The free bird leaps
on the back of the win
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wings
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings
with fearful trill
of the things unknown
but longed for still
and is tune is heard
on the distant hillfor the caged bird
sings of freedom
The free bird thinks of another breeze
an the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn
and he names the sky his own.
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing
The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.
28 September 2009
26 September 2009
Difference
There is one certain lesson I have learned in divinity school: provoking questions lead to spiritual growth. Although this is a learned lesson, it is always a difficult process. A colleague of mine wrote a particularly good note on Facebook showing how deep one must wrestle significant reflections. Asking the critical questions of my tradition or lifelong beliefs is painful because I might realize my defenses are pathetically inadequate. My colleague and I operate under very different Ultimate Reality conceptions, but we BOTH face the same disturbing questions. We both may come to the same conclusions...or we both may need to live in real difference.
I know many who would quickly dismiss some of these questions with piteous answers that provide comfort and safety in spiritual (religious) life. For the comfortable, questions are dangerous and scarce. These atmospheres are stifling for me. Why? It has been brought to my attention I practice a sort of heads-on approach with problems and issues. I want to solve through them, not tiptoe around them. I assume this sort of nature made the kind of work I do inevitable and sees questions surrounding language, religious pluralism, biblical authority, etc not as enemies to faith but as important connections to God (Ultimate Reality, Ultimate Concern). There are still presuppositions here that require humility and trust... for me it isn't a question of 'is there a God' but 'where is God?'
The most important issue I must always acknowledge and push back against is fear...fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of asking. When these fears dictate my life, growth will stop and, more than likely, your/my fear will wound someone else. Another side effect, I think, is worry. When I most worried, it usually means I need to ask some hard questions...even seek additional advice to make sure I get an honest answer.
Paul Tillich wrote "The Courage to Be".... maybe one day I will write "The Courage to Ask."
I know many who would quickly dismiss some of these questions with piteous answers that provide comfort and safety in spiritual (religious) life. For the comfortable, questions are dangerous and scarce. These atmospheres are stifling for me. Why? It has been brought to my attention I practice a sort of heads-on approach with problems and issues. I want to solve through them, not tiptoe around them. I assume this sort of nature made the kind of work I do inevitable and sees questions surrounding language, religious pluralism, biblical authority, etc not as enemies to faith but as important connections to God (Ultimate Reality, Ultimate Concern). There are still presuppositions here that require humility and trust... for me it isn't a question of 'is there a God' but 'where is God?'
The most important issue I must always acknowledge and push back against is fear...fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of asking. When these fears dictate my life, growth will stop and, more than likely, your/my fear will wound someone else. Another side effect, I think, is worry. When I most worried, it usually means I need to ask some hard questions...even seek additional advice to make sure I get an honest answer.
Paul Tillich wrote "The Courage to Be".... maybe one day I will write "The Courage to Ask."
22 September 2009
Decalogues
A little bit of Bible study that might surprise you.
There are three versions of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. Literally, the 'commandments' is better translated as 'words'. This would be Ten Words aka Decalogue.
Three Decalogues are found in Exodus 20, 34, and Deuteronomy 5.
Exodus 20 and Deut. 5 are very similar with slight variations in motivation for observing the Sabbath, benefits of honoring parents, and a distinction between coveting a man's wife vs. rest of household property. (Remember women were considered property in the Bible...)
Exodus 34 is odd because v.1 says God will write the words that were on the previously broken tablets on this new set of tablets. When Moses is given the covenant again, it looks very different. It is all about worship and ritual in Israel (note it is immediately after Moses intercedes for Israel worshiping the golden calf). V. 27 names these statements as the Ten Words, or Commandments.
The only similarities between Exodus 34 and the other two is found in v. 14, 17, and 21. (Naming God as a jealous God, Israel is not to make images of worship, remembering the Sabbath). It seems the author of Exodus is weaving the different traditions that existed into the plot explaining Israel identity and the significance of the Sinai Covenant.
There are three versions of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. Literally, the 'commandments' is better translated as 'words'. This would be Ten Words aka Decalogue.
Three Decalogues are found in Exodus 20, 34, and Deuteronomy 5.
Exodus 20 and Deut. 5 are very similar with slight variations in motivation for observing the Sabbath, benefits of honoring parents, and a distinction between coveting a man's wife vs. rest of household property. (Remember women were considered property in the Bible...)
Exodus 34 is odd because v.1 says God will write the words that were on the previously broken tablets on this new set of tablets. When Moses is given the covenant again, it looks very different. It is all about worship and ritual in Israel (note it is immediately after Moses intercedes for Israel worshiping the golden calf). V. 27 names these statements as the Ten Words, or Commandments.
The only similarities between Exodus 34 and the other two is found in v. 14, 17, and 21. (Naming God as a jealous God, Israel is not to make images of worship, remembering the Sabbath). It seems the author of Exodus is weaving the different traditions that existed into the plot explaining Israel identity and the significance of the Sinai Covenant.
