• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for November 2011

The Reading List: Emergent Village Theological Conversation on Process Theology

November 30, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 1 Comment

 Are you ready for the greatest three days of 2012? You know Jan 31-Feb 2 in sunny SoCal where the Emergent Village Theological Conversation will take place! Part of getting ready for three days of Process & Emergent theological fun will be signing up & then getting the preparatory reading under your belt.  Here are the books that will be used to frame our theological fun.  Get’em, read’em, mark’em, and come ready to discuss them with the authors and your theological comrades!

* John Cobb’s Spiritual Bankruptcy: A Prophetic Call to Action & The Process Perspective II 

* Philip Clayton’s The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy and Faith

* Monica A. Coleman’s Making a Way Out of No Way: A Womanist Theology

* Bruce Epperly’s Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed

 

 


 

Filed Under: books, emergent, latest

Merry Christmas! Peace on Earth… and all that good stuff

November 30, 2011 by Bo Sanders 1 Comment

In Luke chapter 2 the Angel of the Lord says something really profound (v.14)

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom God is pleased”  (NAS)

It is beautiful in its simplicity.

I’m not trying to make this into a three point sermon, but it does seem to me that there are three interesting things said here:

God is pleased with us. That strikes me in a post ‘sinners in the hands of an angry god‘ era. Now, maybe someone wants to say that god was pleased with us before we killed his kid and rejected the gift… but that is not how I’m reading it here. Why is God pleased with us? Is it because god is gooder than we have been told? Probably. Is it because of something within God and maybe not within us? Possibly. But the bottom line is that God likes us and in Christ is well pleased with us! That is is a Christmas gift worth unwrapping.

Peace on Earth is God’s intention. God wants peace on earth. The angel said so. The sad part is that many Christians will argue with me about this. Fortunately, they probably disagree with part one (that God is pleased) as well … so you have take that as a whole package.

The Glory of God is peace on Earth. This is God’s house and we are God’s people. The state of your house and welfare of the people who live in it reflects something about you. The state of the earth and the welfare of the people who live in it reflects something about God. Now, people who emphasize the transcendence of God portray God as being so holy that God can have nothing to do with humanity’s sinfulness. The problem is that Luke 2 is about incarnation and God becoming one us. God is not just in the highest – as of Luke 2, God is also in the lowest.

So to you I say Merry Christmas! I join the Angel to say Peace on Earth! Goodwill to all mankind! For this is the Glory of God!

 

 

this was inspired by episode 34 with John Dominic Crossan and his book “the First Christmas”. 

Filed Under: bible stuff, books, engaging, latest, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Angel, book, books, Christmas, Crossan, goodwill, on earth, peace, War

Jesus & Occupy Bethlehem

November 29, 2011 by Bo Sanders Leave a Comment

I was in staff meeting this week and we were planning the Christmas week services. We got to the Christmas Eve service and the outline was for a “Lessons and Carols” format with 7 ‘lessons’ from Scripture and 7 carols in between each one.

It turns out that the service had gone a lit long last year and we needed to cut one of the lessons. Someone suggested one of the two passages from Isaiah. Someone else suggested the John 1 passage.  I chimed in (facetiously – but with a straight face) that we should chop the 4th reading from Luke 2:1-7.

They all looked down at the program to find which reading it was.  The title next to the passage was “Against a backdrop of emperors and taxes, Jesus is born.”

My fellow planners looked up with a little confusion as to my suggestion – I pointed out (dryly) that it was just “a little too Occupy Wall Street” for my taste.

Slowly smiles emerged from the corners of lips and soon it was full-on belly laughter.

It was a funny little moment in a pretty serious meeting … but I have to admit… now I am really thinking about going all John Dominic Crossan (ala “First Christmas”) for real.

I’m on my way to listen to that Advent podcast again to see if there is anything I could salvage for a children’s service.

I’m looking for help! Anyone got anything to point me to if I was going to try and illustrate an Occupy Bethlehem kids lesson about Jesus’ birth context?

This should be fun!

