A couple weeks ago in church I found out a little something I didn't know about Advent. Advent is actually a time of the year for preparation and fasting. I bet most of you are just as surprised as I was when I found this out. How can advent be a time for fasting when we have fun music, great ammounts of cookies and desserts, lights, candles, and all the other wonderful things? It is now more certain than ever that our pre-Christmas celebrations look like and emphasize nothing like the church seasons ought to.
That brings us to the reason for this post: I think that I want to participate in a fast during this season of advent in order to help focus myself on the true nature of the season but I'm not sure. I think part of me being not sure is that I haven't had time to gear up for viewing the season this way. I have come to love the Great Fast (Lent) and I look forward to it all year so I'm not ignorant of the Christian practice of seasonal fasting but for some reason I'm having trouble parting with my regular advent ways.
Maybe it's because so much more is made of Christmas season in our society. Maybe it's because I haven't had time to ponder it or maybe it's another reason. Either way I'm still thinking hard about what to fast for Advent. This decision is both the joy and the curse of being a traditionally low-church protestant. The joy is that I can set my own boundries for the fast so that it is meaningful and allows me to take incremental steps toward greater sacrafices and the curse is that I have to make this deicision. Inhereting this low-church ecclesiology puts me at the center of the fast rather than us. It also causes me to find the delicate balance between being too strict in my fast and being too lenient. So this is the dilema. Do I set out on a path from which I cannot return and begin to place advent in a more historically celebrated context or do I allow my celebration of advent to be merely reflected in the knowledge of what it is about without allowing my body to partake in that knowledge. If I do fast what do I fast from?
On a side note I am really inspired by the Orthodox approach to this. Their fasting period is longer than our advent and it actually started a week or two ago. During this fast they fast from all meats and a few other things. I find this inspiring in that they fast from all meat during a time that overlaps with Thanksgiving. Talk about a challenge. It seems to me that the real challenge isn't so much the fasting, but rather the implicit message that fasting through a national and often familial holiday sends. The message is simply that the primary community unit is the church and that the true holidays are those that focus our hearts and minds on Christ our God.
This implicit message is truly the message that the gospel calls us all to embrace for our lives. Our allegiance is to God and his kingdom alone. While we may not need to forsake thanksgiving to show this; the mere fact that the members of this tradition align themselves with the historic church calendar and its fasts rather than the national, social, and familial one peaks loudly that the God is the object of obedience.
Please don't misunderstand me I am not calling all to an advent fast or even a lenten one. Although i think these seasonal disciplines are important I do not believe they are mandatory for all. Yes they are helpful insofar as we allow them to reveal to us the mysteries of the Godhead revealed through the church, and her year of services.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
I'll take Potporri for 300, Alex
I'm striving to be a little more consistent with my blogging. I don't know how that will work itself out in the coming weeks as the due dates for papers seems to approach at light speed, but nevertheless I will try. In an attempt to not fail in this right after my quite long winded return (see "about time eh?" below) I offer up a short mess of random and somewhat unconnected topics.
Topic #1: Sexist language in sports.
As you all should know (and if you don't I'm wondering how well you really know me) I'm a huge Minnesota Vikings fan (that's an American Football team for those of you not in the US). Part of my rabid fandom consists of spending my free time (or time I spend procrastinating) surfing the internet for any sort of Vikings comments. In my recent internet travels I came across a Vikings blog entitled "Pacifist Viking" - how crazy of a title is that, since vikings are known for raping, pilaging, and burning.
All that to say that while I was on this site the other day I read an interesting take on sexist language in sports. I think that Pacifist Viking (I don't know his name) makes some good points. Although I don't remember using the phrase "man up" in recent years (specifically analagous to "suck it up") he causes me to think about sports cliches. This example made me think of the common basketball phrase "man up" as in play "man to man" coverage (I'm not a basketball expert and except for the Houghton Globetrotters, I loathe the sport - so if i'm using the phrasing wrong I aplogize). Thinking on this I am wondering how we proceed. I am all about gender inclusive language (unless it messes with God language) but it wasn't until now that I realized my double standard when using sports terminology. Does this mean that I have to start using comberson phrases like playing a "person defense" or he's in "person to person coverage"? Can I use man when the sports participants are only men, but must I use woman if the sport consists of women? Although, I doubt I'll really run into the latter case as I don't know if I've watched an all women's sporting event since high school. How does this practically work itself out?