21 September 2009
Colloquy Paper--Constructive Theology
* The third paper of the semester. Be kind to this novice theologian, but please leave comments
Finding God
Revelation and the existence of God revolve around questions of who and where can humanity relate to the Divine. To ask the question of God’s existence seems like an inappropriate place to begin a theological discussion about the Divine in 21st century theology. A better question to replace “does God exist” might be “where is God in the midst of an unjust and suffering world?” I propose this different question in light of a historical conversation with critics of religion and history itself. To borrow from Paul Tillich’s correlative approach, theology must address the wounds of our place in history and how our position affects human language about God. Additionally, the question “does God exist,” as Anselm suggests, already supposes perception of a Divine reality or being. The question “where is God” widens the possibility to explore not just who/what God is but how humanity can find God in our current world. Given the length of this paper, it will be impossible to address this question fully.
As Barth and other contemporary theologians have responded to “serious atheism” which asks how God can exist in a world so unjust and where so many humans suffer. The constant state of warfare, as Dr. Meeks says the “economy of perpetual warfare,” has also raised additional economic and political issues surrounding suffering. The idol worship of a capitalist market in the United States is perhaps the most poignant issue and has overshadowed the War on Terror. The economically poor class as grown in numbers and consequently the disparity between the poor and the economically rich has also grown. A parent working two or three jobs and still cannot provide essentials for his/her family may wonder: “where is God?”
Language may fail in fully grasping God, but the atheist and the theist alike agree “God” is Other. God is beyond humanity and the world. This is where atheists have trouble, but Christianity (theists) find hope for answers. How can Christianity find hope in a God labeled as “Other” and beyond our context to understand? Kant rightly raises the point we cannot reason out God from our context. Revelation, or God’s self-disclosure, is necessary to answer this question. As Daniel Migliore cites William Temple,
“Only revelation through a person can be fully intelligible to us, who are persons, and only personal revelation can adequately disclose the reality of God, who is supremely personal.”
Revelation is mediated by events, words, and tradition. God discloses God’s self in the narrative (words) of the Bible (whose canon is established by tradition) centered on the Christ event. This contradicts natural theology, but it seems impossible to move to particularities about God without a perspective mediated by events, words, and tradition. As John Calvin would say, humanity needs glasses to bring into focus the vague inclinations of God observed in nature.
The self-disclosure of God is ultimately understood in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The narrative of Jesus tells one thing very clearly: God aligns God’s self with the marginalized and weak in their suffering. Where is God? God is in the suffering of world moving in and through witnesses of God’s revelation in order to bring hope.
Finding God
Revelation and the existence of God revolve around questions of who and where can humanity relate to the Divine. To ask the question of God’s existence seems like an inappropriate place to begin a theological discussion about the Divine in 21st century theology. A better question to replace “does God exist” might be “where is God in the midst of an unjust and suffering world?” I propose this different question in light of a historical conversation with critics of religion and history itself. To borrow from Paul Tillich’s correlative approach, theology must address the wounds of our place in history and how our position affects human language about God. Additionally, the question “does God exist,” as Anselm suggests, already supposes perception of a Divine reality or being. The question “where is God” widens the possibility to explore not just who/what God is but how humanity can find God in our current world. Given the length of this paper, it will be impossible to address this question fully.
As Barth and other contemporary theologians have responded to “serious atheism” which asks how God can exist in a world so unjust and where so many humans suffer. The constant state of warfare, as Dr. Meeks says the “economy of perpetual warfare,” has also raised additional economic and political issues surrounding suffering. The idol worship of a capitalist market in the United States is perhaps the most poignant issue and has overshadowed the War on Terror. The economically poor class as grown in numbers and consequently the disparity between the poor and the economically rich has also grown. A parent working two or three jobs and still cannot provide essentials for his/her family may wonder: “where is God?”
Language may fail in fully grasping God, but the atheist and the theist alike agree “God” is Other. God is beyond humanity and the world. This is where atheists have trouble, but Christianity (theists) find hope for answers. How can Christianity find hope in a God labeled as “Other” and beyond our context to understand? Kant rightly raises the point we cannot reason out God from our context. Revelation, or God’s self-disclosure, is necessary to answer this question. As Daniel Migliore cites William Temple,
“Only revelation through a person can be fully intelligible to us, who are persons, and only personal revelation can adequately disclose the reality of God, who is supremely personal.”
Revelation is mediated by events, words, and tradition. God discloses God’s self in the narrative (words) of the Bible (whose canon is established by tradition) centered on the Christ event. This contradicts natural theology, but it seems impossible to move to particularities about God without a perspective mediated by events, words, and tradition. As John Calvin would say, humanity needs glasses to bring into focus the vague inclinations of God observed in nature.
The self-disclosure of God is ultimately understood in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The narrative of Jesus tells one thing very clearly: God aligns God’s self with the marginalized and weak in their suffering. Where is God? God is in the suffering of world moving in and through witnesses of God’s revelation in order to bring hope.
10 Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained
*As seen on http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/top-10-reasons-why-men-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-ordained/ * Even if this offends you, it should provoke some deep thought on church leadership and cultural excuses.
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
14 September 2009
13 September 2009
Agency
Is it good pastoral theology to remove human agency from grace and redemption (as John Calvin/Augustine do) or should an element of human participation/action be required in God's plan of redemption?
This is not so much of a free will debate, but a puzzlement in pondering what it means to the average Christian/non-Christian if humans have are only passive receivers of whatever spiritual grace (or lack thereof) God chooses. Is this healthy or it is necessary to properly consider God?
