Closing thoughts on Robert Capon

Well I just finished The Mystery of Christ by Robert Capon and must say it has been a delight. Part of the reason is that he writes one chapter as a pastoral counselling session and the following chapter is a discussion with him and a couple of people that question why he did what he did. 

For the most part I am drawn to the mystical understanding of God. What I mean by that is that God cannot be explain away/proven by the rational people. To often in certain Christian circles they feel if certain things can be known without a doubt more people would have faith in Jesus. This is a very modern view on how people know (ie epistemology).  The other matter is that I believe in Grace and do not understand how the sinner's prayer became the way a conversion begins(or maybe that too often the sinner's prayer is seen as the end of a conversion and not the beginning).

The book in essence is about faith and what does it mean when the Bible talks of faith. I think one of the problem is that the Bible talks about faith in a drastically different manner than it is expressed in the Western world. Or faith is used so commonly by people that its meaning has been eroded to the degree that faith in a Christian context needs to be re-understood as much in post-modern context.

I am drawn to Capon's interpreting of the parables that make Grace all about what God has been doing from the creation of the world through Jesus. Too often the parables are turned into what people need to be doing to gain God's favor. The problem is if one believes Sin is a problem then their is nothing we can do, but have faith(trust) in Jesus. This faith does not alter what Jesus did with the sins of the world. It does alter how we live in the world. Do we believe that their is no reason to have guilt, do we forgive others, do we seek punishment for wrongs done to use. The list could go on and on.

Faith is important is that even if scholars could prove that Jesus was resurrected from the dead beyond a shadow of a doubt it still requires an act of faith.  

Thoughts on "Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism?"

I'm not going to summarize the entire book, but rather point to why James K. Smith's Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism is the most accessible  and helpful book on the post-modernism for the Church. Smith is a professor of philosophy and the three major french philosophers he engages (Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault) are part of his world. He recognizes when they are falsely represented by other it is the same when people outside the Church attempt to explain theology and Church history  they miss the point. 

Each of the philosophers have ideas that are useful for the church to reclaim it's vision for this new world. Naturally each philosophers have ideas that Christian need to disagree with, Smith at  no point hails the three as saviours for the church and tongue in cheek calls them "an unholy trinity of postmodern thinkers." To write them off as having nothing to say would be a grave error and could give a glimpse into why the church is thriving in all areas of the world except in the West.

The answer Smith gives is Radical Orthodoxy, which in of itself is hard to understand. My only direct interaction with Radical Orthodoxy is John Milbank's "The Other City" found in Theology and Social Theory. While the chapter was hard to grasp, because of its utterly unique language. That is inaccessible to a degree, but I believe it is done purposefully. Is the Church the same as the rest of the world do we have the same values and ideas of the world. Naturally the answer needs to be an emphatic NO.

The three ideas that Smith puts forth are Redeeming Dogma, Recovering Tradition and Renewing the Body. The first emphasises a need for renewal of Dogma in the sense that we live in a world where certainty is met with skepticism on all side. This is problematic for forms of Christianity in the West. This idea of certainty is a problem and as Smith asserts that Derrida once said " I don't know..I must believe." In other words, the postmodern theologian says, "We can't know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The best we can do is believe." The second is similar in the sense we need to be Historical Christians. Many have been advocated this idea particular the late Robert Weber in his Ancient-Future series. This fact struck me during my time studying Historical Theology at Providence College how I am a Christan, but do not know the Christian Tradition very well. While Tradition is always superseded by Holy Scriptures at times we need to heed Tradition as the on going interpreting of these Holy Scriptures. The last point is that the place of the world that God deemed good in Genesis need to be taken serious by the Church. Too often in my former experience in the Evangelical world the only thing that mattered was the soul. The stuff of the world matter as well(and equally) and this requires a renewal of the arts, the neighborhood and all the other areas of life.

The Mystery of Christ..& why we don't get it..

I have just started reading The Mystery of Christ. Jaime Howison, the priest at St. Ben's, quotes this book and other references from Robert Capon on a fairly regular basis so I figure it would be a worthwhile endeavor.  I am only two chapters into the book and am intrigued at his idea that a lot of theology(by this I mean very broadly a persons understanding of God, which every person has) is based on what he calls transactional. This idea creates a bad model to understand God, because it is based on the idea that salvation or forgiveness of sins is enacted by something we do.

