Change in 2008? Yeah, but No

I've really appreciated some voices I've come across lately that are able to look into what is going on in American politics and speak reality into the mire, thus I'm posting Eliacin Rosario-Cruz's post in full:

"It is not just about the last 8 years.

To assume that change will happen by just focusing on November 4 is a naive view of history and a adolescent understanding of democracy. On Nov. 4 people will elect a new administrator in the same system of power that perpetuates itself. There are bigger systems than the executive and the legislative at play here. On Nov. 4 the imbalanced of structure of representative “democracy” is will not be on the ballot. Nor there will be a vote about the position of hierarchical power of the wealthy elite (individual, coorporations, international trade organizations) whom live and operate outside national politics but benefit economically from it. There will be no option to vote about the myth of the USA as patriarchal leader and police of the world. These and more are some of the structures and foundations that need to be strongly questioned and challenge in order to bring real change.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fortunate to share with my daughter the historic time of having a black man and a woman running for office. Like many others I get excited by many of the statements and political platform from Senator Barack Obama, but that is not enough for me to believe there will be more than aesthetic modifications. While I think there will be certain alterations to the pattern of politics, economics and social services we’ve see in the past 8 years, that will not be enough to call it change.

The following is a brief list of USA military interventions in the Latin America. As you can see the list start way before year 2000. The same myths that fueled these and many other interventions still fueling the national identity of USA to this day.

Argentina	1890	Troops	Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile	1891	Troops	Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti	1891	Troops	Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua	1894	Troops	Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama	1895	Naval, troops	Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua	1896	Troops	Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba	1898-	Naval, troops	Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico	1898-	Naval, troops	Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua	1898	Troops	Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua	1899	Troops	Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras	1903	Troops	Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic	1903-04	Troops	U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba	1906-09	Troops	Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua	1907	Troops	“Dollar Diplomacy” protectorate set up
Honduras	1907	Troops	Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama	1908	Troops	Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua	1910	Troops	Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras	1911	Troops	U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba	1912	Troops	U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama	1912	Troops	Marines land during heated election
Honduras	1912	Troops	Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua	1912-33	Troops, bombing	20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico	1913	Naval	Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican Republic	1914	Naval	Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico	1914-18	Naval, troops	Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti	1914-34	Troops, bombing	19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic	1916-24	Troops	8-year Marine occupation
Cuba	1917-33	Troops	Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama	1918-20	Troops	“Police duty” during unrest after elections
Honduras	1919	Troops	Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala	1920	Troops	2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica	1921	Troops
Panama	1921	Troops
Honduras	1924-25	Troops	Landed twice during election strife
Panama	1925	Troops	Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador	1932	Naval	Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay	1947	Nuclear threat	Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico	1950	Command operation	Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala	1954-?	Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat	CIA directs exile invasion and coup d’Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.’s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama	1958	Troops	Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba	1961	Command operation	CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba	1962	Nuclear threat, naval	Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama	1964	Troops	Panamanians shot for urging canal’s return
Dominican Republic	1965-66	Troops, bombing	Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala	1966-67	Command operation	Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile	1973	Command operation	CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador	1981-92	Command operation, troops	Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua	1981-90	Command operation, naval	CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras	1982-90	Troops	Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada	1983-84	Troops, bombing	Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia	1987	Troops	Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama	1989	Troops, bombing	Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti	1994-95	Troops, naval	Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela	2002	Command operation	Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti	2004-	Troops	Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country

Setting Boundaries, the Importance of Heresy

Although I finished this post a few weeks ago, I've had a hard time posting it. I'll give the reason's afterwards, but here's the post in full:

"In discussing the historical Jesus, Bonhoeffer explains why critical christology is important. Not everything about Christ is comprehensible, but the work of critical christology is to limit the incomprehensible, thus it determines the boundaries of "what may not be said about Christ."

It certainly is important to figure out what we should not say about Christ, otherwise our faith truly is nothing. This does not mean of course that we must completely understand the questions of "who" or "how" Jesus, but it does give us categories for comprehending the God-man, incarnate one.

In our pluralistic society one of the dirty words has become heresy, which Bonhoeffer links to critical christology. "If critical christology is concerned with fixing limits, that means it is concerned with the concept of heresy."