One thing that I thought was very interesting was the experiment that he offers at the end of his post. Thinking about the TAG commercials in this light makes me dislike the product even more than I already do.
Either way I pass this site's article on to you for a short intersting take on sports language. There is also another post here that I found to be an amusing take on sports, total depravity and the prosperity gospel.
In fact, I just realized that I refered to the author of the blog as "he" throughout my whole post. I have no reason to believe it is a he aside from typical gender stereotypes and so I confess I am still working on my gender reconciliation.
Part 2: On Ted Haggard
By now I assume you all have heard about the scandal concerning Ted Haggard, and if you haven't then I feel truly honored that you are visiting my blog prior to visiting the websites of CNN, BBC, or Fox News.
Earlier tonight I was informed about this by a friend over IM and we were talking about it for a bit and here are some of my thoughts.
Sadly I don't know what my first reaction was. It was one of two things. 1) Poor Ted Haggard - Lord be with him. or 2) Oh no, now look at the black eye for christendom. I am truly ashamed that I don't know which was my reaction and am even more ashamed that it may very well have been the second. How heartless and unchristlike can I be?
I want to yell and scream and condem the pastor who allows herself or himself to be in this kind of mess, but then I realize the clique holds true: "there, but for the grace of God, go I" now to be fair I mean that in the general way - not the gay sex or meth way. But seriously I realize my weaknesses and I feel great pain for Haggard despite that fact that I undoubtedly dissagree with him on various theological things like ecclesioloyg, missiology, and sacrametology.
In fact from what little I do know I probably would have listed this man as representing a Christian paradigm that was the complete antithesis of mine. He pastored a large church and was a quasi-church growth guy (if not completley church growth), he was a vocal and popular Christian media voice, and he represented the religious right and was hyper-conservative political in its agenda. Despite all this I feel for Haggard, and pray that he finds healing in the Lord through this situation, whether he did anything or not, and I pray that the christians that looked strongly to him would refocus their faith from leadership to the Christ who leads.
While my heart and prayers go out I cannot help but to look at this situation as an observer and offer some thoughts.
1.) This is obviously not the first time a person in the church has fallen and regretably it will not be the last, however, it is clear that these fallouts become more and more problematic for the church in society as ministers feel the increasing need to become well known in the media. Yes, there will be fallout when ministers fail, but this fallout grows exponentially when are ministers and leaders are media icons. As my friend Greg Sigountos aptly said:
---------------------
"[this scenario is] a great case study. See what happens when you intertwine yourselves too closely with the world? Bang, you're ripe for being picked off, and we have a hypocrite bonfire. This is why pastors need to avoid celebrity at all costs... If there wasn't enough evidence against the celebrity pastor already, and how few, if any, can pull it off, maybe this adds one extra bit of incentive. Stay out of the spotlight- the Spirit worked just fine before the TV cameras existed."
---------------------
or as St. John Chrysostom says in his treatise On the Priesthood
---------------------
if a preacher "is a slave to the sound of applause, again an equal damage threatens both him and the people, because through his passion for praise he aims to speak more for the pleasure than the proft of his hearers...The man who is carried away with the desire for eulogies may have the ability to improve the people, but chooses instead to provide nothing but entertainment. That is the price he pays for thunders of applause....For in fact, if he has already been overtaken by the desire for unmerited praise, neither his great efforts nor his powers of speech will be any use....So a preacher must train himself above all else to despise praise...But if if he has not shaken himself free of it [love of esteem], he involves his soul in an intricate struggle, in unrelieved turmoil, and in the hurly-burly of desperation and every other passion."
