Visiting my Roots

I have a little anxiety about a trip we're taking this next week. The family and I will be on our way to Greenville, SC on Saturday. Why are we going to the bastion of conservative right-wing Christian fundamentalism? That's a good question, all I can offer as an answer is family.

My grandmother is somewhere around 93 years old and has been guilt tripping me about not visiting in South Carolina for the past four years. Really I haven't been able to afford the trip down; I needed the money from work and I've never had a job that had vacation time in the last few years so the question was moot. But now I'm not in school anymore, I don't really have a full time job that missing a few days would kill me, I have some money in the bank so, if it's going to happen at all, now is the time to do it.

The problem is that everyone else from my family (except for me and my brother) have gone to Bob Jones University for college. Heck one of my uncle's teaches at the University, so needless to say, I'm a bit of an outsider there. Which means I'll be spending a week in the most awkward and painful of situations for me. I can't disagree with my grandmother because she's 93 years old, and so set in her ways that arguing anything with her is pointless. Not only that but the last time my dad and I had a theological parting of the ways, I was hit with an onslaught of letters discussing how angry I am and how I'm such a sinner and that she's praying for me...I really don't need that right now.

Anyway, so I'm visiting the territory of the country targeted by Christian Exodus for a new "Christian" government (since when is the right to bear arms a Christian doctrine?) so I can't bring my normal reading books, unless their titles are vague enough...any suggestions on readings that might get past the Bob Jones editorial board?

The Life of a College Graduate in Limbo

Almost a week since my last post! So busy? No...just in limbo. So I've graduated (still waiting to actually get the diploma in the mail) and now I've nothing to do until the fall...yep. I've actually checked out a ton of books from the library and have a ton on the way, and I'm sure I'll never get through them all, but hey, a boy can dream can't he...so far, here's what I've found out:

1. John Shelby Spong: Not too impressed so far. I've only read one of his books, The Sins of Scripture, and I have to tell you, this former bishop of the Anglican Church knows as much about the Old Testament and first century Judaism as I know about Rocket Science...not much. Not only that but his polemics against circumcision and his ill conceived notions of Judaism read like the old anti-semitic polemics from the early church and pagan historians. And the scholarship he's using, source criticism (the J,E,D,P) theory has been basically discarded by modern biblical scholars as grossly inaccurate or at best an over simplification, but he treats it like it's a given. The Homeric scholars who initiated the whole methodology don't even use it...It's not even good enough for Homer, but it's good enough for the Bible? In the end he feels less postmodern than a modern liberal. He's got this sort of take it or leave it mentality (he generally chooses to leave it) that doesn't strike me as the true honoring of diversity and goodness in a variety of traditions that I've come to associate with Postmodern Theology.
   
2. Philip K. Dick (Minority Report, Blade Runner, etc) is obsessed with LSD...
3. Geza Vermes, I love this guy. I've come across a good bit of his work in my scholarly research, and am reading one of his books geared toward a more popular audience (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus) and I have to recommend it to anyone who's looking for a cursory look at the teachings of Jesus, with commentary from a Jewish perspective. A little too Bultmanian for me, but his knowledge of both first century Judaism and Christianity is inspiring.
4. N.T. Wright: I get a mixed bag from this guy. I've read some of his online essays and am now going through The Last Word. He offers some interesting insights into Paul, but he certainly doesn't understand the Pharisees or first century Judaism either. This is also the feeling I thought I would get, based on Brian McLaren's books. He cites Wright as a big influence on his theology and I'm constantly amazed by how often they totally miss what Judaism teaches. It's like the New Testament, Josephus and the early church fathers are the only source for first century Judaism. Like Pharisaic/Rabbinic Jews didn't create or write their own works (the Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud, Tosefot) to explain what they were thinking.
5. I have way too much time on my hands...and still can't write a decent post.
   

