incorrect faith?

i'm trying to pull together a few items that have been mentioned, both implicitly and explicitly, on this blog. i am asking the question: can a truly faithful act be incorrect?

since i am an existentialist in many ways, this question comes from my desire to teach and struggles with isolated study, and the solution that is becoming increasingly clearer. (this is not necessarily a temporally oriented question, btw. it does not necessarily mean changes immediately or even short term.) in order to teach, it will require me giving myself completely to this vocation. giving myself completely to this vocation will require focused attention and, i expect, re-location for study. from a post a few days ago, vocational teaching is not a given. it is contingent on several things: location, denominational connections, publicity, talent, etc. the decision to teach, then, is only one that can be made in faith. it cannot be made any other way, unless one is extremely talented and gifted or perhaps self-deluded. in other words, giving oneself to a vocation that is not a given is necessarily done by faith. so, can the faithful act of pursuing this vocation be incorrect?

some may object that i am begging the question. the faithful act that is "true," they say, must necessarily be correct. "truly," however, is used, and only used, here subjectively. as far as the actor knows, the act is indeed of faith and not anything else (arrogance, delusion, etc.). to question the actor any further may plunge him/her into introspection. (and what a terrible waste of a person consistent introspection leads to.)

and yet faith is what pleases God. moreover, the call to separation from security is what distinguishes Abraham from the safely insignificant contemporaries (wording credited to volf's _Exclusion and Embrace_). so, it would seem the truly faithful act of seeking uncertain, but Christian vocation must be pleasing to God. and yet certainly there are those (sticking with professors) individuals who faithfully pursued vocational teaching who are now unemployed. (thinking about yesterday, sanctifying study need not be pursued as a registered student, so the faithful act here is limited to seeking actual vocational teaching and not merely study.) if one is left unemployed after the genuine act of faith, was their faithful decision incorrect?

so, can the truly faithful act be incorrect? have i framed the question incorrectly or insufficiently?

environmental Conservatives?

Another solid platform proposal here . Those who are concerned environmentally, this should begin to show the creativity of this party.

Notice this platform's ability to increase our own economy by increasing the demand of certain Canadian crops and using parts of crops that are normally waste. Also, notice the difference between this change and the brilliant (sarcasm!) Liberal plan to spend $100 million on programs and encouragement for ethanol.

learning to talk right

I think the title is a loose translation of something hauerwas said once. (Incidentally, Will Willimon has a blog: willimon.blogspot.com.) Anyway, doing some reading today I was chided a bit by the Spirit in a way that I have been speaking....well, sinfully. On the one hand, I must weigh the spirits, because the moment of conviction is often the result of introspection and a bad lunch, rather than the Spirit. (cf. Paul and idols in 1 Cor. 8 and 10. On the one hand, eating food offered to idols is pointless as there is no *being* behind the idol (8:4). On the other hand, sacrifices to idols are sacrifices to demons (10:20). So, are there demons in idols? I think Paul wants to say both yes and no with a straight face. Just a hint into demonology. So, listening to the voice that is not God may be a bad lunch--and somehow, thereby, demonic... Anyway...) The Spirit chided me in why I am studying, and why I went to seminary.

People ask, "Why did you go to seminary?" I usually respond, "Recommendation of profs, denominational funding, want to teach and do a PhD, yaddi, yaddi, yadda..." This is not Christian. I should have gone to seminary because I love to learn. In doing PhD study, my goal cannot be teaching--I may never teach vocationally, and I should always teach regardless of degree completion--but because the study itself is envigorating, a gift from God as a means of becoming like his Son. If the sacrifice of study is to the god of vocational teaching, then I have mistaken the Creator for creation.

shameless rip from another blog

one of the difficulties with engaging in politics is that you get painted with a wide brush. anyway, i found something called "Crunchy Con Manifesto" at a blog that jo pointed me to. it follows below. i am not sure about #s 1 (it may not be true) and 4 (culture cannot exist without politics and economics using their terms in a wider, proper sense).

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship - especially of the natural world - is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk's conviction that 'the institution most essential to conserve is the family.'

The wind is with the Conservatives this time

A few links to spread some holiday cheer. First, ex-Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish giving much deserved praise to Stephen Harper and some Conservative platforms (GST reduction, breaks for kids enrolled in sports, etc.). This is huge. Second, see the Liberal slump and the Conservative gain overall and in Quebec especially. Third, I am starting to like Stephen Harper even more and am impressed with Jack Layton's insight. Harper is exactly right about Martin here: He's a school boy who calls names and never delivers a punch. Layton had the best insight, however, by saying that Martin's recent denunciation of the Bush administration is electioneering (saying anything you can to get elected) and that using them as the wipping boy is a very easy thing to do at the moment. It's distracting from the Liberals rampant corruption and pathetic state. Well said, Jack. Both, however, noted that all the finger waving and harsh words mean nothing precisely because of where the Liberals have brought Canada over the last eleven years. The wind is with us...