Bonhoeffer's notes on heresy are helpful for understanding its role and why there is a need to point it out. I do recognize that heresy often arises from power struggles and can lead to paternalism, but there is still a need to recognize what cannot be said about Christ, the limits. Heresy thus "emerges from the fellowship of the Church and not from an absence of love." To love someone in a brotherly or sisterly way means to speak the truth in love, and "if I do not speak the truth, then I treat him like a heathen."

Here's the reasons I had a hard time posting:
1) Heresy can often and is often what the "winners" say it is, thus the history and theology written by the western church does not mean its the only correct theology. Our own neo-colonial attitude toward theology in the global South and East (read nonWestern) is that we have to guide and protect "them" from heresy. We must speak the truth in love, when in actuality we are speaking are perspective on truth. In actuality, the more loving thing to do is to allow them to have their heresies.
2) We have our own heresies, so we should let others have them too. If I recall, most Christians that I know would be called a heretic by someone (i.e. Joseph Ratzinger).
3) The idea I found most resonating with me from Bonhoeffer's thought is that heresy arises from the fellowship of the church. This is what we need, for the church global and local to be connected and united in its diversity. We must have boundaries, but boundaries do not exist for the sake of judgment but rather for love. Boundaries help us know as much what we are for as what we are against.

"I Saw What I Saw"- Sara Groves

Rizone Communities, Theological Education for Postmoderns

I really enjoyed this article by Carl Raschke (author of the forthcoming book GloboChrist and The Next Reformation), where he unpacks what theological education means in our "post-churched" culture. Here's a few quotes, but go and read the article in its entirety.

The crisis of theological education ultimately stems from Christians who aim to become professional leaders in a world where Christianity itself is increasingly deinstitutionalized, and its leaders are rapidly becoming deprofessionalized.

A postmodern theological education is both relevant and irrelevant in the same breath. Or to put the matter more mischievously, it has to steep itself in its own irrelevant classical particularities in such a strategic manner that it is able to engage, critique, and transform the culture in a way that is genuinely relevant.

Theological education is comparable to what in the computer business is known as network engineering. A network engineer needs to understand how the guts of a computer work, but even more importantly, she or he is required to design and implement novel, creative architectures for sharing and processing complex configurations of information with different spatial distributions and topographies. Similarly, someone with a seminary degree needs to know how to read and interpret the Bible (even in its original languages), to be familiar with the history of Christianity, and to have facility in the kind of faith-based intellectual reflection we know as theology. But more importantly, they should understand how to begin to deploy those base competencies in a multitude of interpenetrable contexts.

Jesus said “go and make disciples of all nations,” not “go find a good location to start churches.” The difference is not all that subtle. As disciple-making disciples we need to be gearing our theological studies toward becoming makeover artists in redesigning our Father’s house, not plodding toward one day becoming junior partners in the management of his firm.

Brilliant Quotes or What a Genius Says, vol. v

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

I almost gave this quote its own post. I think it belongs on every church door.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Apologetics Denied

“The philosopher is not an apologist; apologetic concern, as Karl Barth (the one living theologian of unquestionable genius) has rightly insisted, is the death of serious theologizing, and I would add, equally of serious work in the philosophy of religion.”

—Donald M. MacKinnon, The Borderlands of Theology: An Inaugural Lecture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1961), 28.

via.

We tell stories.

6 penguin classics, retold in 6 short digitals. This is a pretty cool artistic expression and collaborative that's worth your time. I enjoyed this one, The 39 Steps retold as the 21 Steps using google maps.

Brilliant Quotes or What a Genius Says, vol. iv.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

The Shack, William Young

I recently finished reading what has become a sort of Christian pop culture phenomenon, the Shack.
I'd rather not give a lengthy review of my own since reviews are numerous and widespread on this internet thing. Actually, Andy Rowell has compiled a good list of reviews if you're interested.

A few things that I would say:

• Those who've denounced this novel have really missed the point. It's quite obvious as in any fiction that this book is not meant to be a theological treatise. The book has a good storyline about healing and the power of relationship with God. I'm not as huge a fan of the book as some who have praised it highly (E. Peterson claims this book to be the next Pilgrim's Progress. I highly doubt it). I enjoyed the imaginative writing and dialog with God. Overrall I thought the book was worth the read, but I would not say I loved it.