Filed Under: bible stuff, books, engaging, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bethlehem, book, Borg, Christmas, Context, Crossan, first century, Occupy, service

“Who Was Jesus?” John Cobb Answers #FANIAC

November 28, 2011 by Tripp Fuller 1 Comment

My favorite living theologian, John Cobb, is excited to be a part of the 2012 Emergent Village Theological Conversation Jan 31-Feb 2. Below you will see him answer the question ‘Who Was Jesus?’ sermonically.  Here he is discussing Colossians 1:19 “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” For more Cobb check out his podcast visits (One & Two), his FAQ page, and his sweet new book.  Of course you can come chill with him in SoCal this winter!!!  NOW…for the one & only John Cobb! #FANIAC

To be a Christian is to hold Jesus in highest esteem. Even more important, it is to live as Jesus’ follower and as one who believes that in following Jesus one is also serving God. According to the synoptic gospels, people in his day, marveling at his words and deeds, called him “Lord.” The great question then was whether he was the expected one, the Messiah, or, in Greek, the Christ.

For his disciples, the resurrection appearances of Jesus settled these questions. Jesus was definitely Lord, and definitely Messiah or Christ. Although much that was expected of the Messiah had not happened, the title Christ almost became part of Jesus’ name or a virtual synonym. Jesus’ was God’s beloved son, chosen by God for the salvation of all who followed him.

Paul developed these ideas. As was expected of the Messiah, Jesus was a descendant of David, and through his resurrection he came to be, or to be recognized as, the Son of God. Jesus fulfilled God’s mission by opening the doors of salvation to all, including the Gentiles. Jews had been seeking salvation by obedience to the law, but this did not work. By his faithfulness to God even to death Jesus provided another way. Jews and Gentiles alike could participate in that faithfulness. This meant that they would suffer and die with Jesus. God accepts that participation as righteousness. Those who thus participated are reconciled with God and will also participate in Jesus’ resurrection.

This is truly an exalted picture of who Jesus was and is and of Jesus’ work for God and on our behalf. There is a heavenly dimension in that the resurrected Jesus is no longer an earthly figure but a heavenly one. But Jesus remains unquestionably a human being. “Messiah,’ “Son of God,” “Lord,” and “Savior” are all human titles. The resurrected Jesus is the first fruit of the transformation in which we are all to participate.

There is no suggestion that Jesus belongs in another realm as a divine being alongside God the Father. The thinking of Paul remains in the fully monotheistic tradition of Judaism.

Now in Colossians we are confronted with a very different picture. A generation has passed, and the Rubicon has been crossed. The faithful are now predominantly Gentile. Paul is the great leader, virtually the founder, of the Gentile church, and believers are eager to claim his authority for what they say. But their ways of thinking are no longer Jewish. The sharp distinction between the one Creator and the many creatures has faded. Jesus is the primary focus of their thought. He, not the emperor who claims their worship, functions as their God.

They still affirm the God whom Jesus addressed as Father. But the emphasis is now on the intimate, indeed insoluble, relation between Jesus and God. All things on heaven and earth have been created through Jesus and for Jesus. “In him all things hold together.”

To Jews of that time and to us today, it is impossible to think that a person inhabiting a human body could function in these cosmic ways. Probably that was never quite the intention. “Jesus” had come to name not only the human figure about whom we read in the synoptic gospels but also a divine being who temporarily inhabited a human body and in that role died on a cross for our sake. But there is less clarity in this Colossians passage about this distinction than in the prologue of John where it is clear that the everlasting Word of God became a human being in Jesus. There is no preexisting divine Jesus.

Even John is not as clear as it might be about the distinction between the human being Jesus and the Word that became flesh in him. The creeds likewise blur this distinction to the great detriment of Christian faith. Jews could see God’s Power, God’s Spirit, or God’s Wisdom manifest in a human being. Paul affirmed this of Jesus. If we believe, as I strongly do, that something of God is present in all God’s creatures, there is certainly no problem in emphasizing the rich and full way, certainly distinctive and possibly unique, in which God was present in Jesus. But we need to retain the distinction between the divine that was incarnate in Jesus and the human being who was partly constituted by that incarnation. In Paul the distinction is generally clear. In Colossians it is badly blurred.

