Moltmann & Homosexuality: A Bit Disappointing & Not in that Way

From everything I've read, I don't think Moltmann explicitly addresses homoseuality. I've had lots of theoretical conversations and hypothesis on what he "might" say about it, even at the Emergent Conversation over lunch. Over at the Moltmann Yahoo group, there was a discussion on what Moltmann would say about it, but since it was merely speculative it shows that he doesn't talk about it in his works clearly or directly.

So when at the Emergent Moltmann Conversation when Tony Jones put the questin to him, I was excited. Yet, I found his answer rather disappointing. Moltmann answered, "The church in Germany doesn't struggle with the problem (referring to the schismatic nature of ordaining homosexuals or blessing partnerships in the USA), because we are about the Gospel and not about sex. We believe in justification by God's work, not human work."

Some other things he said that I thought were provoking were that gay or straight can be ordained to ministry. Also, he wouldn't say (and this is what I thought most interesting) that a gay partnership is equal to marriage between a man and woman, since "marriage is to further children." Yet he would have no problems blessing such a partnership, "why not bless a partnership? Homosexuality is neither a sin or a crime, like near-sightedness is neither a sin or crime. I don't understand the schism or heat of the debate."

For such a deeper thinker, I was somewhat surprised how surface level and simplistic his answer was even though it was simply a conversational format. Yet, to say that Germany is worried about the Gospel and the church in the USA is not is overly simplistic and not a valid depiction of cultural realities. Germany carried(ies) a national guilt so intense that Moltmann himself says many of his comrades in POW camps didn't survive the shame. It makes sense that Since WWII, Germany would be intentional, even overly intentional to be very inclusive and not prejudice. America doesn't have this cultural history, but a very different story. So, I felt like this statement was simply unfair and unrealistic.

Also, he's okay with ordaining gay ministers and blessing partnerships, but he never called the partnerships marriages and actually compared homosexuality to a physical defect. Obviously he sees homosexuality as being less than a healthy (read: normal) human. Will the resurrection, the New Creation where all physical defects will be healed have homosexuals? Why not if this is truly who they are? Is homosexuality simply a distortion of the created order? Is homosexuality an illness, sickness, or defect that should be "fixed" by genetics manipulation if possible? This is where I find his words to lead.

Furthermore, since marriage is intended to further children and for that reason homosexual partnership is less valuable or "not equal," does that make a marriage between a man and woman with no children less than equal to a marriage with children?

Is marriage simply about furthering children, or is this a proof text from Israel's creation story that is irresponsible in a world of almost 7 billion people?

Overall, I was excited to hear Moltmann's thoughts about this issue that has become so divisive in the USA and across the world in many denominations, but I left disappointed and unchallenged. What do you think about Moltmann's assessment and thoughts?

Moltmann, Session I, Day 2

We begin this morning talking with arguably the premiere theologian of our time: Jurgen Moltmann. The conversation this morning turns to a quick overall look at Moltmann's autobiography and theological method and after the coffee break Tony Jones and Danielle Shroyer will talk to JM about his theological method. Here are some rough notes from the conversation.

Session 1a:

A Story of a Life after Auschwitz: "Where is God?"

• 1926 in Hamburg, secular family of teachers and schoolmasters
• firestorms- a life surrounded by explosions, bombs, and death. - left with the burning question "where is God" and "why am i alive and not dead like the others" (is there any meaning to life)- "these questions followed me and tortured me for years."
• As an imprisoned soldier, the soul became imprisoned.
• blooming cherry tree- overwhelmed by blooming of life "still feel weakness in knees in remembrance of this and raised sparks of life in my heart."
• Couldn't live with the guilt of his people as he saw pictures of camps.
• Read Bible in camp and came upon Ps. of lament, esp. ps. 39 (or 79?). - found words to speak for his heart.
• Lost interest in poems of Goethe and Schilling, but found himself in the Psalms b.c gave words to feelings of forsaken. Then read gosp. of Mark and read Christs "my god why have you forsaken me."
• Felt close and understood by God forsaken Christ.
• Christ found me in dark pit of my soul...and place behind barbed wire where we felt forsaken.
• Felt presence of Jesus in life and felt like he was taking up...
• "I was not seeking God if God was not already drawing me."
• In 1946, special camp arranged by British YMCA, prison ministry, funded by american business man John ?...and he was accepted to camp.
• 1st book- Niebuhr- nature and destiny of man
• studied and learned heb then greek in prison camps.
• wasn't sure of what the church was about, but had his first encounter in YMCA prison camp.
• soul was healed from wounds of war
• felt like Jacob after wrestling with "dark sides of God."
• Meet Elizabeth while studying theology
  
• 3 examinations in 2 weeks "doctoral, school, and wedding"
• after Barth there could be no theology, b/c he has said everything.
  