• There were some places I felt like it lacked:
  
• Young is creative in his approach to the Trinity (which some have claimed to be modalistic, which is a case in missing the point), but often the dialog is uncreative, slow, and full of cheesy Christian quotes.
  
• Also, I think Young stepped out in allowing Papa, the "head" of the Trinity to actually be God the mother, a large African American woman. I appreciated that he first tried to defy the male-centered lens of the church, but in the end he fails by allowing God to resemble the form that the main character presumed God would be in the first place, a Gandalf-like old man.
  
• I do like that Jesus resembles a middle eastern man, but Young fails in his presentation of Jesus. There are two things that I didn't like. One was that Jesus seemed to be against the institutional church or religion in any sense. Not that I don't think the institutional church or religion doesn't need critiquing, but Jesus came across more as the "my buddy" or "homeboy" Jesus who has been created by our consumer culture. Jesus as anti-religion and best buddy were weak representations.

• Other then these critiques, Young delivers a book that I would recommend to anyone that has suffered lost and is struggling with questions of faith, doubt, love, life, and God. Furthermore, Trinitarian theology has become quite popular as of late and this work witnesses to the beauty, complexity, and creativity bound up with this important doctrine. Check it out, read it, mull it over.
  

Go figure...

I'm tired of this guy.

House of Cards by Radiohead

Brilliant Quotes or What a Genius Says vol. iii

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

The Real Work is Humbling

God sets out upon the humiliating path of reconciliation and thereby pronounces the world free. God wills to be guilty of our sin, and takes over the punishment and suffering sin has brought upon us. God answers for godlessness, love for hatred, the saint for the sinner. Now there is no godlessness, no hatred, no sin which God has not carried, suffered, and atoned. Now there is no reality, no world that is not reconciled and in peace with God. God did this in the beloved son Jesus Christ.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Meditations on the Cross via

Just in Case You Missed it the 1st Time

The Farting Preacher

Setting Limits, Fighting Heresy

Although I finished this post a few weeks ago, I've had a hard time posting it. I'll give the reason's afterwards, but here's the post in full:

"In discussing the historical Jesus, Bonhoeffer explains why critical christology is important. Not everything about Christ is comprehensible, but the work of critical christology is to limit the incomprehensible, thus it determines the boundaries of "what may not be said about Christ."

It certainly is important to figure out what we should not say about Christ, otherwise our faith truly is nothing. This does not mean of course that we must completely understand the questions of "who" or "how" Jesus, but it does give us categories for comprehending the God-man, incarnate one.

In our pluralistic society one of the dirty words has become heresy, which Bonhoeffer links to critical christology. "If critical christology is concerned with fixing limits, that means it is concerned with the concept of heresy."

Bonhoeffer's notes on heresy are helpful for understanding its role and why there is a need to point it out. I do recognize that heresy often arises from power struggles and can lead to paternalism, but there is still a need to recognize what cannot be said about Christ, the limits. Heresy thus "emerges from the fellowship of the Church and not from an absence of love." To love someone in a brotherly or sisterly way means to speak the truth in love, and "if I do not speak the truth, then I treat him like a heathen."

Here's the reasons I had a hard time posting:
1) Heresy can often and is often what the "winners" say it is, thus the history and theology written by the western church does not mean its the only correct theology. Our own neo-colonial attitude toward theology in the global South and East (read nonWestern) is that we have to guide and protect "them" from heresy. We must speak the truth in love, when in actuality we are speaking are perspective on truth. In actuality, the more loving thing to do is to allow them to have their heresies.
2) We have our own heresies, so we should let others have them too. If I recall, most Christians that I know would be called a heretic by someone (i.e. Joseph Ratzinger).
3) The idea I found most resonating with me from Bonhoeffer's thought is that heresy arises from the fellowship of the church. This is what we need, for the church global and local to be connected and united in its diversity. We must have boundaries, but boundaries do not exist for the sake of judgment but rather for love. Boundaries help us know as much what we are for as what we are against.

Brilliant Quotes or What a Genius Says vol. ii

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Moltmann meet _______?

or Which Theologian are You? I'm mostly Moltmann, which I can understand, but Schleiermacher at 67%? I have to go back and think through the questions differently. I thought I did a good job of recognizing which theologian would go alongside which questions. Anyways, click on it and take the quiz, let me know who you come out to be.

