Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Week 4- Wednesday Reflection

This class was particularly fascinating. Karl Marx was an idealist who was convinced that Christianity and religion is useless to face problems of real substance. What a sobering indictment of the Church! I have a lot of sympathy for Marx who says much of what we say in our theology. Marx says that it is wrong to manipulate and oppress the poor. Marx believes that one day the world will be fair and just. Of course Marxism has been taken on by violent revolutionaries and men greedy for power. Marx was a materialist reductionist and ultimately a failure in his productions. But his care for the poor and call for action haunts us still today.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Week 4- Monday Reflection

Speaking about the emerging church certainly challenges one's assumptions about what it means to follow Jesus.  This is true especially for what it means to be about the missio dei.  God's intention in the world is to redeem, to save, and to bring wholeness- and for whatever reason God seems to want to involve us in this process somehow.  It hurts my feelings greatly, but I don't think that God is impressed by the grandiose programs that we construct or the numbers of people that we can convince to walk through our doors.  What is truly challenging, is that in a certain sense God does not want us to even start "churches" necessarily.  The concept is revolutionary, but if the word church tends to ruffle feathers in a particular locale or cultural context, then perhaps it is right to drop the term all together.  Why not drop the term "Christian" as well?  If, at the end of the day we go around and found long lasting communities where God's spirit is poured out, Jesus is worshipped and followed, and God's love is made manifest, then I am for calling the "thing" whatever term tickles the fancy.  How about calling on people to be members of the "Jesus club", or to call on people to become associates of the "Institute for the Following of Jesus".  Whatever the term, it will be the content that matters.  

Week 3- Cobb Chapter 3 (Theology and Culture)

I appreciate the balance we have between our textbooks. After reading an increasingly depressing account of the nature of culture and reality in Barker, we find at least a glimmer of hope that there might be substance and meaning that float somewhere out there in the ether in Cobb's writing.
I have heard Paul Tillich criticized by many who feel that Karl Barth's declaration of Christ and Christ alone is a much more pious route. However, I feel that we diminish God's sovereignty, power, and presence if we don't recognize His truth in every cultural circumstance. How can we say out of one side of our mouth that God is present by His spirit everywhere and anywhere and yet all world religions and "non-Christian" culture is devoid of truth and goodness? I feel that Tillich at least tried to develop a language of correspondence between the sacred and the secular. May we follow in his footsteps.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Week 3- Bevans Chapt. 3 (Use of Models)

It is refreshing to read someone who is a critical realist. Yes, it is true that reality can be fleeting and meaning is not always upfront and we are never fully aware of the whole of a truth. However, there are ways of moving toward truth. The use of a model is one way, and I applaud Bevans for promoting their use. I think Bevans' emphasis is healthy. All theologies use some type of model, or framework of thought. Our job is to recognize and celebrate these models, adjust them where it is needed, and to sort through these models to then construct a new model for our particular ministry situation.

Week 3- Barker Chp. 6 (World Disorder)

I identify entirely with this chapter. A life of disorientation and lack of foundation. I would characterize my life as being constituted of multiplicity. That is, while I am sure that I am shaped and fashioned by my family and upbringing more than I know, I feel that there have been few expectations of what it is that I should believe and pursue, and even less guidance. My family has moved around the state of Texas 4 or 5 times, relationships within the family and outside of it are always temporary and transient, and mentoring relationships are brief and fleeting. I don't want to get too down on myself, but I was just reminded by this chapter of the lack of community and cultural identity that I have been provided in my life. My father falls into the 1/3 of people in America (Barker 2003, 161) that are in the service sector. This is a workforce that is able to move at any time and is expected to be able to uproot family and dismiss loyalty to any particular locale. Globalization has been presented to me in the form of endless choices as to what particular "style" of life I will choose. I think Barker is right on in characterizing these 'New Times' as an era of disorder.

Response to Darren Schlack's Blog

Darren, I think you have a great point. It seems that Barker is doing much of what was spoken against earlier in the book; he is being way to certain of himself. It seems that human beings could perhaps be much more creative and sporadic than what is put forth in this chapter. Are emotions merely survival techniques and responses? It seems to me that we are always "emoting" at every moment of every day... surely some emotions are just there for emotions' sake. It is odd to think that at some point in the past perhaps there were emotions that we know not of today? Perhaps the "wow thats a really large wooly mammoth coming at me emotion"! I would like to think that humans can actually use their emotions for their benefit as opposed to simply experiencing them. While Barker leaves the door open for such emotional spontaneity and flexibility, I feel like this openness could have been explored more in the chapter.