This is not so much of a free will debate, but a puzzlement in pondering what it means to the average Christian/non-Christian if humans have are only passive receivers of whatever spiritual grace (or lack thereof) God chooses. Is this healthy or it is necessary to properly consider God?
10 September 2009
What is pastoral care?
Probably the most painful class I will take in Divinity school is Pastoral Care?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately, this is so. I am not one to be properly sympathetic with individuals in day to day interaction. But this could be the result of the few ministers who I reached out to in the past that responded with "so what?" after I divulged a vulnerable thought/need. This communicated to me that I had to either figure it out on my own or just hope a prayer would suffice. But somehow, I thought ministers were suppose to minister...... but in order to know what good pastoral care is, I am going to have to visit the bad and painful moments where I have been wounded or I did the wounding (hopefully unintentionally).
But it is hard to be vulnerable in this learning process when I feel some judgment from colleagues when I confess I am not working in a congregational/chaplain position nor am I member of a specific church. hmmmm.... right back at the beginning.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately, this is so. I am not one to be properly sympathetic with individuals in day to day interaction. But this could be the result of the few ministers who I reached out to in the past that responded with "so what?" after I divulged a vulnerable thought/need. This communicated to me that I had to either figure it out on my own or just hope a prayer would suffice. But somehow, I thought ministers were suppose to minister...... but in order to know what good pastoral care is, I am going to have to visit the bad and painful moments where I have been wounded or I did the wounding (hopefully unintentionally).
But it is hard to be vulnerable in this learning process when I feel some judgment from colleagues when I confess I am not working in a congregational/chaplain position nor am I member of a specific church. hmmmm.... right back at the beginning.
09 September 2009
Long Paper Outline
Another in a series of "peeking" into my school folders. This is an outline to the longest theological paper I have written at Divinity school.
Outline [Power, Atonement, and God’s Passibility]
Introduction
o Thesis: Is the church’s theology of atonement adequate to grasp the power God displays on the cross? How does it affect the church’s interaction with its neighbors?
Trying to speak in a way different from church’s language of atonement
• Entanglement of political, economic, social powers with Christianity thwarting a way to understand the atonement without violent or dominating language
• Dependence on political, economic language to describe God’s power is not sufficient and hinders the Christian commitment to interact with the “other”
Christianity and History of Power
Powers of Christianity
o Sketch of church history from Constantine to present
Major church councils (Constantine’s legacy), reformation, crusades, WWII, genocides and globalization
o major questions and issues from modern history: imbalance of power and suffering
Perspective on God’s power
o Divine love, suffering, liberation
Moltmann-suffering
Pannenberg-love
Gutierrez-liberation
o Divine choice and passibility
God is relational to creation
• Emphasis on choice in the biblical narrative as evidence of a divine value in choice
God is moved to give grace, to choose humanity’s redemption—the cross is not an answer to a violent, blood seeking God
• Jesus’ choice
• How does a God whose display of power is in the cross (in suffering, love, liberation) not be a God who is moved by creation’s plights
Atonement
Popular political and economic theories of atonement
o satisfaction
substitution/debt
o sacrifice
supernatural politics/paschal lamb
violence in metaphor and theories
o Valuable in understanding God or excuse to use violence against another?
Falwell sermon critique
o Violence and suffering in God
Brief conversation/connection between OT and NT
Holy genocide and colonialism (Just War)
o Using alternate atonement theory
Healing/medical model
How has violent atonement theory defined relations between Christians and its neighbors?
Conclusion
Outline [Power, Atonement, and God’s Passibility]
Introduction
o Thesis: Is the church’s theology of atonement adequate to grasp the power God displays on the cross? How does it affect the church’s interaction with its neighbors?
Trying to speak in a way different from church’s language of atonement
• Entanglement of political, economic, social powers with Christianity thwarting a way to understand the atonement without violent or dominating language
• Dependence on political, economic language to describe God’s power is not sufficient and hinders the Christian commitment to interact with the “other”
Christianity and History of Power
Powers of Christianity
o Sketch of church history from Constantine to present
Major church councils (Constantine’s legacy), reformation, crusades, WWII, genocides and globalization
o major questions and issues from modern history: imbalance of power and suffering
Perspective on God’s power
o Divine love, suffering, liberation
Moltmann-suffering
Pannenberg-love
Gutierrez-liberation
o Divine choice and passibility
God is relational to creation
• Emphasis on choice in the biblical narrative as evidence of a divine value in choice
God is moved to give grace, to choose humanity’s redemption—the cross is not an answer to a violent, blood seeking God
• Jesus’ choice
• How does a God whose display of power is in the cross (in suffering, love, liberation) not be a God who is moved by creation’s plights
Atonement
Popular political and economic theories of atonement
o satisfaction
substitution/debt
o sacrifice
supernatural politics/paschal lamb
violence in metaphor and theories
o Valuable in understanding God or excuse to use violence against another?
Falwell sermon critique
o Violence and suffering in God
Brief conversation/connection between OT and NT
Holy genocide and colonialism (Just War)
o Using alternate atonement theory
Healing/medical model
How has violent atonement theory defined relations between Christians and its neighbors?
Conclusion
Early Response Paper 2
Here is a response paper from Formation of Christian Tradition (basically early Christian history/development of early Christian thought).