The great danger of this blurring is that Jesus’ humanity be lost. Jesus became for many Christians a God walking around in human form. Fortunately, there were many Christians who resisted this loss. Antioch was a great center of the ancient church and of its teaching. There they clung to such formulations as that of the divine indwelling a human being. This is far more intelligible, far more faithful to Paul, and far healthier for the church. And throughout the whole controversy in the ancient church about the nature of Jesus it prevented the obliteration of Jesus’ humanity.

But those who in fact worshipped Jesus insisted that Jesus was not only the human being indwelt by God but also God. And over the centuries this confused and confusing idea has played havoc with Christian teaching. Jesus’ humanity has too often been swallowed up in Jesus’ deity.

If this had not happened, Jews would not have been so profoundly alienated from Christianity. There would have remained the dispute as to whether salvation comes through obedience to law or participation in the faithfulness of Jesus, but this could have continued as a debate that might prove fruitful for both parties. Christians had no business asking Jews to compromise their monotheism. Mohammed, who had the highest appreciation for Jesus as the greatest of God’s prophets before the revelation of the Qu’ran, might well have become a Christian. At least the mutual enmity of Christians and Muslims would have been greatly eased. Perhaps both Jews and Muslims might have learned from Christians to understand more fully God’s sacramental or incarnational presence in the world.

But all of this is what might have been. What has in fact been is that neither Jews nor Muslims could appreciate a Christianity that compromised God’s unity, even if it claimed that its teaching of three divine persons did not do so. What has in fact been is that many have been alienated by a teaching that places believing very doubtful ideas about Jesus over following him in humble service even when that entails sharing in his suffering.

For several centuries now Christians, especially Protestants, have been engaged in rescuing the human Jesus from his de-humanization by the church. Unfortunately, like many needed reactions, it has often gone too far. Humanizing Jesus has often meant reinventing him in the image of contemporary ideals, on the one hand, or in a negative light, on the other. Almost always it has separated him from “the Father” whose presence his followers saw in him.

Jesus is not alone in being subjected to this treatment. It seems to be important for us to bring the most admirable people down to our size. I believe that there are human beings who are truly remarkable in diverse ways and that humanizing them should expand our image of humanity rather than reduce them to fit a small one. I believe that we can and should say things about the fully human Jesus that we say of no one else. Being unique does not make one less human.

For that reason, despite my heavy critique of the confusion of deity and humanity that I find in this passage in Colossians, I also find much to appreciate. I have taken as my text verse 19: “in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” In my view the more fully God dwells within us the more fully we are human. Precisely because God dwelt so fully in Jesus, Jesus shows us what humanity in its fullness can be.

Our recognition of God’s presence in Jesus is also our assurance that God is like Jesus. Far from condemning us for our sins and failures, God loves and forgives. In the language especially emphasized in this passage we are reconciled to God. If we participate in Jesus’ faithfulness, there is nothing left for us to do.

We can come to God with the assurance that we are already fully known and accepted as we are and therefore can open ourselves in responsiveness to God’s inward call. In Jesus we learn that while we are secure in our relation to God, following our calling is not a path of safety in human terms. There is no assurance that our ventures in service of the weak and the poor will succeed, but there is assurance that God affirms them and uses them beyond our knowledge. God used even Jesus’ death for our salvation.

The author of Colossians expressed his devotion to Jesus in language some of which proved harmful in later centuries and in different contexts. We can learn from that to be careful that our formulations of our devotion not put others down. But we need equally to know that it is not the strength of our devotion that is dangerous to others, but only its mis-description and misunderstanding. We need to find in our time and for ourselves the way to express no less devotion, ourselves now, than the author of Colossians expressed in his time and place.