This will appear to be similar to a works based system that to a degree Martin Luther reacted against. I imagine that that many in the protestant/evangelical circles would applaud, but the problem is that the idea of our actions are the basis of the forgiveness of sins is a very evangelical. That is why protestant emphasis the sinners pray(not an idea found in the bible) as important. What is at the core of this question is does our pray change the fact that Jesus died for all the sins of the world on the cross. Capon, with whom I agree, says that our sins have been forgiven and our works (ie. a prayer) does not change that fact. Dallas Willard in his excellent book The Divine Conspiracy talks about how many in the evangelical world are simply involved in "Sin Management" that at its root has guilt as a  motivating factor.

Naturally the obvious question then if our sins have already been forgiven what does it matter. Capon explains the situation as such what if you are told that a million dollars have been put under your house. "One one level, I have given you a piece of sensationally good news: you are the possessor of a million bucks, no conditions attached, no danger of my reneging on the gift. And if you trust me--That is, if you go to your property and start turning over flat rocks--  you will sooner or later actually be able to relate to the millions I so kindly gave you. But note something crucial. Your faith (your trust) does not earn you the money, nor does it con me into giving it to you: the money was your s all along just because I was crazy enough to bury it in your backyard. Your faith, you see , is in  no way the cause of the gift; the only thing it can possible have any causal connection with is your own enjoyment of the gift."

The Great Emergence.

The idea behind The Great Emergence is that the Church has a rummage sale every 500 years. At first this idea appears flimsy. We can not simply say that a certain point things utterly change in the world and church. However, that is definitely a simplistic way of describing the book and at no times does Tickle assert that the Reformation or any period begin after a specific event, but it is helpful to listen to what is happening in the world and a lot of events do culminate in an event where everyone can say that the world is different.  

The implication of this is immense. All facets of life need to re-evaluated including the Church. In the past couple or even closing on a decade this has been debated how the Church needs to engage these changes all around us. 

Tickle strength is how she shows the various parts of society have led to what she calls the Great Emergence. Clearly whether you will enjoy the book or grind your teeth at what she says and other 'emergent' type books is if you agree with her assessment of The Rose, which is her assessment of church right now(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8201186130545666528). Not wanting to regurgitate the rose, but in essence I agree with her analyse. My one issue with the entire book is that she lumps North America. I live in Canada and certain elements that are true for the US will never be the case in Canada.

The one aspect I want to touch on as being different is denominational loyalty. I was visiting with a couple and they have a passion to be church planters in a small country in Africa. They are currently attending a fairly large church in Winnipeg. I admire them for their passion and willingness to raise money as missionaries. They approached the church board about getting more involved in the church and gaining membership. The problem is one of my friends grew up in the Mennonite tradition and was baptised with sprinkling of water, not immersion as is the churches view. My friend actually believes that immersion is proper biblically, but does not feel his baptism is invalid. The problem continues as church attempt to maintain these denominational expectations will eventually leave their church for another that does not have a rigid expectation.

Shane Claiborne & Jesus for President

I have been intrigued by Shane Claiborne ever since I read The Irresistible Revolution a couple years back. The book engrossed me while I should have been studying for exams I couldn't help finish it within a couple days. While in Canada the polarization between political parties is less than in the states and the religious connections between a particular party is less obvious. However, in recent weeks I heard the pastor at my former church made the comment he would be content with reading an editorial from the National Post as a sermon. The problem is not that I disagree with the pastor position, because in conversion with those who disagree with us we develop a greater understanding of complex problems in our society. The problem is when we as Christians aligning ourselves completely with the rest of society we cease to be a Peculiar People as Rodney Clapp asserts. Claiborne's reading of Jesus, which I believes he rightly reads, as one who always resisted all groups and all preconceived notions of what the Messiah will do on earth.

None of the political parties can replace the Church and in spite of the hope that Obama can inspire in people his idea that America can once again be the hope of people and the world. Christians must continually resist this idea no matter how attractive it may appear. If a nation is the hope of the world this is completely at odds with the Christian believe in the resurrection or maybe we need a more robust understanding of hope. Clairborne passionately believes that Christians need to be more imaginative and being involved in living the Kingdom of God on earth.

Jesus for President is a good starting point for all Christians what it means to be socially involved in the world. Many may be turned off by 'too radical' of his ideas and examples he gives in the book. I would agree with this point to an extend, but that is not the point of Claiborne's push. It is to rethink what our actions and believe tell the world. For example I don't think we can all start making our own clothes and to an extent that would require us to leave our jobs, but he is calling us to rethink our vocation as Christians and how that effects all aspects of our life. To simply follow the status quo is what Claiborne is question and all Christians should do the same.

