Dogma on Dogma

Recently, I’ve been contemplating the relationship between doctrine (or dogma, i.e. doctrinal reflection) and narrative. That is, the interaction between the systematized, structured, propositional form that dogma assumes versus the non-propositional, plot-driven, engaging flow embodied in story.

I’ve become convinced of the necessity of both. There are perhaps some who would argue that dogma is an unnecessary, purely human construct that is laid over the top of the Scripture (which has much narrative) to somehow commandeer our thinking away from that which the narrative presents. And I do readily admit that dogma can become overemphasized, preferred in what is a somewhat false dichotomy between it and narrative, of which we shall see more below. Still, as has been recently discussed in my doctrine class, the rational mind cannot escape its learned (and some might say, God-given) pattern of thinking logically, propositionally, and because of this, everyone utilizes a dogmatic format (therefore, doctrine) when engaging with Scripture. It may well be a construct, but it is an unavoidable construct, if we are to be at all thoughtful about Scripture.

To return to the earlier point, however, in this age of the dying of modernity, when story is reemphasized and propositional truths are often treated as suspect, aren’t we compelled to explore once again the dangers of overemphasizing a purely dogmatic engagement with the Scriptures? I would argue that we, as the 21^st century Western Church, need to work towards discovering a path that engages with both dogma and narrative as fully as possible. Truly, to reduce those narrative portions of Scripture (OT histories, NT gospels, Acts) to purely linear, dogmatic propositions steals away from the power of their original presentation in story form. Story grips us in a way that dogma cannot. Story compels us more than, engages different sensitivities than, and is more dynamic and organic than dogma. Further, if we purport to be calling people to be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20), to love God and their neighbor (Mt 22:34-39), then surely story piques those relational elements within us—in a very needful manner—more so than dogma, and therefore becomes a powerful evangelistic implement.

For instance, if you were just to meet someone called Josh, what would be more compelling, relationally: for Josh to tell you that he was a compassionate man or for Jack to relay a story from his past that demonstrated his compassion embodied? In this age, perhaps any age, the former methodology would be immediately regarded with suspicion: a claim is made that sounds boastful, inauthentic, and about achieving some purpose, like Josh wanting to gain favor and admiration. The second however, if presented well, can draw the audience in, present compassion as a characteristic trait of Josh’s, but leaves it nestled into the surrounding story. Its innate humility leaves the hearer to pick out (or not!) the subtle flavor of Josh’s compassionate nature from the complex simplicity of the glass of wine that is his story.

Of course, the story is meant to achieve something, and it cannot do so without dogmatic engagement. Josh’s story that conveys a sense of his compassionate nature is nothing if I have no understanding of what it means to assign someone the label of compassionate. Hence, dogma is indispensable.

I suppose the concept I’m getting at is that modernity-driven evangelicals, much like me, have tended to place too much value on doctrine (perhaps because it was the best defense against enlightenment critiques of religion), relative to narrative. We’ve assumed that propositional truth is primarily what moves people forward in the call to Christ. We’ve forced our story to be nothing more than a vehicle to doctrine, instead of a necessity, which eventually, inevitably, led it to be obsolete.

Now, however, when film and television have paired their stories with images and music, the deliciousness of story has been taken to a new level, and we find ourselves struggling to keep up. It is a worthwhile struggle, though. God had foreseen that when he sent his Son to become part of our story, or rather, when we have been made a part of his.

The evangelists of this age may well be the storytellers.

TWINS WIN!!!

Due to a come-from-behind tie, then win in the 12th by the Royals over the Tigers, the Twins are the AL CENTRAL CHAMPS!!!! WOO-HOO! Way to go, Twinkies! Wish I could be there, celebrating.

In Search of Authority

Recently, I have been pondering just how influential certain media are when it comes to formulating our opinions, even knowledge, of various topics. Indeed, many people my age and younger tend to feel that they are "informed" about subject A because they've seen a movie (not documentary) about subject A. Case in point, and to illustrate my culpability along these lines: I would say that 90% of what I know about the Cuban Missile Crisis comes from my viewing of the film Thirteen Days (an excellent film, by the way).