• pastor of rural congregation of about 300 people and 3000 cows. reformed congregation.
• felt like a fool with his phd with the farmers and tried to preach life experience and not give lectures to them. b/c when he lectured to them they rolled their eyes. pastored for 5 yrs.
  
• changed to seminary in wuppertal and felt impoverished b/c with the church he lived in the problems of life, but as a professor only saw the good educated students and in distance a distance.
  
• saw black ghettos and huts of sharecroppers deep in woods and burned crosses of KKK in front in front of churches, and his "American dream was a little bit disappointed"
• he liked America on the surface, but saw the misery of it too
• American dreamed was almost lost at MLK's shooting, but was saved at Durham when 400 men and women of all colors sat in rain and shine for mourning. then they sang "we shall overcome"
• first liked America, then disappointed, then i began to love america
• Faust and Goethe: 20th century humanism summation: do good, love beauty, follow your instinct for life...humanism of free will and reason, good emotions.
  
• there were no words in humanism to describe to pain of what I faced during the war with death and shame, but found it in lament psalm and cry of christ
• do you to continue to draw on parish ministry for theology: "yes, what would the people think about it and make of it.
• must listen to the people's questions and answers, and the people should not be shy and get away from prof theology but take responsibility for the education of theologians.
• to most of things in life came by chance, so things in latin america, came by chance.
• very moving story in '89: six jesuit bro's killed, in jesuit univ. in san salvador along with house keepers as an act of terrorism.
• many liberation theologians were angry with him when he criticized the marxist lectures of liberation theology. "but where was karl marx born, here (latin amer.) or in godham, ga.)
• jim cone stood up and went through the rows of liberation theologians and said "you are all whites and to my knowledge there are more blacks in ...were are tehy blacks in lib. theology
• then dorethee soelle stood up and went through the rows: "to my knowledge, more than half of theologians are female, but there are no women lib. theogians."
• Tones fav moltmann work: preface to "Trinity and kingdom of God" b/c it's about a change or transition and move toward contributions to systematic theology. realized who he was as a theologians and what he is not.
• started with Theo of Hope...resurrection; then toward perichoritsm to Theo of Cross; social doctrine of trinity bc since auagustine we have had psychological account of trinity: god has two images, father and son (two subjects) and hs comes out of that. there is no need for the HS if he is relation between two subjects. HS is no subject.
• there are icons of two subjects and an animals, the dove.
• EO: icons- 3 angels sitting around table.
• So EO has complete doctrine of Trin. where we have a shattered doctrine.
• So best idea is social doctrine...perichorises: Son, Spirit, Father indwell in one another and they interpenetrate.
• From that, concludes that the congregation is a good image of Trinity, that they all maybe one. Prayer in John: "I am in you, so they may be in me"
• Leo Boff tells story: communities in Brazil come together in one place, sign "holy trinity is best ...of trinity"
  
• simple terms "doctrine of trinity, is not part of mystery, very simple, if you come into notion of Jesus, you come into fellowship of God who he called Father; and in fellowship with Jesus, surrounded by God, you feel life giving energies of Spirit." Christian phase has a triadic state already, so we already live in God, surrounded by God.
  
• We don't believe in the trinity, we live in the Trinity. We live in God. There's an indwelling of trinity in us, as there is an indwelling in God.
• Shroyer- unity with Trinity as three in one. as pastor that helps b/c they're not doctrine based church and there's a lot of beliefs. unity comes not from doctrine, but from Christ who is above that. Talk about gift of unity of trinity that doesn't have to be sameness.
• Jesus addressed his God as abba, the father. Paul heard this prayer in Galatia and Rome. But this prayer disappeared in 1st century and replaced by "our father in heaven." far distance. misunderstanding of patriarchalism, father in family is distanced.
• re-introduced the Abba, prayer..we'll feel nearness of JC.
• not just 3 persons, but 3 rooms: they give for the two others to dwell in one another. to give room to each other means what we are doing, when we accept others in loving friendship, we give them life space.
• benediction: read Ps. 39.
  