~~~~
In this reading, Anslem of Canterbury’s judgment of the inadequacy of human satisfaction, it was easy to agree. The analysis was intricate and the dialogue format was entertaining. His argument was good. Human “satisfaction” cannot cover a sinful nature because those good acts were already owed to God. More is needed to rise above the debt humanity owes God, which only the divine nature can do. Jesus the Christ is the one who is both human and divine in order to pay the debt. The Christ is the one whom salvation is given because God owes Jesus (who personally needs nothing) for willingly experiencing death.
Despite general agreement with his argument, there were some points of concern throughout his argument for Christ as the exclusive and necessary was to receive salvation. The biggest concerns were Anslem’s treatment of attributes of God (such as justice and honor), the language about God, and finally how Anslem describes the purpose of humanity.
Anslem ascribes to God in a surprisingly impersonal way. God is the Just. God is a judge figure who must carry out part of God’s very being: justice. Justice itself almost seems to dictate God, for Anslem’s system. At the very least, Anslem’s argument for prevailing justice forces God to hold a specific course of action because acting in any other fashion would defy justice. Chapters thirteen and fourteen discuss God’s honor and God being in a seemingly selfish way. How can a God, who (as manifested in Christ) would be willing to act so selflessly to experience death and fulfill God’s justice against humanity, be ruled by such selfish traits as personal honor, dignity, and a self-created justice? It may have strengthened Anslem’s argument to redefine these “human tainted” words to better fit the other attributes of God and negate the selfish connotations.
It would have been equally beneficial for Anslem to discuss the love of God. It is noticeably absent, despite fleeting statements about God’s mercy, in a discussion about why God became human. The closest it seems Anslem comes to talking about love is happiness. In book two, chapter one Anslem declares that humans “were created in order just to be happy.” A similar issue of better defining the term “happiness” as honor and justice should be noted. The notion of a fulfilled state is a happy state could lead people to search for God, or the Supreme Good in order to be happy. This would fulfill Anslem’s warning that happiness only comes from loving the Supreme Good for itself.
Knowing that loving God will bring happiness is reducing God to a charm against a state of unhappiness. This seems incongruent with Christ’s words to carry one’s own cross. Anslem’s argument leaves no room for a Christian to be unhappy. Anslem’s whole discussion of God as Just or the Supreme Good rather than Abba as used in the New Testament feels alien. It also glosses over the many verses (most notably John 3:16) that speak of love toward humanity than justice.
While Anslem’s argument was thorough and resulting in an agreed outcome, it is difficult to offer such agreement. Anslem’s impersonal description of God and short focus on grace left the analysis lacking the triumph of the New Testament. His choice of character defining words like dignity, honor, and happiness contributed negatively through possible misunderstandings of how those words apply to God and/or humans. Because this text, as stated in the beginning, was not for the learned it should have been a higher priority to speak very intentionally about the full implication of his analysis.
~~~~
In this reading, Anslem of Canterbury’s judgment of the inadequacy of human satisfaction, it was easy to agree. The analysis was intricate and the dialogue format was entertaining. His argument was good. Human “satisfaction” cannot cover a sinful nature because those good acts were already owed to God. More is needed to rise above the debt humanity owes God, which only the divine nature can do. Jesus the Christ is the one who is both human and divine in order to pay the debt. The Christ is the one whom salvation is given because God owes Jesus (who personally needs nothing) for willingly experiencing death.
Despite general agreement with his argument, there were some points of concern throughout his argument for Christ as the exclusive and necessary was to receive salvation. The biggest concerns were Anslem’s treatment of attributes of God (such as justice and honor), the language about God, and finally how Anslem describes the purpose of humanity.
Anslem ascribes to God in a surprisingly impersonal way. God is the Just. God is a judge figure who must carry out part of God’s very being: justice. Justice itself almost seems to dictate God, for Anslem’s system. At the very least, Anslem’s argument for prevailing justice forces God to hold a specific course of action because acting in any other fashion would defy justice. Chapters thirteen and fourteen discuss God’s honor and God being in a seemingly selfish way. How can a God, who (as manifested in Christ) would be willing to act so selflessly to experience death and fulfill God’s justice against humanity, be ruled by such selfish traits as personal honor, dignity, and a self-created justice? It may have strengthened Anslem’s argument to redefine these “human tainted” words to better fit the other attributes of God and negate the selfish connotations.
It would have been equally beneficial for Anslem to discuss the love of God. It is noticeably absent, despite fleeting statements about God’s mercy, in a discussion about why God became human. The closest it seems Anslem comes to talking about love is happiness. In book two, chapter one Anslem declares that humans “were created in order just to be happy.” A similar issue of better defining the term “happiness” as honor and justice should be noted. The notion of a fulfilled state is a happy state could lead people to search for God, or the Supreme Good in order to be happy. This would fulfill Anslem’s warning that happiness only comes from loving the Supreme Good for itself.
Knowing that loving God will bring happiness is reducing God to a charm against a state of unhappiness. This seems incongruent with Christ’s words to carry one’s own cross. Anslem’s argument leaves no room for a Christian to be unhappy. Anslem’s whole discussion of God as Just or the Supreme Good rather than Abba as used in the New Testament feels alien. It also glosses over the many verses (most notably John 3:16) that speak of love toward humanity than justice.
