end (either the other side conceding my point, or the other ending the debate because they did not care enough about truth). How wrong and harmful I was in my speech and thought.
Synthetic, cooperative and learning oriented communication is both viable and fruitful. I have heard Protestants claim that they already know where they agree with others (such a Roman Catholics) the real area of live interest is the differences between the traditions. First, let me suggest that the majority of Protestants do not know the true extent of similarity that they share with Roman Catholics (especially some of the Wesleyans I have had the pleasure of conversing with). Second, sometimes similarities need to be carefully uncovered. Oftentimes Protestants and Roman Catholics use the same terms in very different ways and so end up talking past one another. If more of our dialog was centered on cooperative learning rather than heated debate, we would more readily notice these instances. Third, there is great value in dwelling on similarities and suspending debate when we encounter differences. Part of being charitable is temporarily (or permanently) suspending debate or critique when one first encounters a difference. This creates the space necessary for genuine understanding to develop. In this process, opposing sides might discover that the difference was only apparent, or that the difference is not as crucial as they once thought, or, perhaps more rarely, that their own tradition is the one that is in the wrong.
So much could be written on religious dialog. I have only given the barest of indications here towards what constitutes fruitful dialog and what should be avoided. For anyone who has actually read to the end, I would be interested in your thoughts concerning any of the above points.
Until next week . . . peace
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A Christian Alternative to the Unchristian Comments of Pat Robertson Concerning Haiti
A major focus early in this blog will be issues surrounding civil discourse and fruitful dialog. I will usually update on Sundays, but I thought that I would supply this example of a Christian who had a healthy response to Haiti, rather than the un-Christian rhetoric uttered by Pat Robertson. We can thank Pat for showing us what not to do; now here is an example of a genuine Christian response.
Fr. Tom Hagan (Courtesy of San Damiano Foundation)
Haiti -- First Person
Editor’s note: Fr. Tom Hagan, 68, a member of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, is founder of a nonprofit organization, “Hands Together” (handstogether.org [2]), which began its work in 1985 when Hagan, then a chaplain at colleges in southeastern Pennsylvania, started taking students on visits to Haiti. Out of those visits grew a network of supporters and a respected relief organization. Hagan moved to Port-au-Prince in 1997 where he oversaw a program he had begun in Cité Soleil, that city’s largest and most desperate slum. The program is widely recognized as one of the most effective educational and health organizations in that area.
Tom Roberts, NCR’s editor at large, contacted Hagan by e-mail and asked him about his experience during the quake and his assessment of the future of Haiti and the church in that country. His response arrived by e-mail Jan. 24. With minor editing, the e-mail follows.
Dear Tom:
Sorry my first response did not get through! My setup here is a laptop on the ground next to a very loud electric gas generator and with what seems to be a thousand young all wanting to use the computer. I will try again.
This past week has been terrifying. I have lived through all the violence in Cité Soleil over the past years: being shot at and having guns held to my head, seeing people close to me down here shot, but none can compare to the horror of the earthquake. Doug Campbell, who has been with me for over 20 years and serves as the executive director of Hands Together, had just arrived. We were to meet with the archbishop the next morning about the situation in Cité Soleil.
Doug and I were sitting down talking when the quake began. I tried to get under a table that was only a few feet away but the floor was moving in the opposite direction. I felt totally disoriented and fortunately one of the young Haitians ran back into the house and grabbed me and Doug. There was almost total darkness and I could hear screaming but also singing, which seemed weird to me, but I was told that the people were praying.
I looked up at the rubble that was our house for volunteers, seminarians and street kids. I was bleeding from the head and there was a terrific pain in my back. Doug ran back into the rubble to try and begin to pull people out, but then we heard cries that the gas was leaking and that there would be an explosion. One of the street kids, Makenson, who was shot and is now blind and whom I found two years ago literally in the street, was crying out to me beneath all the rocks and debris but we could not get to him. [Makenson was eventually rescued.]
It was then that two ex-gang members from Cité Soleil ran up to me and carried me to Mother Teresa’s nuns. When I entered their compound they were already treating the wounded and they bandaged me up and I hobbled back to my place.
Throughout the night we held vigil, and slowly we were able to get everyone out except two of the 21 seminarians who were living with me in the house. I remember vividly that night seeing people who were burned badly by the electric wires that had fallen everywhere. The next night we were all huddled outside when we would experience a very large aftershock.
It was very frightening. On the same night at about midnight we began to hear screaming and people were screaming that there was a tidal wave coming. We all started running, and for the next hour I, along with thousands of people, were moving to higher ground. We did not know what to believe.