Emergent Village Gathering, Day 1

Tonight, we began the Emergent Village proper (Danielle Shroyer of Journey Church in Dallas introduced the key note? speaker...Jurgen Moltmann...she did just write a book along those lines) with the professor of Missional Theology at Biblical Seminary, John Franke.

The main thrust of John's time was spent summarizing his main idea from his newest book, that truth is found in pluralization. While I'd like to press him some on this and get a better understanding of this (not because I don't think that truth exists in a plural world or that there is one way to truth, but because I'm not sure pluralism leads to meaningful community and truth exists in community or maybe I should say I don't think we (I) know how to engage difference or pluralism right and in a way that allows for true conversation to happen).

Tripp has some good notes on John's talk.

I'm excited about being here. I've already enjoyed some food and sights in Chi-town. I can't tell you how excited I am about Moltmann tomorrow (more on this later). I get to meet some really cool people, some I only know on the interwebs, so putting so flesh on them is nice. Plus worship tonight was meaningful. It was lead by a local Emergent church, Wicker Park Grace. The music was all home grown, and there was an artist who painted with pastels (i think) during the entire event. Plus, I never miss a chance to take communion, hopefully finding myself, a baptist transformed by God's grace in the sacrament of becoming the body broken for the world.

I'll hopefully get some more posts up during this gathering (coming out of hiatus...uhm, make that: blogging sabbatical).

BTW: I created a Twitter account since so much of this conversation is held in this space. So follow me if you'd like.

Rollins & Bonhoeffer in Coversation

"The argument can be made naming church is never really naming church but only our understanding of church." *I have taken the liberty in the quotations from Rollins to replace "God" with "church" in light of Bonhoeffer's discussion on the church as revelation.

The funny thing about revelation for Rollins is that although it may be the opposite of concealment, it still has concealment built into it. He tests his case by showing the various and even contradictory forms of God revealed throughout the testimony of the Scriptures do not paint a complete or clear picture of God for every case. "Hence, revelation ought not to be thought of either as that which makes church known or that which leaves church unknown but rather as the overpowering light that renders church known as unknown."

Rollins states, "Consequently, we do not do theology (church) but rather are overcome and transformed by it; we do not master it, but are mastered by it." We must be willing to give up our talk about God and the church, or hold it loosely for the church to overcome us. I'm concerned that the emerging church conversation has become a place to master church, instead of be mastered by it. We are grateful and appreciated or generous enough to appreciate the ancient church, but too bitter to do the same for the modern church.

In line with Rollins' thinking about God, the church is not an object to be studied, replicated, etc. Rather, she is a subject to be in faithful relationship, understood not through study but experience, an experience with reality that transforms reality, not describes it.

Thus, God or the church as revelation can be met through the a/theistic religious community or church. Instead of a gross fundamentalism that excludes all other interpretations of reality that differ from one's own, "the a/theistic approach can be seen as a form of disbelieving what one believes, or rather believing in church, while remaining dubious concerning what one beleives about church."

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.

Emerging Church Language

No this isn't a post on why its cool to cuss, or to cuss makes you postmodern or something. This is a post on all this confusing language around the movement of churches engaging emerging culture. As of late terms like "postmodern" and "emerging church" have become akin to "conservative" and "liberal," by that I mean they're quite meaningless other than what we fill them with to derogate others by.

Tony Jones argues that emerging and Emergent are basically memes with no real difference other than what we attach to them. I'm not so sure Jones' fighting against categories is true to reality though.

First, Jonny Baker illuminates that there is a difference between emerging and Emergent, one is a movement the other an organisation. This is the reality, and the distinction is important.

Second, it's important because the language of "emerging church" is losing its meaning, if it really had any. I think "emerging church" is an umbrella term that incorporates many bodies (including Emergent), congregations, voices, and such of churches that are engaging the emerging culture (the culture in continuity with deconstruction, but seeking reformulation and reconstruction).

Also, I'm afraid "emerging church" has been pigeon-holed into one defined culture that wears torn jeans, speak certain ways, and uses Macs. Not true. A church of "gray heads" can be emerging if its trying to engage the emerging culture, that's why I stick with this definition for understand the emerging church movement-"churches that are engaging the emerging culture."

Do you think its important to distinguish between emerging and Emergent?