While Anslem’s argument was thorough and resulting in an agreed outcome, it is difficult to offer such agreement. Anslem’s impersonal description of God and short focus on grace left the analysis lacking the triumph of the New Testament. His choice of character defining words like dignity, honor, and happiness contributed negatively through possible misunderstandings of how those words apply to God and/or humans. Because this text, as stated in the beginning, was not for the learned it should have been a higher priority to speak very intentionally about the full implication of his analysis.
08 September 2009
Blast from the Past
Here is a little summary of what I am preparing for a mini lecture on the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Poetry), specifically about the creation narrative. The characters are very colorful. But it illuminates what other stories were circulating during the period the Hebrews were developing their own distinguished narrative.
Plot Summary of Enuma Elish - When on High
1. Apsu (male, fresh water) and Tiamat (female, sea water) mingle and engender Lahmu (male) and Lahamu (female) who are silt deposits as well as Anshar (rim of the sky) and Kishar (rim of the earth. Anshar and Kishar engender Anu (Sky) who in turn engenders Ea-Nudimmud (who ends up as the ruler of fresh waters. Ea’s wife is named Damkina. Ea is created in the image of his father Anu.
2. The younger gods disturb Apsu and Tiamat who prefer lack of activity. Apsu plans to kill them. The younger gods learn of Apsu’s plans. Ea puts Apsu to sleep and kills him, also capturing Apsu’s advisor/vizier Mummu. Ea builds his house on Apsu.
3. Marduk is born to Ea and Damkina. His has four ears and four eyes and is generally superior.
4. Anu creates the winds and streams which disturb Tiamat and some of the other gods. Some of the gods remind Tiamat that she failed to act when Ea killed Apsu and defeated Mummu.
5. Tiamat creates monsters to fight against her enemies. The chief of these is Kingu whom she makes commander-in-chief and her consort taking Apsu’s place. She gives him the Table of Destinies (possibly tablets containing the future).
6. Ea learns of Tiamat’s plans. Anshar sends Ea to defeat Tiamat. Ea fails. Anshar sends Anu to speak to Tiamat. Anu chickens out. Anshar asks Marduk to kill Tiamat. Marduk agrees so long as he will be made ruler over all the gods.
7. Marduk (Bel) kills Tiamat. When she opens her mouth to swallow him, Marduk sends in the winds to keep her jaws open. He shoots her heart with an arrow. Marduk then subdues her army and captures Kingu. Marduk takes the Tablet of Destinies.
8. Marduk splits Tiamat in half dividing the waters above from the waters below. He removes her eyes and the Tigris and Euphrates are formed. He puts the appropriate gods in their appropriate star sites. Earth is to be the mirror of heaven. Marduk is proclaimed King of the gods.
9. Marduk decides to create humans (lullu - barbarians, savages, aboriginal humans) to serve the gods. Ea and the other gods shape humans out of the blood of the executed Kingu.
10. Marduk and the other gods create Babylon and the great temple Esagila.
11. The Enuma Elish ends with a Hymn to the 50 Names of Marduk.
Pasted from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Biblical%20Judaism/plot_summary_of_enuma_elish.htm
Plot Summary of Enuma Elish - When on High
1. Apsu (male, fresh water) and Tiamat (female, sea water) mingle and engender Lahmu (male) and Lahamu (female) who are silt deposits as well as Anshar (rim of the sky) and Kishar (rim of the earth. Anshar and Kishar engender Anu (Sky) who in turn engenders Ea-Nudimmud (who ends up as the ruler of fresh waters. Ea’s wife is named Damkina. Ea is created in the image of his father Anu.
2. The younger gods disturb Apsu and Tiamat who prefer lack of activity. Apsu plans to kill them. The younger gods learn of Apsu’s plans. Ea puts Apsu to sleep and kills him, also capturing Apsu’s advisor/vizier Mummu. Ea builds his house on Apsu.
3. Marduk is born to Ea and Damkina. His has four ears and four eyes and is generally superior.
4. Anu creates the winds and streams which disturb Tiamat and some of the other gods. Some of the gods remind Tiamat that she failed to act when Ea killed Apsu and defeated Mummu.
5. Tiamat creates monsters to fight against her enemies. The chief of these is Kingu whom she makes commander-in-chief and her consort taking Apsu’s place. She gives him the Table of Destinies (possibly tablets containing the future).
6. Ea learns of Tiamat’s plans. Anshar sends Ea to defeat Tiamat. Ea fails. Anshar sends Anu to speak to Tiamat. Anu chickens out. Anshar asks Marduk to kill Tiamat. Marduk agrees so long as he will be made ruler over all the gods.
7. Marduk (Bel) kills Tiamat. When she opens her mouth to swallow him, Marduk sends in the winds to keep her jaws open. He shoots her heart with an arrow. Marduk then subdues her army and captures Kingu. Marduk takes the Tablet of Destinies.
8. Marduk splits Tiamat in half dividing the waters above from the waters below. He removes her eyes and the Tigris and Euphrates are formed. He puts the appropriate gods in their appropriate star sites. Earth is to be the mirror of heaven. Marduk is proclaimed King of the gods.
9. Marduk decides to create humans (lullu - barbarians, savages, aboriginal humans) to serve the gods. Ea and the other gods shape humans out of the blood of the executed Kingu.