Christmas is already coming.

drury and barna

friends,

interested to hear what you all think of this. methinks the three iwu profs who did this work had an axe to grind and have completely missed something (lots of things).

critique of practical critique: drury's charge that barna's work will "encourage (young people) to drop out of church attendance and practice a do-it-yourself religion" completely and utterly misses the actual group emphasis of barna's work. dropping out of a "local church" does not mean practicing a do-it-yourself religion. his charge that it "encourages them to seek other more exciting venues for their ministry instead of the old fashioned local church" is spot on, however. actually, what it should do is re-create the bigger sense of vocation and take some students away from local church ministry and to other creative ministries. (tim's assertion to crisis of authority has all kinds to say at this point, but would take too long to flesh out.) saying, "to the laity it legitimizes dropping out of church and going golfing—just so long as they go on a mission’s trip with a Para church organization occasionally and have a neighbor Bible study with a few friends on Tuesday evenings so they can skip church and go golfing on Sunday mornings," is a complete red-herring and straw-man argument. sadly, i would expect more charity from a Christian. the more organic nature of church for Barna is not nearly so pathetically stated.

i almost wonder if drury has read the book when he says, "the practical effect of the book is to elevate lone ranger religion." it is rather a call to be church outside the four walls of a building (the "old fashioned local church"). By saying "it s not global in focus, making it an American Christianity issue, not Kingdom," he has made the argument from silence and, possibly, a theological mistake. to be Christian in America means you have to be an American Christian (not in this order, though!; you have to present Christianity to the people of America--where it confronts and changes this culture). the gospel is always and necessarily contextualized, else it is a gnostic gospel.

critique of theological critique: when they say, "Barna sees the Church, the Body of Christ, exclusively as a mystical, spiritual community of “revolutionaries” without any direct relationship to the local church," they are half-right. the Body of Christ need not have a relationship to the "local church," if by local church they mean a specific denominalized building. it ought to and best would have such a relationship, but need not. the Church may occur in many settings. to say that barna is spiritual and mystical, i am flabbergasted. the work simply is not mystical and spiritual, primarily because it is so physically mission oriented.

their linking baptism and local church discipline completely misses that baptism is baptism into Jesus Christ and the discipline of the Holy Spirit. as Zizioulas might say, baptism grounds the church, not vice versa. i find some irony when they complain about barna by saying this: "the Church is expressed concretely in local churches." the fact that people drive for 45 minutes to come to a "local church" proves that it is not a "local" church. it's a distant church. (local church is becoming oxymoronic.) barna's desire for groups to meet locally makes much more linguistic (and theological) sense. (willow creek and randy frazee are moving in this direction, btw. well done, frazee!)

they say: "Local churches are the means by which God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus given to the Church is made available to humanity." well, no. if they had said "God the Spirit through the Church is the main means," or even, "local churches are *a* mean," then they would be right. to say "through the preaching of the Word, the due administration of the sacraments, and the community rightly ordered (the marks of the Church), saving, confirming and sanctifying grace is communicated to people," they are exactly right. the only problem is that "communication" is not "gift" of salvation, unless you are the divinely spoken (and living) Word, or even the written word--who offer salvation by their ontology. so, the Church can communicate and bear the marks of Jesus in many ways--and not be stuck to one model--there are many avenues to communicate the gospel, knowing that salvation is only given by God. Further, the Church is evidence of the gospel, not its only vehicle. saying that "Barna’s ecclesiology has more in common with the Donatist movement in the third century and Pelegianism (sic) in the fifth century than it does in orthodox Christian theology" is utterly misleading. it is misleading because the Donatist heresy was only a heresy inasmuch as it condemned those who were the people of God any way but their own, and left those who had backslidden in their condemnation (something Barna is utterly against; perhaps he should cry semper Reformada!). the Pelagian heresy is way off the mark (the denial that God would expect standards so high that they would be out of human reach apart from his divine gift) and has nothing to do with his work. calling Christians to mission is nothing new and nothing unbiblical.

the biblical critique has some value. barna is not an exegete and his biblical work is, at best, illustrative. his view of Jesus is somewhat limited and anemic. to say, however, that "the nature of what Barna is calling the future church to look like, not a unified Body but individuals working disconnected from one another and from the 'head'" again completely misses the missiological thrust of the book. he wants to and sees mission as the unifying point of these individuals, but not individuals engaged in mission in isolation.

my own take is that the change in theological education that will come about (our schools are structured to create pastors for "local churches") has put some people back into a corner and they are baring their claws. i also suspect that "local church" is used equivocally in their critique and would like to see them define what they mean by it. unfortunately, this critique is well below Christian charity or scholarship, and should not have warranted so much of my time.

Jesus, Tookie Williams, and the death penalty

i think there are biblical reasons for there to be a death penalty. it is not an unfair punishment. i think it is part of the responsibility that government bears. better, it is one mean by which the government can perform its responsibility. but i am against it the death penalty.

i am not against it because it is unjust; i am not against it because heros are sometimes made of those who suffer it; i am not against it because those who suffer it are made in God's image. i am against it because i am a Christian whose community witnesses to the new city where such judgments end in restoration and not death. i am against it because i don't know how else to remind those who execute this judgment that they in turn are under judgment and will be judged.