---------------------
I quote Chyrsostom here not to make accusations against Haggard, as if he was quilty of violating Chrysostom's exhortations, but because these comments seem to apply to the problem of christian leaders becoming media whores. Ministers may indeed fall as has happened throughout church history. This is not the ideal, nor is it desireable, and the issues that arise around a fallen ministry should primarily be reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration. As American ecclesiology has shifted from small local bodies to large mega-churches so has the focus shifted from quiet locally known pastors to massive media darling pastors. In fact I think one could make a case that the rise of the media star pastor is directly proportional to the number and growth of mega-churches. Now, because of our media-driven or at best media-recognized pastors our primariy concerns as a church is no longer reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration, but rather how do we deal with the PR nightmare which this causes. Yes try to focus on the others, but we cannot help but deal with and be consumed with the PR fiasco that arises. Chrysostom's quote is just as aplicable to the churches of today as it is to the ministers of yesterday and today. To the church this quote speaks caution of seeking the approval of the masses. Should we be concerned with how they view us? Only insofar as they see our love for God, them and each other. Our hyper concern with putting a good face forward and offering solid entertainment is unbiblical and certainly uncharacteristic of true church for any age. We will never be able to fully ministry to the world if we are overly concerned with getting the right publicity or being seen in a favorably light. Churches as well as ministers should avoid the the rank of celebrity at all costs so that the message and the witness of the people of God can remain uncomprimised.
2.) One of the articles I read concerning this made the comment that Haggard has confessed his sins to the "overseers" of his church. I have to give Haggard tons of credit for this. He is following the biblical model and submitting himself to the biblical authorities. The question this raises has to do with confidentiality. What happens if for some reason this goes to court and his "overseers" are called into court to testify? We are all aware of Patient-Doctor confidentiality and Patient-Counselor, but what about Clergy-laity? Are his overseers obligated to divulge information that he shared to them in a confessional manner? What about if this was in a high church tradition like Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican? Would the confidentiality issue be different if the confession was done in a confessional, or by ordained members? It seems to me that the possible legal precedent that may be set concerning ecclesial confession has huge ramifications. If they allow these "overseers" to claim a specific confidentiality then what is to stop someone from confessing to any generic religious figure and claiming confessor confidentiality. Let us suppose that these overseers are not officiallly ordained and thus they force them to testify, what does this do for the low church independent church down the street - can the pastor of this church not hear confessions or do counseling without knowing he will have a legal obligation to testify? Does this mean that only ordained people can have this special relationship? If so what about those denomination that ordain elders - do they get this privelage? I dont think these thoughts are too clear, but it seems to me that this Haggard situation has huge legal ramifications if it goes to court for the confessional and counseling ministry of the church - especially in low-ecclesiological protestant churches.
Part 3: Book Excerpt
In preparation for one of my mid-term exams the other day I decided to do some reading. One of our books is: Religion and American Culture by George M. Marsden. I'm not done with the book yet because we only had to read half of it for the exam, but so far I would recommend it. The book is a good outlook on the development of religion in America. It reads much better than a dry account of facts which is most likely due to Marsden's asides that describe how the topic at hand has lead to a current phenomenon or other asides that seem a little preachy in nature. Below is one of the asides that I really liked and found to be the most though provoking.
------------------------
"The United States was the first modern nation systematically to shift public veneration of the government from veneration of persons to veneration of the nation and its principles. Soon the United States developed a set of rituals and symbols that bore a striking resemblance to traditional Christian rites and symbols but in which the nation itself was the object of worship. The flag, like the cross in Catholic churches, was a sacred object. Elaborate rules developed as to when and how it could be handled. Pledges to the flag arguably played the role of crossing oneself in a church. One pledged to a creed. The nation developed holidays (holy days) and its own brand of saints. George Washington, for instance, soon took on mythical qualities. National architecture and shrines provied centers for pilgrimages and worship. Some people have pointed out that three of the most popular shrines in Washington D.C. - those to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy - have designs that would be appropriate symbols for each of the three members of the Christian Trinity (the transcendent obelisk for the father, the personal presence of the martyred champion of national reconciliation and charity, and the eternal flame, for the spirit of service to country).... The United States, like all modern nations, demands unswerving allegiance from its citizens. It is to the nation in which one is expected to make the supreme sacrifice. Therefore in American wars, national loyalty has always been demanded above church loyalty." (pg 53)