Now, to a certain extent, I suppose this is grounded: filmmakers are often known to go out of their way to portray reality, especially when dealing with an historical topic. Remember, for instance, the testimonies of WWII veterans after the release of Saving Private Ryan? They said the portrayal of the landing at the beaches of Normandy was as realistic as anything they had seen put to celluloid.

What worries me, though, is that my, and subsequent, generations are being lulled into an attitude of regarding film as above reproach when it comes to information. "I saw a movie about it" becomes an acceptable answer in stating one's authority. Quite clearly, the danger of adopting this stance toward film is profound: we unquestionably accept the words (and more notably, for my generation: the images) of MGM, WB, the producers, the directors, etc. as revelatory, even as truth. Consider the stir caused by The Da Vinci Code, albeit more from the novel than from the movie. Isn't it frightening that the platforms of fiction writing and film producing...each being largely profit-driven enterprises...are not susceptible to more scrutiny?

On the other hand, our grand suspicion is exercised much more freely upon institutions that are allegedly designed to be committed to accuracy. Coming readily to mind, of course, is the Church. In addition to being a self-understood purveyor of truth, the Church also has the charge to be humble, and to admit freely its wrongdoings and error. Yet the unchurched of this generation has decidedly gone to regarding the Church with suspicion--at best--to all-out rejection.

So, what are we to say? Although a comprehensive solution is not easily crafted, it behoves us to utilize rightly some of the suspicion granted us by postmodernity, and to assess the influences behind the presentation (be it film, TV, newspapers, novels, Church, etc.): to read the message behind the message. But then, we must not believe we are then bound to reject all portrayals and reports as completely false and erroneous and not worthy of our trust. In so doing, we become a people paralyzed in trust, and trust untried is trust that becomes weak, and more readily susceptible to being led astray. Instead, let us exercise trust, faith, and hope extravagantly, using them as the gifts of God that they are. But let us do so wisely, understanding that in as much as our sources may be flawed, so are we.

My Country, 'Tis of Thee?

As I was at home in Minnesota for the 4^th of July for the first time in many years, I took some time to reflect a bit on the role of patriotism from a Christian perspective. Thoughts continued to bubble and brew, but the 4^th became more and more distant and the communal swelling of patriotic pride—if any—that came with it seemed all but extinct around me.

Then, there surfaced an article in Christianity Today online by David P. Gushee called “What’s Right About Patriotism” (weblink: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/007/4.48.html). It brought all the thoughts back, so I thought I’d try to succinctly write them down, partially in response to Mr. Gushee’s article.

My thoughts originated from posing the question to an imaginary discussion group, “What is patriotism?” and/or “What does it mean to be patriotic as an American?” and then contemplating possible answers. Some I thought of:

American patriotism means:

• Supporting our troops/serving time in the military. Likely a popular answer, these days, and as equally controversial as popular. Current situations aside, this answer is, I would argue, unanimously refutable by imagining a situation in which “our troops” were—without exception—guilty of all manner of heinous war crimes and human rights violations. Would anyone argue that, in such a situation, it would still be more patriotic to “support” our troops rather than decry their wrongdoings?

• Supporting the president/administration. Fair enough claim (for some). But again, what if the president/administration turned against the American people and the democratic process and sought to—for instance—establish a totalitarian regime? How could one argue that it would still be more patriotic to support such a president/administration?

• Proudly displaying the American flag. I’m not sure if this would really be someone’s answer…but given the number of American flags within a five-mile radius of my current location, I’m guessing it would cross a lot of minds. But to return to our thought experiments, what if a certain woman embodied all of the other things we could mention that contribute to one’s patriotism, but did not—perhaps could not (e.g. she felt she couldn’t show the flag the proper respect by displaying it properly)—fly the flag. Would any rational person declare her unpatriotic?

• Living the American dream. Get educated, work hard, live frugally, save, and (ostensibly) enjoy your retirement. Hmmm…there are lots of questions to this one: what about unequal opportunity? Discrimination? Selfish motivations? The equating of money and happiness? The general rejection of unforeseen and/or external circumstance? Would any of these—and many other—uncontrollable influences render one unpatriotic?