10. Marduk and the other gods create Babylon and the great temple Esagila.
11. The Enuma Elish ends with a Hymn to the 50 Names of Marduk.
Pasted from http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Biblical%20Judaism/plot_summary_of_enuma_elish.htm
Later Response Comment
A response/reflection to Karl Barth
~
I am struck in general how economic language and/or ideas are used in theological systems or writings. I don’t know which discipline borrowed from which, or if such a distinction should be made. But I found one of Karl Barth’s preliminary statements to this section (010) quite provocative in saying that theology is itself a risk and “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” This capitalistic or better entrepreneurial frame interests me and further language such as the world “being sold” and the continued emphasis on covenantal relationships (like business contracts) creates the image of a stock exchange. The investment is humanity and the buyers are those inherently evil or “worldly” competing against God who is also a bidder for humans. You could even stretch to say that Jesus, the human, functions as the ideal index in setting values on individual human life (the actual stock). When Jesus, as the Son of God, humbly entered the created world this was God, the Creator’s, investment in a falling market—a proper bailout if you would—to help it rebound and stabilize.
What would be interesting is to explore the element of risk in this venture. The basic investing principle is the higher the risk, the higher the return on your investment. What was God’s rate of return? This comes to the debate between perspectives on predestination. Did God will Jesus to enter the world and enormously suffer because there was a low risk or did God hope through a high risk venture to gain a high return? This would further explore the status of humanity and human capability as a creature. And could the whole venture have failed? One could certainly suggest God is the perfected genius at strategic planning and long term investments (I hesitate to compare God’s investing genius to Warren Buffet, but God did after all create such intellect), however could considering the possibility of a failed investment suggest that God is possible of utter failure? One might consider that through the first failure of humanity (if you are taking a original sin approach) God’s investment failed and God received a pitiful rate of return through Israel. God then looking to increase this return and efficiently restructure humans (as created commodities) devised a plan of reconciliation and fulfilled a possible contract with evil demanding a high price for atonement while also establishing a new contract with humanity as a whole. How did the world and humans become a publicly traded commodity? Was it a hostile takeover? Or again, is God looking for the highest rate of return on God’s capital investment?
And should we even be framing theology in the mindset of publicly traded company?
~
I am struck in general how economic language and/or ideas are used in theological systems or writings. I don’t know which discipline borrowed from which, or if such a distinction should be made. But I found one of Karl Barth’s preliminary statements to this section (010) quite provocative in saying that theology is itself a risk and “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” This capitalistic or better entrepreneurial frame interests me and further language such as the world “being sold” and the continued emphasis on covenantal relationships (like business contracts) creates the image of a stock exchange. The investment is humanity and the buyers are those inherently evil or “worldly” competing against God who is also a bidder for humans. You could even stretch to say that Jesus, the human, functions as the ideal index in setting values on individual human life (the actual stock). When Jesus, as the Son of God, humbly entered the created world this was God, the Creator’s, investment in a falling market—a proper bailout if you would—to help it rebound and stabilize.
What would be interesting is to explore the element of risk in this venture. The basic investing principle is the higher the risk, the higher the return on your investment. What was God’s rate of return? This comes to the debate between perspectives on predestination. Did God will Jesus to enter the world and enormously suffer because there was a low risk or did God hope through a high risk venture to gain a high return? This would further explore the status of humanity and human capability as a creature. And could the whole venture have failed? One could certainly suggest God is the perfected genius at strategic planning and long term investments (I hesitate to compare God’s investing genius to Warren Buffet, but God did after all create such intellect), however could considering the possibility of a failed investment suggest that God is possible of utter failure? One might consider that through the first failure of humanity (if you are taking a original sin approach) God’s investment failed and God received a pitiful rate of return through Israel. God then looking to increase this return and efficiently restructure humans (as created commodities) devised a plan of reconciliation and fulfilled a possible contract with evil demanding a high price for atonement while also establishing a new contract with humanity as a whole. How did the world and humans become a publicly traded commodity? Was it a hostile takeover? Or again, is God looking for the highest rate of return on God’s capital investment?
And should we even be framing theology in the mindset of publicly traded company?
Early Response Paper
As repeatedly asked, some want to see the work I do as a Theology student. So from time to time I will select some response papers that are coherent outside of a divinity school context.
This paper is in response to reading from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology and one of his sermons.
~~~~~~~
In part 7 of the introduction of Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Paul Tillich discusses the relationship between philosophy and theology. The previous section asked the question about the how theology relates to other forms of knowledge (18). Tillich expresses three points in “cognitive attitude, sources, and content” (22-24) of divergence between philosophy and theology preventing any real common ground for discussion. Any true discussion is brought on grounds of pursuit for absolute reason (philosophy) or working toward the ultimate concern (theology). (24-25). The section concludes by affirming philosophy and theology can neither agree or disagree with each other because each is so different in its foundation and motivation. One must adhere to the other’s structure in order to have dialogue.
Within this section Tillich speaks of the theologian’s burden. The theologian must “turn toward his existential situation including his ultimate concern” (25). The theologian does this in order to clarify the universal force of what his/her ultimate concern is. In doing this the theologian “must take the risk of being driven beyond the boundary line of the theological circle” (25). Another section suggests that theologians must have one foot in the theological circle and one foot outside of it to obtain an “honest” theology (10).