and one that seems to relate to our celebrity ministers as metioned above
"[George] Whitefield's triumphant journey up and down the East Coast, preaching to large gatherings wherever he went, was one of teh first truly intercolonial events. Whitefield was the first "media star" in Ameican history. His medium was the pulpit, and he had immense skill with the spoken word. His tour anticipated a patter in American culture: Lacking long-established traditions and rituals, American have been susceptible to waves of popular enthusiasm for 'stars.' This pattern had its beginings in revivalism and remains a prominent dimension of American cultural and religious life." (pg 32)
--------------------------
I don't agree with the first quote 100% and I think the thought of the triune nature of the American monuments is a little bit of a stretch but nevertheless it does illustrate a good point. This is a good example of how Marsden gets a little preachy in his book, but I think his assertions are right on target. Personally I have not been able to say the pledge of allegiance for about 4 or 5 years. Once I really began to think of what I was doing I couldn't in good conscience continue to swear my allegiace to a country. My loyalty alone belongs to Christ and to his kingdom. I belong to the US insofar as I live here and they do not forcably violate my religious beliefs. I will not fight for them in a war and I will not pledge my allegiance to any earthly kingdom until the new heavens and the new earth appear and the Kingdom of God is revealed in its fullness on the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I think that's all that I have to write. I guess the post wasn't as short as I wanted it to be...oh well. Like I said I'll try to be more consistent in posting, but with the impending papers I may have to allow blogging to take a back seat for a month or two. Just incase you were wondering I am writing two major research papers for this semester. The topics for these papers are:
1. Sacramentology in the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings
2. The eternal subordination of Christ - looking through the lens of the early church fathers.
Blessings to you all and as usual thanks for bearing with my incoherent rambling.
~ Ben
Topic #1: Sexist language in sports.
As you all should know (and if you don't I'm wondering how well you really know me) I'm a huge Minnesota Vikings fan (that's an American Football team for those of you not in the US). Part of my rabid fandom consists of spending my free time (or time I spend procrastinating) surfing the internet for any sort of Vikings comments. In my recent internet travels I came across a Vikings blog entitled "Pacifist Viking" - how crazy of a title is that, since vikings are known for raping, pilaging, and burning.
All that to say that while I was on this site the other day I read an interesting take on sexist language in sports. I think that Pacifist Viking (I don't know his name) makes some good points. Although I don't remember using the phrase "man up" in recent years (specifically analagous to "suck it up") he causes me to think about sports cliches. This example made me think of the common basketball phrase "man up" as in play "man to man" coverage (I'm not a basketball expert and except for the Houghton Globetrotters, I loathe the sport - so if i'm using the phrasing wrong I aplogize). Thinking on this I am wondering how we proceed. I am all about gender inclusive language (unless it messes with God language) but it wasn't until now that I realized my double standard when using sports terminology. Does this mean that I have to start using comberson phrases like playing a "person defense" or he's in "person to person coverage"? Can I use man when the sports participants are only men, but must I use woman if the sport consists of women? Although, I doubt I'll really run into the latter case as I don't know if I've watched an all women's sporting event since high school. How does this practically work itself out?
One thing that I thought was very interesting was the experiment that he offers at the end of his post. Thinking about the TAG commercials in this light makes me dislike the product even more than I already do.
Either way I pass this site's article on to you for a short intersting take on sports language. There is also another post here that I found to be an amusing take on sports, total depravity and the prosperity gospel.
In fact, I just realized that I refered to the author of the blog as "he" throughout my whole post. I have no reason to believe it is a he aside from typical gender stereotypes and so I confess I am still working on my gender reconciliation.
Part 2: On Ted Haggard
By now I assume you all have heard about the scandal concerning Ted Haggard, and if you haven't then I feel truly honored that you are visiting my blog prior to visiting the websites of CNN, BBC, or Fox News.
Earlier tonight I was informed about this by a friend over IM and we were talking about it for a bit and here are some of my thoughts.
Sadly I don't know what my first reaction was. It was one of two things. 1) Poor Ted Haggard - Lord be with him. or 2) Oh no, now look at the black eye for christendom. I am truly ashamed that I don't know which was my reaction and am even more ashamed that it may very well have been the second. How heartless and unchristlike can I be?
I want to yell and scream and condem the pastor who allows herself or himself to be in this kind of mess, but then I realize the clique holds true: "there, but for the grace of God, go I" now to be fair I mean that in the general way - not the gay sex or meth way. But seriously I realize my weaknesses and I feel great pain for Haggard despite that fact that I undoubtedly dissagree with him on various theological things like ecclesioloyg, missiology, and sacrametology.