In dealing with other answers in a similar fashion, two things became clear:

1. Any individual criterion for American patriotism could be refuted through the basic execution of simple thought experiments, and
2. what dwelt beneath each of the criterion (to greater and lesser degrees) were a set of values.

Hence, I then turned my thoughts to these values—maybe obvious to many from the beginning. These values are sketched out over lauded American documents and speeches:

• …all [people] are created equal…
• …life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…
• …conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all [people] are created equal…
• …the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…
• …free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we’re free at last…
• …truth, justice, and the American way… (I had to throw Superman in…see my last blog entry below)

…and the like. So, perhaps to be patriotic means living by and upholding these values. Personally, I duly hope so.

However, the problem with looking no further for direction and affirmation of our “American” lifestyle than our own patriotism is that each of these values then takes on an inherently subjective element that can be twisted and shaped—both actively and passively—by one’s own experience, knowledge, intent, etc. Ultimately, there is no influential, authoritative standard to these values beyond what the general public (and/or the authoritarian structure) will affirm or oppose, and we all, I think, have realized the fluidity therein.

Where must we then go? I would argue we are driven back to God. From a Christian perspective, one of the wonders of God’s relational nature is that we interact neither with passive generalizations of virtue and values that are able to be subjectively manipulated nor with a hard-and-fast unhearing, unfeeling objective standard. Rather, we relate with a dynamic, relational God who both embodies and transcends these ethereal concepts of virtue and value and is ultimately responsible for revealing their true nature to us. What a shock to find that indeed justice and mercy discovered a cross-shaped intersection where both could not only coexist but intermingle!

So, finally, what does this say about our American patriotism? I am grateful that our nation—among many others—continues to call into play the godly values of freedom, justice, truth, etc., and to the extent that doing so makes one patriotic, I am happy to be called a patriot. Still, I vow to avoid the error of confusing my loyalties…my primary allegiance lies not with my country, not even with the values it purports to pursue and that, embodied, would make it great. My allegiance, my love, goes first to my King. The rest, as they say, is just details…the details of being remade in his image.

Superhero personality test

Thanks to my friend Rich for the below.

Hmm...methinks this is a bit suspect...I suppose I agree with the sentence, but accepting the character reference seems a bit arrogant. Anyway, give it a shot, and see what you get! (Then leave your results in the "comment" section.)

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman 80% Spider-Man 70% Iron Man 55% Robin 44% Supergirl 42% Green Lantern 40% Hulk 40% Wonder Woman 37% The Flash 35% Catwoman 30% Batman 30%

You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

"God's Own Party" ?

I'll let the below speak for itself.

No, no...I'll add the thought that I pray George Bush really does the will of God...and rejects this car magnet.

The Quintessential American Album?

So, we're listening to music over dinner (nothing new)...and tonight, my lovely & lively wife has picked the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to The Blues Brothers. Now, we're great fans of the movie, but this album is also fantastic!

Check out the tracks:

1. She Caught The Katy - Jake
2. Peter Gunn Theme - Jake
3. Gimme Some Lovin' - Jake
4. Shake A Tail Feather - Ray Charles/Jake & Elwood
5. Everybody Needs Somebody To Love - Jake & Elwood/Patty Austin/Vivian Cherry/Ullanda McCullough
6. The Old Landmark - James Brown/Rev. James Cleveland Choir
7. Think - Aretha Franklin/Brenda Corbet/Margaret Branch/Caroline Franklin
8. Theme From Rawhide - Elwood & Jake
9. Minnie The Moocher - Cab Calloway
10. Sweet Home Chicago - Elwood & Jake
11. Jailhouse Rock - Jake

Now, granted, many are remakes by Elwood & Jake...but look at the artists involved!