I am ashamed to say that I am still frightened, but now I am also experiencing a feeling of being overwhelmed. When I go through Cité Soleil now I see the eight schools that we built (schools that were totally free and the only free schools like that in the country with more than 9,000 kids). I walk past what was once our clinic that took care of 20,000 -- again the only totally free clinic in the area. I see what once were the houses that we built for 150 people and the elderly projects for over 800. I look at the large kitchen area where people prepared hot meals each day for over 10,000 -- and all of it is gone.
There is also the problem of the destroyed prison, from which over 4,500 men were freed. They all escaped, and there is a side of me that is happy that they did. Many of them should never have been there. I would visit the prison every week and there were as many as 600 in one holding cell and many of them had never even been in front of a judge.
Unfortunately, some are psychopaths, and all of them are now back in Cité Soleil.
I just came from offering four Masses. Each time I would finish, another crowd would come up and ask for Mass. This is a real comfort to me and more than ever I realize that I, we, can’t survive if we do not simply put everything into God’s hands. I’ve got to work hard to practice this.
Tom, you ask about the church. Well, the people here lost a very holy man [Archbishop Joseph Serge Miot] and a very good bishop, especially one who was supportive of me in Cité Soleil. He was a good friend, and I will miss him greatly. But the church will survive.
It is during a time like this that I find myself very proud of my church. Everywhere you go, you will see the church reaching out now and helping the people. The Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s nuns) are just amazing. The people here have a great faith. When I go to Cité Soleil now, as I do every day, I see few tears. The people have an amazing resiliency. Maybe it is because they have few material possessions and apparently their happiness does not depend upon possessions. The sight of a sunset means more to them that their possessions. What makes me most proud of my church is that the message we give the people is that they have enormous worth in the eyes of God and that they are infinitely loved and that this terrible disaster is in no way a punishment from God.
I recently said this in a sermon and the people all stood up and began clapping and cheering. I had to ask the altar server why they were clapping (I thought that I had said some thing wrong because my Creole is not good) and he said, “Father, no one ever tells them that they have worth.”
The Catholic church will survive, and I am sure of it.
But the longer I am here, the less I know. I really could not speak with much authority about what will happen with the government or even what would be the best way to help the people. I also struggle a great deal even being here. I feel strongly that we can do a great deal of harm with the best intentions when we begin to be the benefactor.
Even with all this aid coming in, we must go slowly, and every step of the way we must include the Haitians in the decision-making.
During these very difficult days, I find myself really loving these people. These are the same people who endured the slave ships, a horrible system of slavery, and who would be the ones who would eventually defeat Napoleon. They would continue to suffer greatly but they have a strength that is remarkable. I am humbled by them and privileged to be with them.
Pray for me. Take care!
Tom Hagan, OSFS
Fr. Tom Hagan (Courtesy of San Damiano Foundation)
Haiti -- First Person
Editor’s note: Fr. Tom Hagan, 68, a member of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, is founder of a nonprofit organization, “Hands Together” (handstogether.org [2]), which began its work in 1985 when Hagan, then a chaplain at colleges in southeastern Pennsylvania, started taking students on visits to Haiti. Out of those visits grew a network of supporters and a respected relief organization. Hagan moved to Port-au-Prince in 1997 where he oversaw a program he had begun in Cité Soleil, that city’s largest and most desperate slum. The program is widely recognized as one of the most effective educational and health organizations in that area.
Tom Roberts, NCR’s editor at large, contacted Hagan by e-mail and asked him about his experience during the quake and his assessment of the future of Haiti and the church in that country. His response arrived by e-mail Jan. 24. With minor editing, the e-mail follows.
Dear Tom:
Sorry my first response did not get through! My setup here is a laptop on the ground next to a very loud electric gas generator and with what seems to be a thousand young all wanting to use the computer. I will try again.
This past week has been terrifying. I have lived through all the violence in Cité Soleil over the past years: being shot at and having guns held to my head, seeing people close to me down here shot, but none can compare to the horror of the earthquake. Doug Campbell, who has been with me for over 20 years and serves as the executive director of Hands Together, had just arrived. We were to meet with the archbishop the next morning about the situation in Cité Soleil.
Doug and I were sitting down talking when the quake began. I tried to get under a table that was only a few feet away but the floor was moving in the opposite direction. I felt totally disoriented and fortunately one of the young Haitians ran back into the house and grabbed me and Doug. There was almost total darkness and I could hear screaming but also singing, which seemed weird to me, but I was told that the people were praying.