In fact from what little I do know I probably would have listed this man as representing a Christian paradigm that was the complete antithesis of mine. He pastored a large church and was a quasi-church growth guy (if not completley church growth), he was a vocal and popular Christian media voice, and he represented the religious right and was hyper-conservative political in its agenda. Despite all this I feel for Haggard, and pray that he finds healing in the Lord through this situation, whether he did anything or not, and I pray that the christians that looked strongly to him would refocus their faith from leadership to the Christ who leads.
While my heart and prayers go out I cannot help but to look at this situation as an observer and offer some thoughts.
1.) This is obviously not the first time a person in the church has fallen and regretably it will not be the last, however, it is clear that these fallouts become more and more problematic for the church in society as ministers feel the increasing need to become well known in the media. Yes, there will be fallout when ministers fail, but this fallout grows exponentially when are ministers and leaders are media icons. As my friend Greg Sigountos aptly said:
---------------------
"[this scenario is] a great case study. See what happens when you intertwine yourselves too closely with the world? Bang, you're ripe for being picked off, and we have a hypocrite bonfire. This is why pastors need to avoid celebrity at all costs... If there wasn't enough evidence against the celebrity pastor already, and how few, if any, can pull it off, maybe this adds one extra bit of incentive. Stay out of the spotlight- the Spirit worked just fine before the TV cameras existed."
---------------------
or as St. John Chrysostom says in his treatise On the Priesthood
---------------------
if a preacher "is a slave to the sound of applause, again an equal damage threatens both him and the people, because through his passion for praise he aims to speak more for the pleasure than the proft of his hearers...The man who is carried away with the desire for eulogies may have the ability to improve the people, but chooses instead to provide nothing but entertainment. That is the price he pays for thunders of applause....For in fact, if he has already been overtaken by the desire for unmerited praise, neither his great efforts nor his powers of speech will be any use....So a preacher must train himself above all else to despise praise...But if if he has not shaken himself free of it [love of esteem], he involves his soul in an intricate struggle, in unrelieved turmoil, and in the hurly-burly of desperation and every other passion."
---------------------
I quote Chyrsostom here not to make accusations against Haggard, as if he was quilty of violating Chrysostom's exhortations, but because these comments seem to apply to the problem of christian leaders becoming media whores. Ministers may indeed fall as has happened throughout church history. This is not the ideal, nor is it desireable, and the issues that arise around a fallen ministry should primarily be reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration. As American ecclesiology has shifted from small local bodies to large mega-churches so has the focus shifted from quiet locally known pastors to massive media darling pastors. In fact I think one could make a case that the rise of the media star pastor is directly proportional to the number and growth of mega-churches. Now, because of our media-driven or at best media-recognized pastors our primariy concerns as a church is no longer reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration, but rather how do we deal with the PR nightmare which this causes. Yes try to focus on the others, but we cannot help but deal with and be consumed with the PR fiasco that arises. Chrysostom's quote is just as aplicable to the churches of today as it is to the ministers of yesterday and today. To the church this quote speaks caution of seeking the approval of the masses. Should we be concerned with how they view us? Only insofar as they see our love for God, them and each other. Our hyper concern with putting a good face forward and offering solid entertainment is unbiblical and certainly uncharacteristic of true church for any age. We will never be able to fully ministry to the world if we are overly concerned with getting the right publicity or being seen in a favorably light. Churches as well as ministers should avoid the the rank of celebrity at all costs so that the message and the witness of the people of God can remain uncomprimised.