* This and more John Cobb HERE

Filed Under: engaging, latest, philosophy, pomo, sermon, thinking Tagged With: john cobb, process theology

The Cross, Resurrection, Blood, and Church of Jesus: TNT Crossed Out

November 28, 2011 by Bo Sanders 14 Comments

In this hour long conversation Bo and Tripp take up the question “Is too much emphasis placed on the cross?”  Bo thinks that it is both out of proportion and ultimately unhelpful to place so much importance in this one symbol. Tripp think that it can be redeemed from those who have misused and misappropriated it. The debate started with [this post]

In this episode we reference (among others) books by

  • Andrew Sung-Park
  • Douglas Ottati
  • Elizabeth Johnson
  • Brian McLaren
  • Peter Rollins
  • and the famous Incarnation podcast with John Cobb 
Also covered are Claremont Lincoln’s involvement in the inter-religious endeavor and their new logo – as well as re-writing some hymns and songs to better reflect what we really believe.
Standard Podcast [ 59:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, engaging, latest, news, podcast, politics, thinking, TNT Tagged With: andrew sung park, Blood, books, Brian McLaren, church, cross, Douglas Ottati, Elizabeth Johnson, jesus, john cobb, peter rollins, resurrection

Get ready for the Process Posts

November 23, 2011 by Bo Sanders Leave a Comment

Next week we begin our cross-pollination activities to make people aware of the amazing opportunity to be a part of the 2012 Emergent Theological Conversation that will be held in Claremont, CA  from January 31 – February 2.

We will be posting guest blogs around the internet as well as responding to questions here.

If you want to get ready for that – or are looking for a little Turkey-Week reading, here are two places to start:

“What_Is_Process_Theology” is a classic little starter by Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki

“GodBeyondOrthodoxy-r3” : Process Theology for the 21st Century by Philip Clayton

until then, you can post your questions or thoughts here. Thanks for helping us get ready for this. The comments and conversations  have been wonderful. 

There is, however, in the Galilean origin of Christianity yet another suggestion which does not fit very well with any of the three main strands of thought. It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved;  -Whitehead

 

Filed Under: emergent, engaging, latest, thinking Tagged With: conference, Emergent, john cobb, marjorie suchocki, Monica Coleman, Philip Clayton, Process, theology

Poll: 20th Century Theologian who made greatest impact

November 23, 2011 by Bo Sanders 21 Comments

The 21st Century will probably look little like the 20th. Globalization, race, gender, and creed will have a nearly incalculable impact on the church and the world – many of us think for the good.

In the Clayton Crockett podcast (Radical Theology), many names come to the surface. Who do you think had the greatest impact of the 20th Century theologians that were named (or another who was not)

you can pick 2 if you must .  Feel free to  leave a comment and let me know of any oversights!

Theologian of the 20th Century who had the greatest impact

  • Karl Barth (55%, 47 Votes)
  • Paul Tillich (15%, 13 Votes)
  • Jurgen Moltmann (10%, 9 Votes)
  • Other (9%, 8 Votes)
  • Reinhold Niebuhr (7%, 6 Votes)
  • James Cone (6%, 5 Votes)
  • Karl Rahner (3%, 3 Votes)
  • John Cobb (3%, 3 Votes)
  • Gustavo Gutiérrez (3%, 3 Votes)
  • Hans Kung (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 86

Loading ... Loading ...
Filed Under: church history, conversations, engaging, latest, politics, thinking Tagged With: 20th century, books, john cobb, Jurgen Moltmann, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich, poll, theologian

Radical Political Theology with Clayton Crockett

November 23, 2011 by Bo Sanders 4 Comments

Clayton Crockett tells that you can’t go home again. The world of religion and politics has changed so radically that the old definitions and boundary markers are nearly unrecognizable – and even less helpful.

Clayton Crockett is Associate Professor and Director of Religious Studies at the University of Central Arkansas. His work focuses on postmodern theology, Continental philosophy of religion, psychoanalytic theory and theoretical issues concerning religion and politics.