You scored as a Jürgen Moltmann

The problem of evil is central to your thought, and only a crucified God can show that God is not indifferent to human suffering. Christian discipleship means identifying with suffering but also anticipating the new creation of all things that God will bring about.

Jürgen Moltmann 87% Friedrich Schleiermacher 67% Anselm 67% John Calvin 60% Charles Finney 60% Karl Barth 53% Paul Tillich 53% Augustine 40% Martin Luther 40% Jonathan Edwards 20%

Top 10 LifeHakcer Vid's

Learn how to buy a car, suck less at photoshop, get cheap batteries, make an awesome flashlight among other things here.

Bonhoeffer on the Sermon & Truth

Continuing in my reading with Bonhoeffer I enjoyed his short exposition on preaching. The person of Christ exists in preaching. Humans words don't cloak the Word of God, "rather, God's Word has really entered into the humiliation of the words of men. Man's sermon is the Word of God, because God has freely bound himself and is bound to the words of men."

The role of the sermon as the Word of God is an idea that can be disconcerting. I often feel our churches often allow the preacher to become an authoritative figure towering over the congregation, thus disembodying the body of Christ. But to understand Bonhoeffer means that the sermon never stands over the body, but rather is shared within the body.

Truth is non-objectivistic for Bonhoeffer, which I was glad to read:

Truth is not something in itself, which rests for itself, but something that happens between two. Truth happens in community.

I have struggled with the task of preaching in our culture. A culture that doesn't trust authoritative figures that pull objective truth from the sky (read: their ass), a participatory culture, and an entertained culture. But I was reminded this week about the power and reality of the spoken word, especially when it is the Word as Bonhoeffer would argue.

Because of the many facets of preaching, I like that Bonhoeffer calls the sermon "both the riches and the poverty of the church." Our broken, frail human words become the Word and "what is impossible for man and what God promises are the same."

I think I believe in preaching if the sermon is formed by the community, for that is where truth happens. The sermon must be a shared act of the church. I'm not sure what this means exactly in my context, but I think it means intertwining the people's narratives with God's, forming and informing the Scripture with the people and forming and informing the people with the Scripture.

Maybe preaching is the task of asking better questions. Maybe preaching is learning to have fluid conversations about faith and Jesus over shared food, a camp ground, and a car ride.

Do you think that preaching is a necessary tool for the church's proclamation of the gospel? What does the task of preaching look like in our culture?

I'd pay money to see this

A Bad End?

From David Howard the naked pastor, "an artist trapped inside a pastor's body."

Torn Curtain

Torn Curtain

by

John Frye

The sword cuts a deep gash in bloody flesh,

The holy curtain from top to bottom

on the Temple mount

rips, separates.

Two temples purposely damaged,

A Roman cross and the Holy of Holies change places

as God startles the planet.

Last deep breath of the Nazareth teacher

from a criminal’s planks

breathes life to the world.

A seasoned soldier, wearied by death,

sees, hears a human’s cry like no other,

declaring on the spot his disloyalty

to Caesar.

What a dangerous world with God roaming free!

via

Pilabolus

What I am and What I am Not

Here's a short and helpful history of the emerging church by Alan Creech. I liked this paragraph:

"There is a good deal of good deep theological thought going on in this stream of the whole business. How these churches are "constructed" are flowing from deeper waters, I think. The rethinking of pulpit-pew preaching is not just about people being bored by that, but more about this being a very limited view of how the church functions as she meets together. There is more of a holistic view. In other words, there's not just Martin Luther and Zwingli to take into consideration, but also, and perhaps more, there is St. Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Tertullian and Basil. There are the many monastic renewal movements starting in the 6th century and on through the middle ages. There is the deep and ancient tradition of Christian Mysticism which has been handed down and which still exists today in many Catholic monasteries. Perhaps St. Patrick and many of the Celtic missional monastic tradition could be mentioned as highly influential of this stream."

Or check out this article on why "Christians s*ck" by Tom Davis, where he says things such as:

We might as well give God the middle finger. Outside of a tiny minority of Christians, we have become a self-centered group of priggish snobs.

In short, we s**k.

Silence & Confession, A Reflection on Bonhoeffer

To kick off my study of Bonhoeffer, I've begun with Christ the Center. Already he has laid out some powerful ideas in just the introduction. The hinge of scholarship revolves around Christ for Bonhoeffer because Christ is the Word. But the study of christology does not revolve around the "how" question such as how is Christ God and man, but rather the "who?" questions.

