A seriously thought provoking reflection from the flaming heretic on Tony Jones’ presentation from Theology After Google. Had to share it…Enjoy!
I’m attending the Theology After Google conference at Claremont School of Theology, and there have been many thought provoking sessions. One of the speakers used an illustration from baseball to explain postmodernism, which was intriguing, but I think is misleading. It is the old baseball anecdote about the umpire who says, “It ain’t nothing till I call it.” According to Stanley Fish, this is a recognition that it is the interpreter who defines reality, that balls and strikes do not exist in the game until an observers makes the call. There is no objective reality, only interpretation, and the community helps define the nature of the umpire’s call. It is insightful, but what is crucial for the story is that baseball has authority figures known as umpires who are entrusted “to make the call.” The batter in the story was not asking for a statement on the nature of reality; he was looking for the umpire to determine the next step in the game.
Contrary to the speaker’s assertion, baseball never worked on the illusion that balls and strikes are objective realities evident to all observers. From early days, the organizers of games knew there had to be a subjective observer appointed to “call the game,” and, more importantly, the community agreed to his authority. Even television failed to change this dynamic as slow-motion replays demonstrated times when umpires “missed the call.” Casual fans watching at home may have been brought into the secrets of the game, but the gnosis was always there for those who participated.
What we have in the umpire illustration is pre-modernism. The umpire is the tribal chief or elder who has been appointed to make judgments affecting the life of the community. This is the wisdom model of discernment. The elder/umpire uses all of his or her knowledge, including knowledge of the living community, to make a wise decision for the good of the community. Should these judgments consistently prove harmful, foolish, or random, the community may remove him or her from the seat of judgment. But the community cannot exist without an arbiter of disputes precisely because the participants know that there is no way to determine an objective norm. To put this in ecclesiastical terms, the notion that “It ain’t nothing till I call it” is the functional equivalent of the priest saying “It ain’t the body of Christ till I call it.” As long as the community accepts that subjectivity of spiritual authority, we have a catholic church.
Contrast the role of the umpire in baseball with the role of time-keepers in many other sports, such as bobsled. Here we have sophisticated measuring devices and electronic barriers set up to give an objective (i.e. mechanical) determination of who had the fastest time. We never see the time-keepers. We know there are humans involved, but the “human” element has been eliminated in the desire for an objective standard quantifying the notion of “fastest.” The community turned over the task of interpretation to machines, and many people long for a similar process in other competitive sports such as gymnastics. In baseball, I imagine, one could insert a sensor that would determine the “precise” location of the ball within a predefined strike zone, but the game as we know it requires the active participation of umpires.
A postmodern view of baseball would see the umpire as one center of power/authority within the game, but recognize that there is much more going on during a baseball game than balls and strikes. Each player is a center of power, performing carefully articulated roles. Any individual may play a determinative role in the final outcome, but no one who it may be. In fact, you can never with integrity say that any one player won or lost the game because the game is an aggregate of dozens of pitches, swings, throws, etc. each potentially a game winner. Even those who do not play are centers of power in a drama that fans follow in the sports media. Will the centerfielder be on the injured reserve list? Has the coach benched the third baseman?
But even this barely scratches the surface because what is “really” happening in a baseball game is much bigger. Thousands of people are involved, but few are focused intensely on the game itself. People are talking to each other, eating, drinking, dreaming, keeping records, talking trash, remembering previous games, reliving their childhood, creating childhood memories, participating in one of the rituals of Americanization, exchanging money, encouraging capitalism, encouraging competition, advertizing brand names, admiring athleticism, having sexual fantasies about players (never umpires), and a thousand other things. Most of those fans know that most of the time it does not matter whether a pitch is a ball or strike. It matters sometimes, and any given fan will miss the moment. Even that does not matter, those who missed the moment will feel the excitement of the crowd and watch the replay.
What does matter is that the umpire makes a call so the game can continue. That is why the batter had to ask the umpire whether it was a ball or strike. The umpire had failed momentarily in his essential role in the game, and doubt set in. But the umpire quickly reminded the player (and scholars like Stanley Fish) that he (rarely she) is essential to the game in a way the player is not. Had the player protested too loudly and undermined the authority of the umpire, the umpire would have asserted his power dramatically by ejecting the player from the game. Again, this is a pre-modern system where the authority may be questioned, but only up to a point. Then naked power is revealed. That is why coaches, fans, and players repeat this particular anecdote as a piece of tribal wisdom. Every fan has the right to dispute a call, but we do not decide balls and strikes by consensus or the will of the fans. Players and coaches may protest, but not to the point of undermining faith in the game itself.