In the 1960s, the strict opposition between the religious and the secular began to break down, blurring the distinction between political philosophy and political theology. This collapse contributed to the decline of modern liberalism, which supported a neutral, value-free space for capitalism. It also deeply unsettled political, religious, and philosophical realms, forced to confront the conceptual stakes of a return to religion. (from the book description)

In this conversation with Tripp Fuller, politics, history and religion are evaluated from thoroughly theological lens. His book  Radical Political Theology : Religion and Politics after Liberalism is available from Amazon in hardcover and Kindle editions.

Don’t forget to sign up for the 2012 Emergent Village Theological Conversation in Claremont, CA January 31-February 2.

Standard Podcast [ 1:12:11 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Filed Under: books, church history, conversations, engaging, features, philosophy, podcast, politics, thinking Tagged With: barth, books, capitalism Tillich, Clayton Crockett, death of God, history, political, radical, theology, zizek

Systematics and Activism: A Response to a Missed Meeting

November 20, 2011 by Deacon Hall 2 Comments

While it has been some time since I have blogged, I plan to make up for this fact soon. I have been in the process of editing some videos from a class that I’m currently teaching called Philosophy of Human Nature. I’ll post these on Homebrewed soon, and I sincerely hope that they’ll be of some use to you all. In the mean time, I’m at American Academy of Religion sitting in a Starbucks far too late to make the Homebrewed Christianity event taking place on the other side of the city. Knowing that part of the idea of this event is to both call into question and defend a notion of acaemic theology, I’m taking the chance to add my two cents while I can. I will focus my efforts on systematic theology.

Let me first of all start off by admitting that I cannot defend the whole enterprise called systematic theology. That is, I cannot defend it as some absolute set of propositions each of which relate to another in an eternal unified whole. I think that this point stands in two important sense. First, for those who would defend such a view of systematics, I don’t believe that they’re defending systematics as a whole but, generally, their own systematic positions, which is a power move to the utmost degree (conscientiously advocated or not). Systematics is and must remain open both in terms of the fallibility of human knowing and in terms of the flow of being in its becoming. Our propositions and understandings of God do, will, and must change. Neither can I defend the general hubris by means of which systematic theologians have upheld this discipline in the past.  Systematic theology is not an end in itself, which it has too often been taken to be, but a means toward the proclamation of the Word in thought, word, and deed.

For now, I want to focus on the critique that I believe is taking place tonight that academic theology is “impractical,” unable to do anything about the contemporary situation. To that I say, precisely.

Let me be clear, here: we must act within our world and open paths in this world toward peace, justice, and love. I will never decry the importance of something like “action,” often expressed as “activism.” However, activism acts on a worldview that it believes to be true, if not absolutely, then certainly with a great degree of probability. This is where disciplines like systematic theology come in.

Systematics and other academic-theological disciplines are, for one, activities in their own right. They are analyses of the world or past worlds as the are and have been such that in these worlds. The difference is, however, between the activity of thinking in systematic or academic theological terms and other activities (or activisms)is that thought is a manner of activity that opens up new interpretive possibilities–new ways of understanding the complex web of beings-in-relation that forms our world.

In this regard, the focus of systematic theology is not found in ensconcing a particular actuality (a possibility come to fruition through, say, bodily activity); it is found in opening up ever greater interpretive possibilities–interpretive possibilities that expose the complexities of the world in which we live at least enough to yield some humility in the theologian and activist alike. Systematics, then, brings nuance to a world that we too often want to interpret in the blacks and whites of “absolutely right” and “absolutely wrong,” which usually yields the violent logic of “me against them.” Systematics, then, holds a critical function (in the strict sense of critical), positing space between a overriding desire to act directly and the need to think that action through.

In saying this, however, I would contend that the proof of my argument is in the pudding. Thus, I want, secondly, to challenge skeptics of this idea to a task. For 30 days, read someone–an op-ed columnist, perhaps–with whom you greatly disagree. (I make my critical thinking students do something like this, by the way.) Come to know their thought and be able to think their thought after them to such a degree that you’re able to predict how they would be able to approach specific questions. Get into the intelligibility of what they say. I believe that you will have a simultaneous experience. You will be freed not from your disagreement of the person but of your desire to belittle them. This is no small step as too often it is our desire to belittle that deprives from basic understandings of opposing positions. You will also become freed, however, to see through holes in your previous worldview such that, even if you’re still not open to this particular person’s thought in and of itself, you are open to new positions and new possibilities from other persons with competing worldviews.