(un)Critical Contextualization and Mark Driscoll

I'm going to step out on a limb here and assume that Mark Driscoll, pastor of all things dude and masculine, reads and probably likes folks like John Piper, John MacArthur, and Phil Johnson. Reformed folks gots to stick together right?

The reason I want to make this link is because of two conversations. First, one of the most important voices in the emerging culture and mission movement, Andrew Jones has been talking about the importance of contextualization over at his blog. Prompted by MacArthur and Johnson's ridiculing of all things contextual, Andrew argues well that "context matters." I especially like this:

WE WERE BLIND TO OUR COLONIAL ABUSE BECAUSE WE WERE BLIND TO THE IMPACT OF OUR OWN CULTURE ON THE GOSPEL WE CARRIED.

The second conversation is over at Out of Ur. Bouncing off of an article from Christianity Today called "A Jesus for Real Men," Out of Ur asks if this approach is encouraging or insulting. Here's a verse from GodMen, Brad Stine's forum where "men can be men; raw and uninhibited; completely free to express themselves in the uniquely male way that only men understand."

We've been beaten down
Feminized by the culture crowd
No more nice guy, timid and ashamed …
Grab a sword, don't be scared
Be a man, grow a pair!

These two conversations collide with the quote above from Andrew in that today we still cannot see the impact of our own culture. I refer to Mark Driscoll of course because he seems to be leading this movement that has been hijacked by our misgonistic, sexist culture! Why transform culture, why not embrace it uncritically?

Driscoll is an example of why critical contextualization is so important, because when approached uncritically the gospel suffers. Living in the Kingdom means living in a world where this is no male or female, or so I thought. I realize that Driscoll is in Seattle trying to reach people that are unreached, but to what end is he going to allow the means to get in the way. Sure, he wants to reach men, but why allow yourself to be controlled by the culture of those men? Sometimes we cannot see how our culture affects us, even if the gospel has to suffer for it.

Mark Driscoll meet Jurgen Moltmann:

In sexism male characteristics are used for self-justification and for the legitimation of privileges. But as long as 'being human' is primarily identified with 'being a man', the man does not arrive at human identity. As long as social roles and economic privileges are justified by sexual differences, it is impossible to talk about a 'human' society. As in racialism, sexism breeds feelings of superiority among men and feelings of inferiority among women; and this hinders the 'human' development of both. Sexism has two sides as well: it is as emotional mechanism of self-justification, and an ideological mechanism of subjection."- Moltmann, CPS, 184-5.

This movement is offensive, both because it uncritically swallows a culture of superiority and because it continues one of the longest human states of oppression: men over women. I believe that this "Jesus for Real Men" movement is a promotion of the brokenness of our culture in the church by uncritically contextualizing the gospel to "reach men and subject women."

Seemless Christianity

Kester at Signs of Emergence has an interesting post inspired by the 14 Grand Engineering Challenges of the 21st Century where he asked around seeking answers to the question: what are the 'grand challenges' for theology for the 21st Century? The multivalent answers not only reveal proclivities, but also show that this question a bit, well...dualistic? esoteric? uhm, shortsighted?

Theology as mainly an academic sort of esoteric activity of professional clergy or professors is quickly losing its relevance and for good reason. In church culture or christendom today there a seems to be a pervasive attitude within the community that theology is for the professional to produce and a commodity to be received. Simply stated, there is alot of bad theology ranging from the health and wealth gospels to myopic-soul salvation gospels. Why? Partly, but certainly not wholly because the church has become a place for the people, where people come to receive from the professionals; instead a church of the people where the school teacher, engineer, art director, construction worker, or business executive struggle with theology in life.

My humble response to the question was inspired especially by Sue Wallace's quote

There is a sense in which the biggest theological challenges will always be the ones of cultural communication, and the frustrating thing is that as soon as we have sussed out how to speak one language, the world has moved on, and we have to learn another if we are to engage in serious dialogue, and offer true hope rather than incomprehensible poetry.

The very reason this is a problem is because we have a Christian subculture that is separate from the world, always chasing after the world (irony?) trying to keep up and realize the trends thus creating secondary and often bad art, music, clothes, and books.

My response:

The task of theology will be to empower the church of the people (not professionals for the people) to imaginatively follow Christ while living in the world thus not creating a separate culture but a community of hope and love that grapples with the real problems of the world, ie: poverty, enviromentalism, nuclear weapons, war, genocide, open relationships to the "other" [for example] looking to the future hope of new creation, resurrection.