There is more, of course. The umpires, coaches, players, fans, and commentators all know that individual games do not matter in a 162 game season. Only a few games for a few teams at the end of the season really matter. That is why the nation watches the pennant race and the World Series. And most of those participants, even those making millions of dollars, recognize that even those games do not really matter. There is always next year. There is always the cycle of birth and death. What matters is that the game is played. This may sound postmodern, but it is also pre-modern. It is tribal. “In the spring of the year when kings go off to war,” says the writer of II Samuel. The postmodern turn in baseball is recognizing all of this, but still choosing to participate in the masquerade of balls and strikes because you know that the umpire is literally and symbolically a “part of the game.” And if you do not like that, you are free to choose another game with a different structure of rules and judgment, like curling.
So, how does this apply to the Church or to churches? We no longer have umpires that we give authority to call the game of faith for us. We do not even have a consensus on what the game of faith is or what truly matters in the game. We cannot even identify for sure where the centers of power are in the Church or who are the players and who are the fans. We are not even sure whether the game is played in the sanctuary/stadium or somewhere else. The premodern wisdom model of pastor as tribal elder has largely been rejected, in part because of modernism. The modern notion of an objective set of rules (Scripture, confessions of faith, books of discipline) is being overthrown, which is revealed by how desperately some cling to it. Some theologians and churches are struggling to adopt insights from postmodernism, but it is not yet clear if it is possible to have a postmodern community of faith since postmodernism is suspicious of all three of those words: community, faith, and of.
Hmmm. I love some of the analogies drawn here but not sure I agree entirely with the conclusions. While we can reject autocratic authoritarian figures in faith (and should) that is not to say we ought to reject all authority or those whom God calls to be “umpires.” How does a postmodern view of authority handle Paul’s words in to the Corinthians that God has called some to be apostles, some to be pastors, some teachers, some….umpires and then asks, “Are all umpires?” (the obvious answer being NO!) While we should be cautious of overbearing umpires we must admit that without them the game would dissolve into chaos.
I liked this but I would disagree with his very last point. We’re not suspicious of community of faith. We’re just not interested in the traditional way of doing it. I’ve been exploring alternative means for almost a decade and people absolutely want community’s of faith, but they want to be empowered to be their own umpire. They want to be the priesthood, but someone else is saying they can’t, so they don’t.
I think the model used here may describe churches of the past and today in a very interesting and thought provoking way. The last sentence stated; “postmodernism is suspicious of all three of those words: community, faith, and of.”
The article leaves out a word,1) community 2) faith 3) and of (?). Jonathan Brink says, “We’re not suspicious of community of faith. We’re just not interested in the traditional way of doing it.” I agree with Jonathan. I have longed for a new way of doing “church” but not knowing exactly what I wanted or what I would change. It appears that the one change that is currently taking place is the worship service itself. This new conversational model does not really sit with me for a worship service on Sunday morning, for my church. For me, I would love to see something of this sort done in a location such as a fellowship hall or someplace offsite of our campus on a time other than our traditional Sunday morning worship time. My church has started making changes in the worship service that includes more of the laity but we do not allow time for questions, etc. during the worship hour and I like this. This gives me more time to simply take things in and provides time to “be still and know that I am God.” Just do not think that I am ready to do away with that one hour as we currently worship. The Emergence Conversation does appear to me to be a “new reformation” of The Holy Spirit that is happening all over the world. This is a wonderful thing !!! As some of us believe very strongly that this is truly “of God” I think it will take time for us to discern what all of this is saying to us and how each individual will respond. The same I think applies to the way we respond in changing the way we worship in community. The one thing that I want to see come from all of this is that we truly show intentional love to everyone both inside and outside the church. Another is that we become more involved in “social justice.” I do like it when writers use a model, such as this one using baseball, that is very simple and something that most everyone can relate to. It’s very much like one of Jesus stories just longer.
Jo Ann — I may be wrong but I read the last sentence as: 1) community 2) faith and 3) of.
Blake, are you saying that one of the 3 is the word of? Please explain. Thanks !!!
In the days of the Umpire specific men took or were given the power of authority/truth. We determined maybe that it wasn’t the best idea so now man again takes the power by claiming we all have authority/truth, but actually God is the one with the authority/truth. We mearly submit to it. This is hard for man to swollow so we will continue to come up with systems that make it look like man is in control. Our accuracy to “call” the truth has nothing to say about whether something is subjective or objective. The truth is the truth regardless of our view point. Either we get it right or we don’t. Becuase we have a hard time overcoming our biases doesn’t mean there is no objective truth.