2.) One of the articles I read concerning this made the comment that Haggard has confessed his sins to the "overseers" of his church. I have to give Haggard tons of credit for this. He is following the biblical model and submitting himself to the biblical authorities. The question this raises has to do with confidentiality. What happens if for some reason this goes to court and his "overseers" are called into court to testify? We are all aware of Patient-Doctor confidentiality and Patient-Counselor, but what about Clergy-laity? Are his overseers obligated to divulge information that he shared to them in a confessional manner? What about if this was in a high church tradition like Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican? Would the confidentiality issue be different if the confession was done in a confessional, or by ordained members? It seems to me that the possible legal precedent that may be set concerning ecclesial confession has huge ramifications. If they allow these "overseers" to claim a specific confidentiality then what is to stop someone from confessing to any generic religious figure and claiming confessor confidentiality. Let us suppose that these overseers are not officiallly ordained and thus they force them to testify, what does this do for the low church independent church down the street - can the pastor of this church not hear confessions or do counseling without knowing he will have a legal obligation to testify? Does this mean that only ordained people can have this special relationship? If so what about those denomination that ordain elders - do they get this privelage? I dont think these thoughts are too clear, but it seems to me that this Haggard situation has huge legal ramifications if it goes to court for the confessional and counseling ministry of the church - especially in low-ecclesiological protestant churches.
Part 3: Book Excerpt
In preparation for one of my mid-term exams the other day I decided to do some reading. One of our books is: Religion and American Culture by George M. Marsden. I'm not done with the book yet because we only had to read half of it for the exam, but so far I would recommend it. The book is a good outlook on the development of religion in America. It reads much better than a dry account of facts which is most likely due to Marsden's asides that describe how the topic at hand has lead to a current phenomenon or other asides that seem a little preachy in nature. Below is one of the asides that I really liked and found to be the most though provoking.
------------------------
"The United States was the first modern nation systematically to shift public veneration of the government from veneration of persons to veneration of the nation and its principles. Soon the United States developed a set of rituals and symbols that bore a striking resemblance to traditional Christian rites and symbols but in which the nation itself was the object of worship. The flag, like the cross in Catholic churches, was a sacred object. Elaborate rules developed as to when and how it could be handled. Pledges to the flag arguably played the role of crossing oneself in a church. One pledged to a creed. The nation developed holidays (holy days) and its own brand of saints. George Washington, for instance, soon took on mythical qualities. National architecture and shrines provied centers for pilgrimages and worship. Some people have pointed out that three of the most popular shrines in Washington D.C. - those to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy - have designs that would be appropriate symbols for each of the three members of the Christian Trinity (the transcendent obelisk for the father, the personal presence of the martyred champion of national reconciliation and charity, and the eternal flame, for the spirit of service to country).... The United States, like all modern nations, demands unswerving allegiance from its citizens. It is to the nation in which one is expected to make the supreme sacrifice. Therefore in American wars, national loyalty has always been demanded above church loyalty." (pg 53)
and one that seems to relate to our celebrity ministers as metioned above
"[George] Whitefield's triumphant journey up and down the East Coast, preaching to large gatherings wherever he went, was one of teh first truly intercolonial events. Whitefield was the first "media star" in Ameican history. His medium was the pulpit, and he had immense skill with the spoken word. His tour anticipated a patter in American culture: Lacking long-established traditions and rituals, American have been susceptible to waves of popular enthusiasm for 'stars.' This pattern had its beginings in revivalism and remains a prominent dimension of American cultural and religious life." (pg 32)
--------------------------
I don't agree with the first quote 100% and I think the thought of the triune nature of the American monuments is a little bit of a stretch but nevertheless it does illustrate a good point. This is a good example of how Marsden gets a little preachy in his book, but I think his assertions are right on target. Personally I have not been able to say the pledge of allegiance for about 4 or 5 years. Once I really began to think of what I was doing I couldn't in good conscience continue to swear my allegiace to a country. My loyalty alone belongs to Christ and to his kingdom. I belong to the US insofar as I live here and they do not forcably violate my religious beliefs. I will not fight for them in a war and I will not pledge my allegiance to any earthly kingdom until the new heavens and the new earth appear and the Kingdom of God is revealed in its fullness on the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I think that's all that I have to write. I guess the post wasn't as short as I wanted it to be...oh well. Like I said I'll try to be more consistent in posting, but with the impending papers I may have to allow blogging to take a back seat for a month or two. Just incase you were wondering I am writing two major research papers for this semester. The topics for these papers are:
1. Sacramentology in the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings
2. The eternal subordination of Christ - looking through the lens of the early church fathers.
Blessings to you all and as usual thanks for bearing with my incoherent rambling.
~ Ben
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