So, I'm gonna go out on a limb, and suggest that this album be considered for the title of the Quintessential American Album. My arguments:
1. Genres - largely blues and blues-based rock of course--born in America; but also Gospel ("The Old Landmark") and Country/Western (sort-of) ("Theme from Rawhide")...also American concepts.
2. Artists - Ray Charles??!?! James Brown?!??! Aretha Franklin??!?! Cab Calloway?!?!??! Forget the banner, this album is star-spangeled!
3. Familiarity - I would argue that this album would have at least one recognizable track to a vast majority of living Americans, especially both Caucasians and African Americans.
4. Appeal - I just can't listen to this album without moving! It stirs the soul!
5. Musicality - the performances are top-notch, and well beyond the simple I-IV-V-relative minor chord progression!
6. Film/Classic TV Association - I hesitate to mention this one...don't want to mix media...but there is something significant about the inclusion of two Classic TV themes ("Peter Gunn" and "Rawhide"). And the fact that the album contains the songs without which the movie would be extraordinarily lackluster means that the "soul" of the movie is the soundtrack!

Well, there's my 2 cents. Now, readers...over to you. What album would you suggest as the Quintessential American Album? Why? I'd love to hear from you! Please "Post a Comment" and let me know!

Questions and Answers: a Lenten Meditation for Reflectives

Being a "postmodern" has granted a helpful (in my view) perspective on Questions and Answers. I have come to really value Questions. They are the fuel for reflection, indeed. I am reaching a stage in life where one of my favorite pastimes is to turn a meaningful question over and over in my head, looking at it from many different perspectives. Equally, though, I have lost some respect for Answers. That is, I have lost respect for simplistic Answers. Growing in the practice of my reflective nature has uncovered for me the understanding of how few Questions there are which are not, in some way, linked to our own worldview and experience. But of course, this is a basic human truth, is it not?

What postmodernity has failed to do for me is map out an acceptable interaction between Questions and Answers. You see, I am not of the mindset that wisdom lies only in the Questions (although there is much more there than I might have earlier thought!). Just as Answers which exist without Questions are not Answers at all (but rather arguments, propositional statements, claims, etc.), I would postulate that Questions are not meant to survive completely independently. Put simply, Questions and Answers exist symbiotically.

This is where my faith steps in. (And I should note it would be unreasonable for me to attribute all of my growing reflective nature to postmodernity...faith has, I believe, played some role there, too!) My gut-level sense is that Questions tend to live in two broad (and interactive) categories: pragmatic (What time is it? What's your name? When is the bus to arrive?) and philosophical. As for the latter, such Questions can become quite intricate and profound, and there is a whiff of wisdom in believing that their intricateness and profundity suggests not only that a simplistic answer does them (or more accurately, the asker) violence, but that any answer does. But my worldview won't support that, as following that track eventually leads me to a hopeless state of existentialism or nihilism. No, Christianity, once again holding competing truths together in tension, seems to me to suggest that both Questions and Answers can be simultaneously simple and profound.

In addition, our Western, fix-it world seems to be obsessed with the natural flow being from Question to Answer. (Or worse yet, from Answer to Answer, but that's another matter.) To me, the symbiotic relationship must necessarily flow from Answer to Question, as well.

And when I follow all of this progression in any line of thinking, I again and again find my Questions and Answers both beginning and ending with Jesus, and more specifically, with his cross. Jesus teaches me to ask the right Questions, to uncover, in my soul, what is really there--even (especially?) when I don't really know, myself. Jesus invites me to explore the depths of who he is, and find satiation for some of my Questions...before introducing the next Questions to be asked. He is the Answer. Yet he is not only the Answer, he is the Question. He is the Truth...and the Truth, I am finding, is Questions and Answers.

In the surety of my relationship with him, I freely release my surety of other philosophies and wisdom. In the Answer of him, I am freed to ask Questions of him. In the conviction of his death on my behalf, I am released from the expectation of conviction. In this way, I am reborn. In this way, I am remade.

How much would you sleep?

So, I took a random poll around college the other day, and was surprised at the varying results. For anyone who'd like to respond (in the comments section), tell me:

1. If there were no limits in either direction (greater or fewer), and no physical restraints, how many hours per day (24 hrs.) would you sleep?
2. Why?
   

New word with which to impress your friends: Metonymy

http://dictionary.reference.com/ defines it as:
me·ton·y·my
n. pl. me·ton·y·mies

A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power.