Week 3- Barker Chp. 5 (Biology and Culture)

I have been thoroughly disoriented by this book. Whereas the chapters including and prior to chapter 4 seem to dismantle hope in language correlating with reality in any strong connection, chapter 5 moves into very certain language. Barker asserts that we must deal with "the undeniable fact that human beings are evolved animals" (Barker 2003, 151). I suppose I am airing out my evangelical bias and my anti-evolutionist heritage here. In all honesty, I appreciate greatly the exploration of the effects of human ancestral experience on contemporary states of mind. The topic is fascinating and helpful. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly that the human person has developed reactions and thought patterns which are passed from generation to generation via both culture and genetics. However, Barker seems to have taken a major shift in emphasis and tone from chapter 4 to chapter 5. Earlier in the book, the language of science and empiricism was relativized as only one way to speak of reality amongst many other ways. In chapter 5, the grandiose narrative of evolutionary theory is taken to be a wonderful descriptor of all things past and present. It simply seems odd that Barker, who seemed so hesitant to assign meaning to anything in particular, finds such certainty in evolutionary theory which covers such vast expanses of time and can never fully be demonstrated or comprehended.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Week 3 Wednesday- Class Reflection

I find it hard to balance Jesus' full and authentic incarnation into the first-century Palestenian Jewish setting and his nonconformist approach to so many issues. I suppose this is the central question of mission however, how is a person to be fully_____ (fill the blank- Indonesian, Hip Hop culture New Yorker, etc...) and also be an upright worshipper of God full of God's Spirit? I think this class session was helpful in creating a general rubric and at least setting us in the right direction. Perhaps we can label the class "Towards a Non-Conformist Incarnation".

Monday, January 21, 2008

Week 3- Monday (MLK Day)

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the most influential and profound leaders of American history. It is for that reason that I am ashamed that we tend to gloss over much of his life. There was a recent article in the Semi that asserted we have romanticized our image of King and reduced him to a Care Bear type personality whose primary message was "Why don't we all love one another?". I agree wholly that we have forgotten the more challenging aspects of King's message; his call for reparations towards African Americans for the century or more of free labor given to the founding of America and his decrying of the injustices of Vietnam. I also think that we forget entirely the human side of Dr. King. King was a man with many faults, trials, and inconsistencies, but all that I was ever taught in school was that King was a kind of talking head who said some really profound things. King was a man who needs to be looked at in every light. We need recognize King's full message and be willing to note his imperfections. I believe that historical figures who are truly great become even greater when we recognize their humanness and are willing to listen to their whole message.
King was a counter-cultural prophet and we desperately need his message even today.

Week 2 Bevans- Chapter 2 (Issues of Contextual Theology)

I appreciate Bevans emphasis on the positive aspects of cultural exchange. That is, many authors tend to argue that cultures are best if left alone and not damaged by outside intrusion. I think that one is badly mistaken to assume that cultures can ever remain outside of the effects of globalization or that it would be good for them to be so. Just as we do not want our culture to be insular and conceited, we dare not banish other cultures to that same fate. Therefore, it is encouraging to read in Bevans that a nonparticipant in a culture can actually aid the culture's theologizing simply by being an outsider (Bevans 1994, 15). I have heard missionaries advocate before that one can avoid paternalism if one is upfront about one's intentions and background. So, for instance, a missionary can be of use to a culture who is deciding and how to be a follwer of Christ in their culture, if the missionary simply steps back and interjects the conversations only to state, "Where I come from, here are a few things that we did; here is where the Christians back home differ... etc." This kind of attitude provides the natives a point of comparison and lacks the arrogant tone of simply telling the culture how to conduct itself.

Week 2 Cobb- Chapter 2 (Cultural Studies)

It is interesting to think of popular culture as a "zone" of give and take between the powers-that-be and the consumers (see Cobb 2005, 56). The concept of "poaching" and "braconnage" are very fascinating ways to describe the vitality and power-weapons of the consumers. I can't help but think of the USSR and the cultural dynamics of the the fall of communism and the flood of Western goods and ideas that followed. Whereas, prior to the early 1990's, listening to the Beatles and wearing Levis was seen by the ruling class as a subversive act, the situation has flipped 180 degrees. During my trips to Russia, I have observed first hand the everyday street marketing of tennis shoes, cell phones, magazines, etc... and the hiring of cultural surveyors to find out what is "cool" to the contemporary Russian young person. In many ways, the corporate powers are in a perfect position in Russia. This is because the youth desire strongly to consume as much Western media and culture as possible as a way of defining their generation over and against previous generations of Russians. Therefore, the power plays of the corporations fall in step with the desires of the consumers. Soon enough however, I foresee the day when the consumers will begin to take back and assert their "Russian-ness". In fact, this is already occurring with the pro-Putin youth movement "Nashee" and various Russian lines of clothing and music.