This living on the boundary of acceptance from the devout creates a certain paradox in what Tillich preaches. In the sermon Shaking of Foundations, we are told the only comfort against the overwhelming demonic forces is trusting Providence. One hand Tillich says “trust” and the other he wants critical questioning to or beyond the accepted boundary. When does this living on or beyond the boundary become distrust in Providence? I find it hard as a young theology student to prepare myself to walk this line towards distrust. Isn’t trust in Providence the only thing keeping humans from being unbreakably grasped by the demonic?
This paper is in response to reading from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology and one of his sermons.
~~~~~~~
In part 7 of the introduction of Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Paul Tillich discusses the relationship between philosophy and theology. The previous section asked the question about the how theology relates to other forms of knowledge (18). Tillich expresses three points in “cognitive attitude, sources, and content” (22-24) of divergence between philosophy and theology preventing any real common ground for discussion. Any true discussion is brought on grounds of pursuit for absolute reason (philosophy) or working toward the ultimate concern (theology). (24-25). The section concludes by affirming philosophy and theology can neither agree or disagree with each other because each is so different in its foundation and motivation. One must adhere to the other’s structure in order to have dialogue.
Within this section Tillich speaks of the theologian’s burden. The theologian must “turn toward his existential situation including his ultimate concern” (25). The theologian does this in order to clarify the universal force of what his/her ultimate concern is. In doing this the theologian “must take the risk of being driven beyond the boundary line of the theological circle” (25). Another section suggests that theologians must have one foot in the theological circle and one foot outside of it to obtain an “honest” theology (10).
This living on the boundary of acceptance from the devout creates a certain paradox in what Tillich preaches. In the sermon Shaking of Foundations, we are told the only comfort against the overwhelming demonic forces is trusting Providence. One hand Tillich says “trust” and the other he wants critical questioning to or beyond the accepted boundary. When does this living on or beyond the boundary become distrust in Providence? I find it hard as a young theology student to prepare myself to walk this line towards distrust. Isn’t trust in Providence the only thing keeping humans from being unbreakably grasped by the demonic?
07 September 2009
To Love
When we overthrow other human communities, what are the conquerors gambling or sacrificing? Is loving your neighbor and your enemy practically or really done via violence?
It is hard to say when the ultimate biblical example is sacrifice.
It is hard to say when the ultimate biblical example is sacrifice.
Personality types and church Life
In the previous entry, I asked the beginning questions of theology. Every theologian must come to some conclusions and embark on their faith journey from those decisions. At the conclusion of the prior post I grandly applauded academic communities as the places I could truly call 'church' in our culture's traditional sense. Naturally, it is expected many will scoff and judge me for that conclusion for various reasons (most I assure you I have brought to myself or others have named).
My undergraduate work ended with an interesting thesis in management organizational theory. I did an intense study of organizational structures via organizational metaphors (as written in Images of Organization) in relation to MBTI personality typology. I picked two Christian denominations, studied their official leadership/organizational models (some drawn from personal experience), and asked two personality questions of these religious organization structures. First, is there a definite personality type for specific denominations/Christianity in general? If yes, then how does that personality type impact the organization scheme? Secondly, is there a personality bias for a specific personality type's success in Christianity/the specific denomination? .......this was quite ambitious for a humble senior business student.
My conclusion was not all that surprising to me as a child growing up in church communities. Yes, denominations have a dominatiing personality type (like people gathering together would cause this) while church leadership had a more varied response. Please note, however, that there is very little research done on this issue. Most research I had to use was done in England for the Anglican church. The author's method did allow me to make some limited conjectures for the use of this short term project I did.
Anyway, my personality findings lead to a conclusion that specific personality types--notably introverted, thinking types--are out of sync with overall church communities. Thinking types are almost always limited to clergy....specifically high tradition church and Introverts are forced to develop extroverted tendacies to thrive. The cases I studied with Anglican priests showed as students the priests in training would be INTJ, but five years beyond their formal education be ESFJ..maybe ISFJ. The point is some part of them had to change and develop to fulfill their role.
My intention for this project was not to be overly critical of church organizations. It was a way for me to work out the question 'why is it so hard for me to fit in here? why do I feel so uncomfortable?' As an INTJ, the primary way I deal with the outer world is through analysis, through deep thought. An introvert in a community that largely caters to extroverted types and feeling types does not bode well for either party. One seems to cold the other seems to fast/overwhelming. Am I making an excuse for my ineptitude at being myself or comfortable in a church setting? Maybe......but a community of largely opposite personality types makes it impossible (as learned from personal experience) to for me grow and explore the world with my primary 'function' (i.e. the mind). A community hostile to critical analysis is not a place an INTJ can exist........at least genuinely exist. Nor does it mean I should avoid developing other sides to my personality. Christ challenges me to act in love and justice towards others.
Everyone needs a communitiy where they can just be, though. It does seem that for this part of my life, I am resigned to living my Christian faith beyond church walls. I feel things deeply and passionately, but if I can't intellectually explore as a way to deepen my faith I know I will suffocate. I will not be able to honor God with the abilities of God has endowed to me.
*Do not be alarmed, I am very aware God language has been sadly sparse, but I feel compelled to be honest as an author. It is important for the reader to grasp the theological perspective I speak from.