Hey Tripp, have you read Kathryn Tanner’s book “Theories of Culture?” It seems like you may have already…it addresses a lot of the questions you have here. Especially regarding the abstraction and ineffectiveness of modern “umpires” of doctrine. I think this is an interesting problem that more umpirey theology people (like myself a little) should pay attention to.
What could a postmodern community of faith look like? Maybe we as “players” could agree to something like this:
1. We don’t actually choose the game but we find ourselves to be part of a game, no matter how certain or uncertain we are what the game is all about and how it is played best.
2. Everybody gets to play, although not all in the same position. Part of the game is finding out what your position is and where you excel the most.
3. The umpire happens to be the one who came up with the game in the first place. He refuses to be the kind of umpire we want him to be. He seems to be more interested in developing each player to his full potential than refereeing so that most of the game looks more like spring training than a championship match.
4. The players are all on the same team. They all score together and rejoice in each other’s progress and great game plays.
5. The team is determined to leave no-one behind. They are most passionate about their weakest and most injured teammates.
6. Instead of a rule book, the maker of the game decided to leave other clues behind how the game is played well and how it is quickly lost. The clues consist mostly of old tapes showing other players and their victories and defeats. There is a tape of one particular player showing him playing an exceptional game from a number of different camera angles. There is a rumor he is related to the game maker himself. For some odd reason, the maker of the game labelled this tape “ultimate team championship win of all seasons” although it is an old tape of a season long past, and we are all still playing in consecutive seasons.
7. There is a final clue in a note the game maker left behind with together with the tape. It reads: “We don’t play to win. We play because we know that we’ve already won!”
This is a partially edited comment I left on FB about this post.
While I agree with all of that I have to wonder if this is a result of postmodern thinking or a product of our American individuality. We Americans hate being told what to do or what to think – by anyone, let alone a pastor.
Of course everything must be done in love – or else we are nothing more than a clanging gong. And of course God is the ultimate “umpire” but this should not discount the fact that God has not left us alone without any guides. Any pastor who is acting like his or her word is the final word and nothing more can be said is abusing their authority and not acting as the shepherds they were called to be. But I would not go so far as to say the church would be better off without any umpires or people who remind us when are swings are just whiffs or our our contact is going off in left field. I sometimes wonder if the reaction in this post is really aimed at things that are going on all that much. Are there that many places that most of us move and breath where pastors say, “You MUST believe THIS or else”? I have never said that nor have I ever heard it quite like that. I’m certain that the sort of “umpires” being produced here at Duke Divinity do not think or act like that.
All of this, of course, assumes a prayerful community who are willing to humble themselves to one another and be led by the Spirit. But should not part of our growing as disciples of Christ include humbly accepting the authority of others God has appointed to lead?
Josh, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Thanks. I know that the Wake Forest Seminary graduates are not going out as “umpires” but trainers/workers along with God. They have a position just as we all do, working together as a team. We are all in a win-win situation where we all contribute to the work and join with God where God is already working in this world. God gave us The Holy Spirit to be with and around us to inspire and nudge us in the right direction. Our learning and conversations with others helps in this process.
I get your point, but let me also say that, having been an umpire, the authority held is not quite so naked as you propose. The ump actually cannot do a great number of things, like call a strike when the ball is in the dirt. The point of my talk was that the community hold the ump in check at all times. And, if an umpire sucks, he will be fired rather quickly.
I am postmodern enough to agree that it’s all a masquerade!
“The point of my talk was that the community hold the ump in check at all times.”
And as a former umpire myself, I can also tell you that it’s the Baseball Rule Book i.e. sola Scriptura that must hold the community in check as they hold the ump in check.
I’m not postmodern enough to forget that all of this is not a drill.
I still cling to my belief that no matter how many theological degrees or any other degress one will have, it should not make them an “umpire” but a coach and mentor. Why do you think there is and has been so many rebellions. Every person on earth has the right and given the direction by Jesus to be a follower,to make decisions based on scripture and discernment with God’s Holy Spirit for themselves, Priesthood of all Believers. No “umpire” is perfect. We all are sinners saved by GRACE not by what the “umpire” says is in or out. I love having someone tell me ,but best of all to show me, their spiritual journey and how God is and has worked/working in their lives. Scripture alone is not our authority. It is and should remain, in my opinion, one of our sources but not THE source. God is still speaking and still growing God’s people in this day and time not simply 2000 years ago. I’m still listening and learning and some of what the bible says is simply outdated based on God’s new revelations and what we have learned from history. We are all in a process, not having ARRIVED !!!!!!