Week 2 Barker- Chapter 4 (Language)

It is frustrating to recognize the degree to which all language is self-referential. What I take from this particular chapter is that the world and reality is largely a "perception" that is described by our culturally prescribed language. How could things be different? It seems self-evident that we all experience the world differently and therefore it is as if we all live in different worlds. That is, we can all describe aspects of the world, based on the limited vocabulary that we have, but none of us can say that we "know" the world wholly or have ever experienced any one thing "completely". I believe this is a useful concept for my final paper and for for my faith. In many ways, I am striving to immerse myself in a new "vocabulary", that is the "language" of Jesus. By faith, I believe that the only true language that actually refers to reality with complete accuracy is that language which emerges from the teaching and the Spirit of Jesus. Of course this language would not make sense to an outsider, for the "language game" of Christ is built upon an inner logic (as are all language systems/games). My task is to enter fully into the language of Jesus and to beckon others to do the same.

Week 2 Barker, Chapter 3 (Ideology)

I agree wholeheartedly with the consensus of cultural studies that distinguishing between a "good" high culture and a "bad" popular culture is an impossible task. However, I don't think one can conclude that there is no room whatsoever to not grade or critique the aesthetics of a particular piece of culture (contra Barker 2003, 65). It is probably correct to say that the standards of aesthetics are subjective, but I do not think that Barker demonstrates that the standards of critiquing the political power of culture (a task that is shown to be at the heart of cultural studies) are not subjective. In the end, I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to judge the quality of a piece of artwork or music, if the judge states upfront the standards and rules by which the judgment is made. I agree with the importance placed on looking at the power politics of a situation, but I am not ready to give up completely the necessity of looking at the quality of culture.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Week 2- Response to Todd B.'s blog

I would like to challenge your statement that Jesus was on a "religious" mission. Too often we use this word "religion" to refer to everything that is inward, personal, subjective, and irrelevant to life in general. We must remember that in Jesus' time, everything was "religious." That is, taxes (i.e. the temple tax) was often a religious system of oppression, whether the sick and the poor were given refuge was a "religious" issue, and many more examples could be listed. I do agree with your point that Jesus was not some kind of alien or outsider to the culture that he ministered in. I believe the aspects of Jesus' ministry that can be considered "counter-cultural" are the statements and deeds that challenged common assumptions by using forms and speech that were within the broader worldview of first century Palestine. That is, Jesus challenged people on their own turf. Jesus spoke within the people's language and spoke so that he could be understood. In fact, he was understood so well, that everyone knew Jesus challenged the traditional power structures; and thus he was executed. So, you have a good point Todd, but I am hesitant to say that Jesus' mission was "religious" because I think Jesus' mission was directly political, economic and social (categories that do not usually fall under our definition of religion).

Week 2, Wednesday

Unfortunately, I am getting to this blog post late. I came down with a cold and so I am now posting with a cup of hot steaming Theraflu in hand.
Class on Wednesday was a relief. I feel like we are moving a bit slow and so it was good to just sum up all that has been said thus far (this means that we will be moving on soon!). I found the discussion of Jesus, as he relates to pop culture, a difficult one. On the one hand I want to say that Jesus sided with the "common person" on all issues, but then I remember that he was aware of and conversant in the discussions of the high culture (the temple cult and scriptural interpretation). In the end it doesn't seem that Jesus was "nice" to any one segment of culture. I don't know if any of us are called to be "nice". We are called to love others and that means that, like Jesus, we speak the truth to those who need to hear it. Certainly, the rich and cultured of Jesus' day needed to hear the truth and be challenged, but the poor and downtrodden did not escape Jesus' demand for repentance and a life given to God.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Week 2, Monday

Class today was concerning the concept of "high culture" or "elitist culture". It is fascinating to me that the Industrial Revolution can (and should) be described in such particular terms. The Industrial revolution has not yet hit every country and people group fully. The Industrial Revolution is only about 200 years old. I too often assume that everyone knows what it is like to live in a place where the goods for every day life are mass produced and readily available to the majority of the society. This is not the case for millions of people and we do well to remember that the society we have built is a new concept and a fragile one at that. Most human beings have no time to consider "high culture" as they are too busy trying to survive. I have heard a seminar that spoke of the reasons that some countries are poor and others are not. The main point was this: some countries have experienced the Industrial Revolution and/or traded directly with those who have experienced it; others have not. The poverty/wealth divide has nothing to do with intelligence or capability, but only with historical accident. What a grandiose mystery that we would just happen to be born on the wealth side of things.