Take all that and apply it to the attempt to illuminate a basic theological worldview, and you’ll hopefully see the importance of systematic theology and its practice. Systematic theology illuminates new possibilities for the expression of faith for the activist and theologian alike such that neithers’ expression could remain absolute in its contextuality.

Does this, by the way,  mean that the activist must stop her work? Absolutely not! It simply reminds the activist that it takes more than their work to open the possibility of their work in the first place. Her work will open up new grounds by means of which to think through world, for sure; but it also rests on the illumination of worldviews that both she and others have opened up through theological and philosophical exploration in the first place.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, philosophy, random, thinking

Crossed Out – have we overdone the crucifixion?

November 15, 2011 by Bo Sanders 13 Comments

In tomorrow’s TNT I am planning to ask Tripp if he thinks that too much has been made out the the cross. “Have we over-focused on the crucifixion?” [the link to this episode is here]

 I think that we may have overdone it on the cross. It is out of proportion.  I want to I hear more about the empty tomb (resurrection) and the coming of Holy Spirit (pentecost). 

Just this week I have run into multiple conversations on the subject. They are all good on their own – but it is the larger picture that I am concerned about. From Daniel Kirk’s fantastic post about Luke-Acts, to Kurt Willems and Tony Jones or Roger Olson.  It can seem like , for Protestant Evangelicals – it’s ‘all atonement theory – all the time’.

Last week my friend A.J Swaboda said “Discipleship is photo-shopping the cross into every picture and angle of my life.”  I asked him if the empty tomb  wouldn’t be more appropriate. He said (wisely) that you can’t have one without the other.

So is that what we are doing? Is ‘the Cross’ shorthand for the whole story? Is it assumed that when we say ‘Cross’ we mean also Resurrection and Pentecost?

That would make me nervous.

Here is my concern: in the resurrection God spoke a new word over the world. I would like to live into that new word and participate with God’s Spirit who was given as a gift and a seal of the promise.

To obsess on the cross and related atonement theories is to live perpetually in the old word and to camp in the final thing that God said about the old situation.

It manifests in odd ways too. When my school, Claremont, was entering into a new venture of a Multi-Faith University, new logos were drawn up for each participating school. One symbol and one color for each represented religion or tradition. It is actually a cool branding that sends a message I can really get behind.

The problem is that we, as the Christian representative, got a red logo with… the Cross as our symbol. Ugh. Really?   We couldn’t have gone with the Flame or the Dove or the Bible or anything else?  What is the deal with the Cross obsession? Is it really the best representative for what the whole religion is about?

I know that Tripp is going to say something about “How the cross bearers became the cross-builders” which is a consistently good point about the historic shift. It has also takes on weird Colonial connotations that have compromised its essential message.

I’m just a little Crossed-out. It’s too much. It is out of proportion with the other elements of our faith and used disproportionally to the other symbols we have.

I would like to see us move into God’s new word for the world – and move out of our perpetual lingering in God’s last word over the old world.

Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, engaging, latest, post-something, thinking Tagged With: atonement, Bible, book, Claremont, cross, jesus, new word, Symbol
« Older Posts

Search

Support the brew

The latest

  • TNT: Eschatology – Resurrection call and response
  • 21st Century Theology: four locations for the endeavor
  • Coming to Jesus with Daniel Kirk & Philip Clayton: Homebrewed Christianity 3-D
  • Undercover Boss, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Listen to Karl Marx
  • Jesus loves you … some more than others?
  • The Limits of Language: Lindbeck and Whitehead

Transforming Christian Theology

The Homebrewed Hosting Service

Host Unlimited Domains on 1 Account Happy Holidays! Download a FREE audiobook today!

Friends

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2012 · Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Podcast powered by podPress v8.8.10.12