Matthew 18 Continued

In a previous post, I asked a question about church discipline and the authenticity of Matthew 18 as a teaching of Jesus. To which Lauren beautifully and graciously responded here. Talking to Jaime about this and then reading Lauren's response has brought up some important issues for me, that I'm really trying to address. So allow me to clarify:

I am not saying that there is no call for correction within the church. I do have a problem with the overly systematic approach that many have taken when trying to correct someone. Lauren rightly points out, "I'd guess that one reason you...are sensitive to this idea of 'accountability' within the church is that we've seen too many examples wherein this process has been applied abusively, without love or grace." This is certainly true, and(sadly) has been my experience in every church that I have been a part of. I'm saying this as someone who has taken part in the judgmental attitude that has driven people away. And this is part of what I'm reacting to: my guilt for having been in environments where people have been ostracized for everything from being angry at a parent to dating someone outside the church. Some people's misdeeds were truly serious and some were minutiae, but few, in my opinion, were really grounds for completely removing a person from their church community. (Because of these experiences I may be overcompensating).

Part of the problem I have with a systematic one-size-fits-all approach is that rarely, if ever, are situations so similar that a system can be applied. Systems also remove the greatest catalyst for reconciliation: relationships. Often these corrections take place outside of Christ centered relationships. People say--and, I believe, honestly think--that the hurtful things that are being said in the discipline are done out of love and based on relationships. However, I suspect, that if you ask the person being disciplined, they would say the relationship really isn't there and it doesn't feel like love. I would argue that if the person doesn't feel loved, there's a good reason: they're not being loved.

We all tend to get out of joint when corrected (it's not always great for one's ego). Relationships and love make correction tolerable and, ultimately, the blessing it is meant to be. That's why it's such a pity that so many people in the church take the cold approach. Sins are pointed out because they can be and for no other reason. Intimacy isn't taken into account. Before confronting someone we should all ask ourselves if we really have the "relationship capital" to do so. Have I loved this person? Have I put the in the work required of a close relationship? Are we really friends or just acquaintances? We should also ask ourselves if this is the right time to point out a sin. Is it really necessary to bring this up right now? Is it a life and death issue or is it something they should be allowed to see in their own time. Allowing people to work at their own pace is something a lot of leaders give lip service to and then quickly disregard. Faith is a process, an evolution of the soul. It's not instant and complete the moment a person begins to trust in God. We can't expect the same level of good deeds from all people.

Lauren also points out, "that with just the slightest shift in your interpretive grid, you might be able to see this as a teaching in reconciliation rather than ex-communication." To this I have to concede and will attempt to do later on (in a different post). What I don't want to do is simply remove a passage from the Bible simply because I don't like that it's been used in sinful ways due to bad interpretation. I'm finishing up John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture, and he ultimately just rejects Bible passages because they have been used sinfully. I don't like it. I appreciate many of his conclusions, but I don't like his method. I prefer finding a way to look at the passage in a non-sexist, non-demeaning, non-whatever sort of way if possible (admittedly of late I have lost focus on that). I also think Christians need to acknowledge the humanity of the people who wrote, compiled and handed down the Bible we have today, and be willing to challenge at least the traditional interpretations that have been given.

Anyway, excommunication seems to me to be the opposite of Christ's teachings. At times people leave Jesus, and eventually he is abandoned completely, but it is never because he rejects them-- they reject him. I'm fine with letting people walk away, I'm not fine with pushing people out. If there is ever the threat of excommunication, it kills the encouragement to the best communication: confession. Why confess something if I'll just get harshly corrected or threatened with excommunication? Why be open and honest with where I am at if my walk with God will be constantly questioned? Why confess any deep-seated sin if my place within the community (that God intended to be the source of healing) is threatened? It seems to me the plain meaning of this passage is clear: a formula for excommunication. But I'm willing to reinterpret the passage positively if that is possible.

And it only took me 11 years!