Week 1, Bevans, Chapter 1 (Contextual Theology)

It is amazing to me how radical these statements by Bevans were at one time.  Perhaps the concept that we think about God in ways that align with what we have been taught about God (via family, education, and a myriad of other cultural vehicles) is still not accepted in some circles.  What a tragedy that we would ever think that we know the truth completely and our job is merely to shove the truth down the throats of anyone we meet.  The whole concept of promoting and engaging in a theology from and for a particular culture boils down to one word for me, "humility." 

Week 1, Cobb- Chapter 1 (Popular Culture)

What a fascinating approach to popular culture.  I was told during the many years that I have been in the American system of education that popular culture was something that is unimportant and irrelevant as far as the weightier matters of economics and politics go.  Now, Cobb says the exact opposite. The narratives that we are fed via the music and movies and television that we pump daily into our minds define us.  The popular culture, according to Cobb, defines the "real" world.   I think this is a fascinating and radical statement and I can't wait to read more.  

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Week 1- Barker, Chapter 2 (Central Problems)

It seems that the consensus position of theorists in the field of cultural studies, is that "realist epistemologies" are old fashioned and untenable (Barker 2003, 50). I have a hard time wrapping my mind around exactly how Barker does not fall into relativism. It is true however, that we all make judgments upon what is true and good based upon the true and the good that we assume already. That is, we already have a standard made up in our head. However, does this necessitate that there is no objective "true and good" from which cultures must be judged? Is it not possible in any sense that some aspects of a culture might approach this "true and good" more really than other aspects of a culture? It is good to be humble about what we know, but I wonder if we enjoy our pessimism and self-doubt so much that we forget to cry out a prophetic "NO!" when our culture manifests something that is objectively "false and bad".

Week 1- Barker, Chapter 1 (Introduction)

The Introduction to the Barker text asserts that the field of cultural studies is an "interdisciplinary field" which explores issues of "culture and power" (Barker 2003, 7). It is refreshing to me for an academic to state outright that their field of interest is not merely "objective" or uninterested. Cultural studies by its very nature seeks to find those marginalized groups, who are devoid of power, and to offer them a voice. Cultural studies even goes so far as to question the prevailing positions of power. There is an agenda, and Barker does not shy away from that. However, while Barker does a good job in summing up the myriads of ways in which cultural studies is applied and approached, one can easily get tangled up and confused in all of the choices available. I feel that Barker does not offer much help in the way of determining which "way" (psychoanalysis, feminism, race, postcolonial, etc.) offers the most hope for the future. At the end of the chapter it seems that the proposition is that we, and our interest groups, are to just fight it out in the free market of ideas, and whoever is left standing wins. Surely, there is some way to merge these different interests (interests of women, men, members of the majority world, etc..) towards some kind of common goal. I don't personally feel there is much hope in everyone trying to push their own agendas without taking other agendas into account. I haven't caught this idea yet from Barker, but perhaps this idea of "awareness" of the viewpoints of others is the most positive thing Barker offers.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Week 1, Wednesday

For the most part, class was pretty interesting today. I am especially fascinated with the state of the church and of the faith in Europe. I have been to Russia on several occasions. I find the history of the Christian church in relation to the state and to the populace an interesting thing. I believe that the marginalization of anything to do with Jesus in Europe a perfect example of why the "Unreached Peoples" terminology is flawed. Speaking in terms of those people on earth who are "Unreached" necessarily implies that there are others who are fully "Reached". While using "Unreached" thinking can be useful if defined precisely and narrowly, I feel that it largely leaves us to assume that some of us have arrived. That is, if some cultures/people groups are "reached", then there is nothing left for them to become. They are following Jesus fully already; right? Surely we can't assume that any culture has come to the point of being entirely at peace with the demands of Jesus. I think that the discussion of the decline and demise of the church in much of Europe highlights the fact that no culture is static. All cultures are changing, and some cultures really do "unconvert" so to speak. This doesn't mean that these cultures should somehow renounce all things contemporary and relive some kind of nostalgic "Christian" past, but these cultures are in need of mission afresh and conversion in the midst of their new situation.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Week I Monday

I am excited about the class. I think it is certainly important to think about all of life from a missiological perspective. Western culture should be no exception to the radical demands of the gospel, no matter how much we tend to think that we have already arrived.