I looked up at the rubble that was our house for volunteers, seminarians and street kids. I was bleeding from the head and there was a terrific pain in my back. Doug ran back into the rubble to try and begin to pull people out, but then we heard cries that the gas was leaking and that there would be an explosion. One of the street kids, Makenson, who was shot and is now blind and whom I found two years ago literally in the street, was crying out to me beneath all the rocks and debris but we could not get to him. [Makenson was eventually rescued.]
It was then that two ex-gang members from Cité Soleil ran up to me and carried me to Mother Teresa’s nuns. When I entered their compound they were already treating the wounded and they bandaged me up and I hobbled back to my place.
Throughout the night we held vigil, and slowly we were able to get everyone out except two of the 21 seminarians who were living with me in the house. I remember vividly that night seeing people who were burned badly by the electric wires that had fallen everywhere. The next night we were all huddled outside when we would experience a very large aftershock.
It was very frightening. On the same night at about midnight we began to hear screaming and people were screaming that there was a tidal wave coming. We all started running, and for the next hour I, along with thousands of people, were moving to higher ground. We did not know what to believe.
I am ashamed to say that I am still frightened, but now I am also experiencing a feeling of being overwhelmed. When I go through Cité Soleil now I see the eight schools that we built (schools that were totally free and the only free schools like that in the country with more than 9,000 kids). I walk past what was once our clinic that took care of 20,000 -- again the only totally free clinic in the area. I see what once were the houses that we built for 150 people and the elderly projects for over 800. I look at the large kitchen area where people prepared hot meals each day for over 10,000 -- and all of it is gone.
There is also the problem of the destroyed prison, from which over 4,500 men were freed. They all escaped, and there is a side of me that is happy that they did. Many of them should never have been there. I would visit the prison every week and there were as many as 600 in one holding cell and many of them had never even been in front of a judge.
Unfortunately, some are psychopaths, and all of them are now back in Cité Soleil.
I just came from offering four Masses. Each time I would finish, another crowd would come up and ask for Mass. This is a real comfort to me and more than ever I realize that I, we, can’t survive if we do not simply put everything into God’s hands. I’ve got to work hard to practice this.
Tom, you ask about the church. Well, the people here lost a very holy man [Archbishop Joseph Serge Miot] and a very good bishop, especially one who was supportive of me in Cité Soleil. He was a good friend, and I will miss him greatly. But the church will survive.
It is during a time like this that I find myself very proud of my church. Everywhere you go, you will see the church reaching out now and helping the people. The Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s nuns) are just amazing. The people here have a great faith. When I go to Cité Soleil now, as I do every day, I see few tears. The people have an amazing resiliency. Maybe it is because they have few material possessions and apparently their happiness does not depend upon possessions. The sight of a sunset means more to them that their possessions. What makes me most proud of my church is that the message we give the people is that they have enormous worth in the eyes of God and that they are infinitely loved and that this terrible disaster is in no way a punishment from God.
I recently said this in a sermon and the people all stood up and began clapping and cheering. I had to ask the altar server why they were clapping (I thought that I had said some thing wrong because my Creole is not good) and he said, “Father, no one ever tells them that they have worth.”
The Catholic church will survive, and I am sure of it.
But the longer I am here, the less I know. I really could not speak with much authority about what will happen with the government or even what would be the best way to help the people. I also struggle a great deal even being here. I feel strongly that we can do a great deal of harm with the best intentions when we begin to be the benefactor.
Even with all this aid coming in, we must go slowly, and every step of the way we must include the Haitians in the decision-making.
During these very difficult days, I find myself really loving these people. These are the same people who endured the slave ships, a horrible system of slavery, and who would be the ones who would eventually defeat Napoleon. They would continue to suffer greatly but they have a strength that is remarkable. I am humbled by them and privileged to be with them.
Pray for me. Take care!
Tom Hagan, OSFS
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The High Church Protestant: The Blog’s Rationale and Focus
What is a High Church Protestant?
The title (or the new title) of my blog is significant of what type of Christian I am. Some of you may be saying, “High Church Protestant”, yeah we’ve heard of them, they’re called Anglicans. While I certainly lean the Anglican way in many respects, I mean High Church Protestant to serve as a more general category.
I consider myself to be a Protestant insofar as: (a) I recognize certain abuses of the late medieval and renaissance Roman church, (b) I recognize certain theological errors of the Roman church both historical and current (especially concerning ecclesiology) (c) I draw on certain theological insights of Protestant theologians such as Luther, Calvin, the early Anglicans and especially John Wesley. I am however much more charitable, and I believe more just, than many of my Protestant brethren when it comes to assessing the Roman and Orthodox churches. This is where the “high church” title comes into play.