Come to the Table

Recently I finished reading Come to the Table it is a interesting to read a book about the community to which you belong. Ever since attending St. Benedict's Table I've been drawn to the openness and acceptance of everyone. The idea that Jesus welcomes us all is very powerful, especially when I think of my cruise ship days and hearing countless stories of people not feeling welcome into a church setting. In reading the Gospels Jesus appears to be inviting everyone to join him and God's kingdom. Maybe the part of open communion that scares people as the book mentions is that it does not require anything of an individual. I guess the idea that anyone can receive the blood and wine, maybe consider it cheap grace. The one thing with a 'cheap grace' view is if everyone can have communion nothing more is require, but that is definitely not the case at St. Benedicts as discipleship is at the forefront.

I guess the other side of open communion is what kind of role does baptism play in such a community. Obviously baptism plays a key role in the New Testament. I wonder if there is a difference between theological/doctrinal belief and practice. What role does baptism have in churches in 21st century is it simply that one can not take part in communion. I know that was the case when I was growing up that you couldn't have communion if you weren't baptised or the very least accepted Jesus as Lord. We have had a couple baptisms at St. Ben's the past two years and I must say it has been meaningful to the community and an emphasis has always been on the communities responsibility in a persons life. I guess it comes down to what role does baptism play in a community, is a thing we are expected as good Christians to do or is there something deeper.

What St. Ben's accomplishes by practicing open communion is inviting everyone to participate or belong. It is a mysterious thing that people can gather together on a Sunday evening and feel they belong. I know for a long time in my former Christian circles that has been a desire of mine and expressed by friends. So many people have said that they feel out of place and having to put on a mask. Not a mask of hiding behind something, but that the language and practice did not have a bearing on other parts of their life. That Sunday is the day not for escaping life, but informing and influencing your life that you can be this peculiar life that Jesus invites us to be.

Thoughts on 'A Community Called Atonement' or why not to have high expectations about a book

I am a pretty big fan of Scot McKnight. Needless to say when I heard about 'A Community Called Atonement' it went straight to the top of my list. The book was marketed as a explaining Atonement for the common folk. I must admit that I've read a bit on Atonement already reading The Divine Conspiracy and Exclusion & Embrace, which both engage the topic in larger denser manner. Part of my excitement over McKnight is how influential The Jesus Creed was for me it was simple and profound. I always felt that the theory of Atonement was important, but has always been a bit too academic and the book appeared to be going in a different direction to bring the community into the theory.

The big disappointment was how the book was fairly basic and while it was a relatively short read(156 pages) it was not simple. Actually just as dense as any other book on Atonement, but instead of building the theory out over a lot of page it packed a lot of information in a little span. The biggest disappointment was how half through the book it still was just going over a lot of standard Atonement theory stuff and I found the best part of the book was when McKnight would quote N.T. Wright, which is never a good sign.

While McKnight did bring the community into the theory towards the end of the book overall it was a disappointment. Maybe if I had never read anything on Atonement it would be a food introduction and definitely worth reading for a community attempting to rediscover Atonement in a real way. I must admit the book did have sparks, but never the full enthralment and excitement of The Jesus Creed.

Thoughts on 'Gone Baby Gone'

I recently watched Gone Baby Gone a film directed by Ben Affleck, which got rave reviews from the critics. Some about anything Affleck makes me weary of being hugely disappointed. Needless to say Gone Baby Gone engrossed me in the tragic neighborhoods of Boston. An impressive cast consisting of Morgan Freeman, Casey Affleck, Ed Harris give their standard performances. What was most impressive is how Gone Baby Gone engaged a topic that's been a struggle of mine this past year.

What if a child is born into a situation that their almost doomed to enter into a cycle of substance abuse, family violence and crime. In meeting so many parents who are unfit to provide for these teens, it is hard to hear stories of ten year olds providing and supporting for a family. Gone Baby Gone does an incredible job of putting this struggle to film, what if you could give a child a new life and at the same time break the law. Who in our society decides when a mother should have her child taken away.

In reading so many social histories at The Behavioural Health Fondation one is left with the impression that anyone growing up in this environment would have ended up in a similar situation. This haunting struggle hit its head when A.J.,one of my 'Keykids' parents came for his graduation and did not appear to care about the him.

What Gone Baby Gone does so well is if given the chance to give one of these 'doomed kids' a real chance at life would you do or allow it to happen. Much of the movie tugged at my emotions, but at the same time showed both sides of the situation. Too often movies that tackle a touchy subject give a one-sided approach or answer to the situation. Affleck should be commended for the honest and fair approach in showing the honest fact when a person does what they fee is 'right' it still puts the child in jeopardy.