Woot! I don't even know exactly what "woot" means but I know it's something good...so...woot!! It's been 11 non-consecutive years in getting to this point but today I took my last final as an undergraduate. I have yet to actually receive my diploma, but that's okay, I could've failed this quarter (which I didn't cuz I'm, like, smart) and still have graduated. So now it's time to get silly drunk and celebrate....or just be a responsible 30 year old and go to bed early.

He'Brew--Who Knew?

Our Greek teacher, Katarina, is leaving us and heading back to Greece. Life is so unfair. So last night we had a going away party for her. A few of us headed out to get some refreshments at a classy carry-out nearby and that is when something earth shattering occurred--I found He'brew, The Chosen Beer. Messiah Bold. No, I am not making this up. Allow me to share a few quotes from the packaging--

*Messiah Bold--It's the beer you've been waiting for!

*Why is this beer different from all other beers? As commanded, we at HE'BREW Beer have been fruitful and multiplied our offerings. Tradition teaches that the Messiah's name is Shalom-Peace. With your first sip of this rich, dark, and delicious libation, we hope to offer a momentary taste of microbrewed bliss. If you feel the sudden urge to beat your swords into ploughshares (Isaiah 2:4) or to picnic with the lion and the lamb (Is. 11:6). . .Rejoice! Now, our award-winning brewers can't claim supernatural powers--simply a fanatical commitment to brewing world-class beers. A truly scrumptious mitzvah (good deed)! Through the new Millenium and beyond, may your cups runneth over with the blessings of great beer and great shtick. To the Future! To a Bold Life! L'Chaim!

*Do not store fresh beer in saddle bags of white donkey.

It's all true folks. And it's pretty good beer. I think from now on this should be standard fare at all Melton Center gatherings. I bet a lot more people would show up for those extracurricular lectures.

Accountability, Church Discipline and Jesus

Recently, a church in Texas has made the news because of the "controversial" way they handled a certain church discipline. Because I'm not familiar with the details of the situation, I'm not going to say anything specific about it, but it does bring up certain questions I've had about accountability and what the Bible says about it.

The standard passage used by churches to help define the method by which they perform official church discipline is Matthew 18.15-17. Essentially there are four steps:

• Correct the sinner privately, if that doesn't work:
  
• Correct the sinner with another person, if that doesn't work:
• Tell it to the church, if that doesn't work:
• "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (vs. 18)

When churches want to use this passage to defend their actions against a member, the first question I want to ask is this, "Does it strike you as odd that Jesus is talking about "Church" discipline years before the Church was ever in existence?" They usually don't mention that this teaching in Mathew is in a really wierd place right between Jesus' parable of the shepherd going out to find the one lost sheep and Peter's question about how often he should forgive someone (70 times 7; i.e. always). Suddenly, in between teachings of forgiveness and reconciliation is a teaching about how to kick someone out of a church? A church that doesn't exist? It seems to me that this passage was added later and should not be used as a teaching from Jesus himself.

(My wife is lecturing me right now about slippery slopes and all that, but I am tuning her out. Honey, you can't avoid something just because it's a slippery slope. And I don't know why you're using that phrase anyway because you hate it.)

Anyway.

Many people respond that the Church needs some way to hold people accountable for their actions. Does it really? The only reason (that I can think of) for this would be to maintain power and control. If you were to look at all the times in the bible the word "account" (i.e. give an account, be accountable, etc.) is used, never once does it mention people being forced to give an account to each other for their sin. Instead everyone has to give an account to God. It's really between the person and God. When it does talk about people giving account to each other, it is always confessional and always initiated by the sinner. It seems to me, from my experience at least, that people who want to initiate some form of accountability on someone else are usually the most judgmental and least loving. The powers that be use it to maintain a power structure which usually puts them at the head.

One last thing on the Matthew 18 passage: what does it mean for Jesus to tell his disciples to treat the unrepentant sinner as a gentile or tax collector? He was notorious for his association with the outcast (i.e. gentile and tax collecter) and not disassociating himself from them, but accepting them where they were! This statement is so out of character from everything else the gospels tell us about him, it makes me suspicious...any thoughts?