I am “High Church” insofar as: (a) I greatly value the beauty of the liturgy and the centrality of the sacraments to the Christian life, (b) I reject much of what I perceive to be grave theological errors on the part of some of the reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, and especially the incoherent dichotomy between faith and works, (c) I reject the overly critical and uncharitable spirit my Protestant sisters and brothers have often bore towards those Christians in the higher church traditions, (d) I take Church tradition quite seriously and reject any “Bible alone” mentality.
Blog Focus
As I enter my last semester at what could properly be referred to as an evangelical Protestant seminary, I seek to write a blog about theology. More specifically, this blog will focus on the many theological hang-ups and errors that some Protestants, especially some evangelicals, espouse. This focus is a good one because it has much potential to clear away the uncharitable baggage many Protestants bring to all things that are perceived as either high church, secular or liberal. I hope to demonstrate the possibility of expanded dialog between Protestants and many disparate groups (both Christian and not). It is a somewhat unfortunate blog focus because it will often take a critical tone towards my Protestant sisters and brothers, whom I greatly love and admire. However, through the criticism I hope to highlight the best of Protestantism and what it might become. Broadly construed, I believe the best of Protestantism is closer to Rome and Constantinople than many think. The best of Protestantism is also much closer to so called divergent theological movements than many think. This Protestant outlook rejects the errors and abuses of Rome but reclaims the rich tradition that high churches still espouse. This Protestant outlook engages theological movements instead of recoiling from them in disgust or muddying the waters of dialog with hyperbolic diatribe. This Protestant outlook actually begins to slough off the name of Protestant because it defines itself more positively by the rich tradition of the ancient Catholic Christian Church than it does negatively against more provincial sections of it. This Protestant outlook strives to be both Catholic and Orthodox without being more provincially Roman or Eastern. At its best it is the Church Universal, Christ’s body on earth, building his kingdom and practicing his sacraments, until he comes again.
The title (or the new title) of my blog is significant of what type of Christian I am. Some of you may be saying, “High Church Protestant”, yeah we’ve heard of them, they’re called Anglicans. While I certainly lean the Anglican way in many respects, I mean High Church Protestant to serve as a more general category.
I consider myself to be a Protestant insofar as: (a) I recognize certain abuses of the late medieval and renaissance Roman church, (b) I recognize certain theological errors of the Roman church both historical and current (especially concerning ecclesiology) (c) I draw on certain theological insights of Protestant theologians such as Luther, Calvin, the early Anglicans and especially John Wesley. I am however much more charitable, and I believe more just, than many of my Protestant brethren when it comes to assessing the Roman and Orthodox churches. This is where the “high church” title comes into play.
I am “High Church” insofar as: (a) I greatly value the beauty of the liturgy and the centrality of the sacraments to the Christian life, (b) I reject much of what I perceive to be grave theological errors on the part of some of the reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, and especially the incoherent dichotomy between faith and works, (c) I reject the overly critical and uncharitable spirit my Protestant sisters and brothers have often bore towards those Christians in the higher church traditions, (d) I take Church tradition quite seriously and reject any “Bible alone” mentality.
Blog Focus
As I enter my last semester at what could properly be referred to as an evangelical Protestant seminary, I seek to write a blog about theology. More specifically, this blog will focus on the many theological hang-ups and errors that some Protestants, especially some evangelicals, espouse. This focus is a good one because it has much potential to clear away the uncharitable baggage many Protestants bring to all things that are perceived as either high church, secular or liberal. I hope to demonstrate the possibility of expanded dialog between Protestants and many disparate groups (both Christian and not). It is a somewhat unfortunate blog focus because it will often take a critical tone towards my Protestant sisters and brothers, whom I greatly love and admire. However, through the criticism I hope to highlight the best of Protestantism and what it might become. Broadly construed, I believe the best of Protestantism is closer to Rome and Constantinople than many think. The best of Protestantism is also much closer to so called divergent theological movements than many think. This Protestant outlook rejects the errors and abuses of Rome but reclaims the rich tradition that high churches still espouse. This Protestant outlook engages theological movements instead of recoiling from them in disgust or muddying the waters of dialog with hyperbolic diatribe. This Protestant outlook actually begins to slough off the name of Protestant because it defines itself more positively by the rich tradition of the ancient Catholic Christian Church than it does negatively against more provincial sections of it. This Protestant outlook strives to be both Catholic and Orthodox without being more provincially Roman or Eastern. At its best it is the Church Universal, Christ’s body on earth, building his kingdom and practicing his sacraments, until he comes again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