My undergraduate work ended with an interesting thesis in management organizational theory. I did an intense study of organizational structures via organizational metaphors (as written in Images of Organization) in relation to MBTI personality typology. I picked two Christian denominations, studied their official leadership/organizational models (some drawn from personal experience), and asked two personality questions of these religious organization structures. First, is there a definite personality type for specific denominations/Christianity in general? If yes, then how does that personality type impact the organization scheme? Secondly, is there a personality bias for a specific personality type's success in Christianity/the specific denomination? .......this was quite ambitious for a humble senior business student.
My conclusion was not all that surprising to me as a child growing up in church communities. Yes, denominations have a dominatiing personality type (like people gathering together would cause this) while church leadership had a more varied response. Please note, however, that there is very little research done on this issue. Most research I had to use was done in England for the Anglican church. The author's method did allow me to make some limited conjectures for the use of this short term project I did.
Anyway, my personality findings lead to a conclusion that specific personality types--notably introverted, thinking types--are out of sync with overall church communities. Thinking types are almost always limited to clergy....specifically high tradition church and Introverts are forced to develop extroverted tendacies to thrive. The cases I studied with Anglican priests showed as students the priests in training would be INTJ, but five years beyond their formal education be ESFJ..maybe ISFJ. The point is some part of them had to change and develop to fulfill their role.
My intention for this project was not to be overly critical of church organizations. It was a way for me to work out the question 'why is it so hard for me to fit in here? why do I feel so uncomfortable?' As an INTJ, the primary way I deal with the outer world is through analysis, through deep thought. An introvert in a community that largely caters to extroverted types and feeling types does not bode well for either party. One seems to cold the other seems to fast/overwhelming. Am I making an excuse for my ineptitude at being myself or comfortable in a church setting? Maybe......but a community of largely opposite personality types makes it impossible (as learned from personal experience) to for me grow and explore the world with my primary 'function' (i.e. the mind). A community hostile to critical analysis is not a place an INTJ can exist........at least genuinely exist. Nor does it mean I should avoid developing other sides to my personality. Christ challenges me to act in love and justice towards others.
Everyone needs a communitiy where they can just be, though. It does seem that for this part of my life, I am resigned to living my Christian faith beyond church walls. I feel things deeply and passionately, but if I can't intellectually explore as a way to deepen my faith I know I will suffocate. I will not be able to honor God with the abilities of God has endowed to me.
*Do not be alarmed, I am very aware God language has been sadly sparse, but I feel compelled to be honest as an author. It is important for the reader to grasp the theological perspective I speak from.
Novice Beginnings
The question has recently and in various ways posed to me: what is theology and who is the theologian? It is a fair question given the very turbulent historical reality of theology and the Christian tradition. Does theology belong solely to pastors and mature congregants? Or is it purely an academic discipline dominated by the ruling social class?
The Protestant Reformation left its mark on the Western world and deemed all Christian people to be theologians (i.e. priesthood of all believers). This resounds with every blood cell in my body. Theologians, I think, can look very different given their course of life. Highly specialized academic theology is not the only place deep theological inquiry takes place. Wisdom does not demand a long bibliography. Life itself gives wisdom and living in dialogue with culture brings theological insight. Praxis is part of theology......it is a partner to what many term "theory" theology done in the ivory (red brick in my experience) tower of academia.
But, does the priesthood of all believers require membership in a traditional church building and community? What can you say to the individuals deeply wounded by church? Must I place membership to a Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Reformed, or Catholic church in order to be part of the Church, the body of Christ?
American Christianity has defined "church" as a community of like minded Christians who socialize and dare to grow in their faith. The community is committed to support each other, but most importantly it should be committed to its witness against prevading culture. It should be strange and perhaps mysterious to outsiders.......it should cause the children of the church to ask 'why are we this way?' But this was not the way I experienced church. Church was a stagnating place refusing to let me grow in a way most central to my being......church refused to let me intellectually prosper forcing roller coaster emotionalism as evidence of my 'spiritual health.'
As it turns out the places that have been true churches to me have not been the typical steeple and chapel setting. The center of my life-giving spiritual growth has been in the academic communities that have allowed me to be most authentically Christian.
More to come.......
The Protestant Reformation left its mark on the Western world and deemed all Christian people to be theologians (i.e. priesthood of all believers). This resounds with every blood cell in my body. Theologians, I think, can look very different given their course of life. Highly specialized academic theology is not the only place deep theological inquiry takes place. Wisdom does not demand a long bibliography. Life itself gives wisdom and living in dialogue with culture brings theological insight. Praxis is part of theology......it is a partner to what many term "theory" theology done in the ivory (red brick in my experience) tower of academia.
But, does the priesthood of all believers require membership in a traditional church building and community? What can you say to the individuals deeply wounded by church? Must I place membership to a Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Reformed, or Catholic church in order to be part of the Church, the body of Christ?
American Christianity has defined "church" as a community of like minded Christians who socialize and dare to grow in their faith. The community is committed to support each other, but most importantly it should be committed to its witness against prevading culture. It should be strange and perhaps mysterious to outsiders.......it should cause the children of the church to ask 'why are we this way?' But this was not the way I experienced church. Church was a stagnating place refusing to let me grow in a way most central to my being......church refused to let me intellectually prosper forcing roller coaster emotionalism as evidence of my 'spiritual health.'
As it turns out the places that have been true churches to me have not been the typical steeple and chapel setting. The center of my life-giving spiritual growth has been in the academic communities that have allowed me to be most authentically Christian.
More to come.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)