So, I ran across this in my readings on Calvin and the Lord's Supper. I think there's something here. Calvin posits that the Scriptures frequently appeal to such types of speech. He gives, as an example, how the Holy Spirit appears at Jesus' baptism 'as a dove'. Somehow, it is beyond mere simile or even metaphor, but there is a substantive meaning and representation present.

In reading some of the Reformation historians, I get the sense that they are engulfed in a necessity to define everything. Everything must be explained, even if (especially if?) it is not directly addressed in Scripture. (Remind you of anyone? HINT: modern-day...starts with an 'e'...ends with a 'vangelicals'.)

I dare not suggest that I am directly representative of my culture, but I certainly have an easier time with mystery than some of the Reformers (and their contemporaries) did. In some cases, I find myself a bit puzzled by this need to systematically explain that which neither has nor demands a direct explanation.

This is not to sound unscholarly or anti-intellectual. Hopefully, it only expresses the acceptance of the limits of scholarship and intellect (ooo...how very postmodern of me!). Especially in grappling with theological matters, we may well need to employ the concepts of inference, non-propositional truth, poetic illustration, and yes, metonymy (dang, it's a hard word to type!). E.g., while I don't know if the disciples understood Jesus' words of institution at the first Eucharist, there may be a way that they understood it...and something tells me it had inherently more meaning than the words, themselves.

Then again, what are words? ...but that's for another post!

On Faith: Science, Experience, the Golden Calf and/or YHWH?

To be human is to employ some degree of faith. Whether we have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that my heart won't stop beating in the next 30 seconds, or that my beloved still loves me, we all exhibit some sort of belief toward ends that are not 'certifiably' (scientifically?) proven (or provable).

Evangelicals, because of our propensity toward marking the instant of spiritual conversion, tend to regard an individual as not having any faith toward God until one professes (read: cognitively assents to) such faith. Unfortunately, this begs many questions. If to be human is to utilize faith, is it altogether inconceivable that some manner of faith toward God is at work even prior to such confession?

Put another way, is the 'unbeliever' who believes that the sun will rise tomorrow exhibiting faith based only upon scientific and experiential probability? Do not I, as a 'believer', maintain that my understanding--that God indeed sustains all things (including the rising of the sun)--is universally applicable to believer and unbeliever alike (ala Mt 5.45b)? In such a way, is it ever appropriate to say that the 'unbeliever' unknowingly is exhibiting faith in the Sustainer God?

The breakdown of this line of arguing, it occurs to me, is that though faith may be exhibited, the understood object of faith has inherent meaning. The ancient Israelites, when faithfully thanking the golden calf for bringing them out of Egypt, were sinning against YHWH, even when Aaron told them, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' (Ex 32.4)

So, then, if we can agree that to be human is to practice faith, but the object(s) of our faith is crucial, is the Savior God the initiator of faith in that he creates faith from faithfulness, or would it be more appropriate to say that he re-directs the pre-existent faith of all to its proper place: himself, as revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I believe that the subtle distinction here has something to contribute to discussions of the nature of revelation through to evangelistic strategy.

Jesusdale Mall

So, another megachurch is highlighted in my hometown of the Twin Cities. The article link (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13808038.htm) will soon expire, but basically, the story is on the weekly attendance at a new, $24m local church building being 8,000. The article highlights (with intended negative responses, doubtlessly) that the church is waiting on its cup holders to arrive to install in chairs.

The evangelical church is so funny to me sometimes. We seem to spend oodles of time and money saying how different we are from the world, yet we tend to take the world's influences in all the wrong ways, then justify them because it's 'in the name of Jesus' (or, more appropriately, in the name of evangelism...but that's for another post). The article is jam-packed with references to all sorts of consumer-driven implementations in the church building: cup-holders, coffee shop, big-screen projection, etc.

When I first read the article, I was bit perplexed. I had been predicting that the age of the megachurch was on the wane...at least in the North Central US. I honestly believed that postmoderns (though very consumeristic) wouldn't ultimately stand for their spirituality to be so indistinguishable from their weekday lives. I really thought that the struggle with intimacy that oft plagues the megachurch would eventually erode it away in a culture that longs for belonging, especially tribal (small group) belonging.

But, this new church has proven me wrong. ...but it won't stop me from praying for such things to happen!