So the very beginning of any scholarship begins not with what, why, or how, but "who?". The beauty in his existential thought reveals itself when he says that Christ is not known through his works as Schleiermacher proposes, but his works are known through the very person of Christ. Christ is known when he reveals himself in the noncompulsive silence of prayer.

In Life Together by Bonhoeffer, one of the most important aspects of community is confession; but I didn't quite understand why a Protestant theologian would emphasize confession so strongly until I read his analogy that in confessing our sins to one another we are authentically revealing ourselves. We cannot be forced to reveal ourselves, and neither can Christ.

As Filipina theologian Melba Maggay says:

Prayer is not a pious instrument by which we move God to baptize our enterprises; it is entering the strength of him who moves history and binds the powers that be. via

Prayer is not the place where we come to control Christ, but where Christ can if he wills to reveal himself and answer the question of "who?". The encounter with Christ is unavoidable since, as Bonhoeffer says, Christ is alive therefore "there are only two ways possible of encountering Jesus; man must die or he must put Jesus to death." Unfortunately, I believe the natural reaction of most of us is to put Christ to death.

I also wonder if Bonhoeffer isn't helping the church to understand how to be the listener when the other confesses their sins. Too often we act as if we are the forgivers or if our wise words can fix the person opening themselves to us, but maybe the most appropriate response is silence for in silence between two people Christ can speak or we can hear the words to repeat from the very source that defeats the powers that be.

We gain access to Christ in the "attempt to be in the place where the Person reveals himself in his own being, without any compulsion. That is the place of prayer to Christ. Only by the Word freely revealing himself is the Person of Christ available and with that also his work."

Arbuckle= Social Angst/ Depression/Loneliness Commentary

Something I discovered a few months ago that I've been meaning to share is this brilliant blog that takes Garfield out of the Garfield comics. Here's what the site says about itself:

Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.

Check it out!

This is GE Performance Television.

Anyone in the market for a new TV?



via

A Protestant Saint?

Since leaving seminary and beginning my work as a pastoral resident I've been asking myself the question of how I'm going to engage theology while remaining faithful to the task at hand, my job. My fear is that I'll leave behind something I love (theology) in the midst of the craziness of life OR that trying to engage in a continual study of some kind will distract me from my work.

To experiment I thought I would study Bonhoeffer's works and thought. I figured of all the choices out there, Bonhoeffer would be a strong friend in my ministry setting. I'm not sure how this will work since I'm also coupling my mentoring to finish my M.Div. this fall to graduate in December with my residency. With mentoring I'll be reading 6 or so books this fall, which isn't alot except that I'm also trying to figure out work.

I've already read a few books on or by Bonhoeffer: The Cost of Discipleship, Life Together, & Psalms by Bonhoeffer and The Bonhoeffer Phenomenon by Stephen R. Haynes. Inspired by a few friends who have recently read or are reading Bonhoeffer I'l be picking up Ethics, Sanctorum Communio, Letters and Papers from Prison, Bethge's timeless biography and I'm currently reading Christ the Center. I'll probably return to The Cost of Discipleship a few times, since I haven't read it since college.

There are many reasons why to choose Bonhoeffer, but his context and death in a Nazi concentration camp, his life, and his Christocentric theology that pushes for church reform are just a few.

Picking up where we (I) left off...

Well, the time has come to finally blow the dust off my keyboard and get back to blogging. Okay, maybe the dust hasn't collected on my laptop, but it was nice taking a break from blogging especially because since coming back from India this summer has been a bit crazy. I realized that I picked up some readers during my India trip, but probably lost them all so to my two faithful readers I'm back!

I'm not sure where to take this blog now that I'm entering a new season in life. I'll probably be posting more on my failure and the messiness of life transition for a while, until I can - if I can- get a hold on things post-seminary. For sure I'll be posting thoughts on what I'm reading, giving some reviews, and talking through my context here at FBC Austin as the Pastoral Resident.

It's good to find some routine again, especially since I feel like I'm coming out of reverse culture shock. I'm finding being an American Christian, or better Christ follower, an interesting enterprise again. Hopefully I'll be able to post up a few things on what I'm reading, watching, and what has been going since I got back.