Another platform announcement

In case anyone needed reassurance or in case anyone would like the words of the people themselves, instead of the Liberal spin and outright deception, this has the Conservative outline of military spending. A few things to take careful note of:

1. The expansion of DART. I love this: Canada has a reputation of being a kind and compassionate country. This may help us live up to a reputation we currently have but do not deserve.

2. The role on the Iraq war. Agree or disagree, the leaders of this party have said they will not go into Iraq, but have a place in Afghanistan. Still expect the Liberals to lie about this, though, and say the Conservatives will take us to war.

this is what the Canadian gov't thinks of its people

Freudian slip? Truth winning-out? Either way, this is what the Liberal gov't think of its people. Note: Scott Reid is Paul Martin's Director of **Communications.** Think this spin is just coming from him alone? Not likely.

Charity and communication

Changing topics, but springing from the melee which happened below, I want to explore Christian communication.

I was thinking about my own contributions, AJ's charge of enjoying being right, and my own frustration with a speaker last year who I thought was uncharitable. The art of rhetoric is something the Christian community has lost--it shows in bad preaching (myself included), bad writing (refusing to use capital letters, at times), and therefore in bad witness. We argue polemically too often. AJ was right that I do enjoy being (or at least feeling, ironically enough) right. If this is the case, then arguing only becomes the atmosphere where I can feed my ego.

Communication comes from the latin word communio (mutual participation). Communio without passion is worthless; communio without reciprocity is dangerous; communio without charity is not Christian. The problem is passion is sometimes arrogance; reciprocity is sometimes the equality of ideas (ideas are not equal and refusing to accept to bad ideas/wrong opinions does not mean one is not attempting to communicate or is being uncharitable); charity is sometimes apathy.

bowing the knee to hollywood

this is in further response to the last post and comments (i think i got it right, jo), and evidence to the seriousness of something coming through in our Canadian election.

if stephen harper is scary to Christian believers simply because of feeling and intuition, then Christians have become like the world in a very sly and subtle way: we make decisions based on image, not on truth. or, even more dangerous, we equate image with truth. please understand: this is not about who you vote for. it is about how we discern truth. good Lord (not used flippantly), do we make our decisions based on image? do we take image for truth? do we believe glamour is trustworthy and insightful above all things?

the Christian thing to do is blog...

i live in the US, while my heart and attention is in Canada and its upcoming election. about all i can do is talk, ask questions, spread optimism to build momentum, and pray. praying is very important. one thing i have heard consistently from different people is that stephen harper is scary. or, "stephen harper scares me a bit." or, "some things i don't trust about stephen harper."

i am issuing a challenge to my Canadian Christian friends, who should therefore be interested in, in love with, and bound to the truth to ask themselves and then say what they find scary about stephen harper. (i have heard this from three different friends within the past week, so more must think it.) if the opinion that harper is scary is held and shared without proper basis, then it is gossip and wholely unChristian. i commit to responding in pure love, being more interested in the truth myself than sounding smart, witty, or winning an argument.

so, please, please let's get some things on the table and see if this oft-repeated slogan of the man being scary can either be confirmed or laid to rest.

Going to church on Christmas

Thought I'd put this out here since I've seen it on some other blogs and see what your thoughts are. I will just say that I think it very appropriate our church is worshiping on Dec. 25.

Any other thoughts?

suffering well

i thought about writing a post on the contentment of some people to live in the angst of doubt, existentialism, bitterness, etc. but i couldn't figure out how to end it. what gives a better and more complete framework is to talk about suffering. the postmodern suspicion of truth has made suffering the trump card in deciding winners and losers. authority in debate no longer belongs to truth (even if the truth is contested or disputed!), but to hurt feelings. (i recommend wright's article in the Guardian on the subject here.)

instead, suffering has become the highest and most compelling argument. if you suffer, you have space to speak. the more you suffer, the more right you are. those content to live in the angst of crisis of faith gain hearing simply because they remain in the suffering of doubt, rawness of emotion, etc. this is not to downgrade crises of faith, to encourage people to "snap out of it," or any other ridiculous thing people might have heard in these trying times (and kudos to my friends who have had the remarkable amount of courage to emerge from them). it is to encourage those suffering to suffer well.

o'donovan says that to suffer well, one must suffer for something worth suffering for. frankly, suffering over faith--in doubt, anger, confusion, initial bitterness--is suffering well. staying in the suffering consciously and by effort, however, is not. crises of faith are *crises* precisely because the faith seems not to be true, be it existentially, biblically, historically, morally, etc. the faith has lost its authorization for allegiance (conveyed by its truth)--and allegiance is passed from faith to angst. authority belongs to truth, however, and not to hurt feelings. angst and bitterness can never demand ultimate allegiance because they hold no truth value beyond one's own feelings...and one should never let one's feelings create the universe in which they live. hope this makes sense.