tuesday reflection for week 6
Today in our small group discussion we talked more about Jesus coming as a prophet subverting assumptions and presuppositions that the Israelites had about the kingdom of God. One of the questions for discussion focused on how we could take the practice of Jesus as a prophet and apply it to the church setting. The first thing that came to my mind was the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus shifts the focus from the Temple in Jerusalem to the people worshiping in spirit and in truth (John 4).
Applying this story to the church, if church goers are spending the majority of their time at church—by majority of their time, I mean spending multiple nights of their week at the church—then something should change. The church can become the Temple in such a way that we do not see the presence of God outside of it, and feel foreign to the world outside of the church. Pastors and workers at churches should encourage their communities to invest in places outside of the church in order to be the light of the world that Jesus told Christians to be. Perhaps, this means not having activities every day or night during the week at the church. Without this going out to other people in non-church settings, our focus could reside solely on the structure of the church as opposed to God's people in the world.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
BOOK REVIEW: Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam. New York: Harper Collins. 1999.
Americans spend more money on material goods than any other country in the world. Why is this? Does our consumption say something about our autonomy? If you ponder such questions, then read Kalle Lasn’s Culture Jam. Lasn is an internationally known, award-winning documentarist who fights for the democratic process in the media world. He is the founder of projects, such as The Media Foundation and Adbusters,that strive to establish freedom of disseminating ideas in the media world. Culture Jam is a continuation of this mission.
In Culture Jam, Lasn argues that corporate America has “kidnapped our real lives, co-opting whatever authenticity we once had” (101). Corporate America drives this conformity with an emphasis on consuming, through which people’s identities are lost because they simply become a cog in the economic wheel of America. Lasn believes that we can change the world, that is, we can change how we interact with the mass media and how we produce meaning in society (xii), by culture jamming. Through this culture jamming, we reclaim our identity and world that corporate America has usurped from us.
Corporate America and its ensuing consumerism define our identity. The electronic mass media shapes our lives and separates us from the natural world in which we live. This separation causes us to lose our sense of the divine and our identity (4-7). With its focus on consuming and being cool, the media drives “mental pollution” in the “ecology of our mind” so that we focus solely on our image (13, 74).
Unfortunately, advertising and marketing, mediums of mental pollution, have become invisible powers because of their ubiquity (166-167). Consequently, we cannot challenge the “consumptive, commercial and corporate agendas” (33), and we have lost our authenticity because we have become brands in the “multitrillion-dollar brand” (xii): America. Culture Jammers are Lasn’s solution to this problem.
Culture Jammers “share…an overwhelming rage against consumer capitalism, and a vague sense that our time has come to act as a collective force.” (112) They hope “to topple existing power structures and forge major adjustments to the way we live in the twenty-first century” (xi) by fighting corporate America with “guerilla information [warfare]” (124). This war is fought with the power that Corporate America has created.
The jammers “detourn” the avenues that corporate America has used to appropriate our identity. In other words, they take the images and practices of corporate America and reroute them in order “to reverse or subvert their meaning, thus reclaiming them” (103). They transform culture through subverting commonly held ideas and practices, much like Jesus did in his ministry. This culture jamming is a bilateral approach. From above, they use media attacks. From below, they empower the people. With this approach, the jammers establish their credo: “To obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption” (172).
Although Lasn’s approach rides the fence of anarchy, some of his ideas resonate with Jesus’ approach to the powers. Lasn sees American history in four acts. The fourth act, the act in which we are currently playing, “is an act of reversal, recovery, [and] redemption” (145). Similarly, Jesus used the concept of the kingdom of God to show that the redemption and delivery of God’s people from oppression begins now by our taking part in this process. Lasn may not mention Christ, and he may stress using our anger and rage too much, but when guided correctly, his approach could make a positive contribution to our consumerist culture.
Americans spend more money on material goods than any other country in the world. Why is this? Does our consumption say something about our autonomy? If you ponder such questions, then read Kalle Lasn’s Culture Jam. Lasn is an internationally known, award-winning documentarist who fights for the democratic process in the media world. He is the founder of projects, such as The Media Foundation and Adbusters,that strive to establish freedom of disseminating ideas in the media world. Culture Jam is a continuation of this mission.
In Culture Jam, Lasn argues that corporate America has “kidnapped our real lives, co-opting whatever authenticity we once had” (101). Corporate America drives this conformity with an emphasis on consuming, through which people’s identities are lost because they simply become a cog in the economic wheel of America. Lasn believes that we can change the world, that is, we can change how we interact with the mass media and how we produce meaning in society (xii), by culture jamming. Through this culture jamming, we reclaim our identity and world that corporate America has usurped from us.
Corporate America and its ensuing consumerism define our identity. The electronic mass media shapes our lives and separates us from the natural world in which we live. This separation causes us to lose our sense of the divine and our identity (4-7). With its focus on consuming and being cool, the media drives “mental pollution” in the “ecology of our mind” so that we focus solely on our image (13, 74).
Unfortunately, advertising and marketing, mediums of mental pollution, have become invisible powers because of their ubiquity (166-167). Consequently, we cannot challenge the “consumptive, commercial and corporate agendas” (33), and we have lost our authenticity because we have become brands in the “multitrillion-dollar brand” (xii): America. Culture Jammers are Lasn’s solution to this problem.
Culture Jammers “share…an overwhelming rage against consumer capitalism, and a vague sense that our time has come to act as a collective force.” (112) They hope “to topple existing power structures and forge major adjustments to the way we live in the twenty-first century” (xi) by fighting corporate America with “guerilla information [warfare]” (124). This war is fought with the power that Corporate America has created.
The jammers “detourn” the avenues that corporate America has used to appropriate our identity. In other words, they take the images and practices of corporate America and reroute them in order “to reverse or subvert their meaning, thus reclaiming them” (103). They transform culture through subverting commonly held ideas and practices, much like Jesus did in his ministry. This culture jamming is a bilateral approach. From above, they use media attacks. From below, they empower the people. With this approach, the jammers establish their credo: “To obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption” (172).
Although Lasn’s approach rides the fence of anarchy, some of his ideas resonate with Jesus’ approach to the powers. Lasn sees American history in four acts. The fourth act, the act in which we are currently playing, “is an act of reversal, recovery, [and] redemption” (145). Similarly, Jesus used the concept of the kingdom of God to show that the redemption and delivery of God’s people from oppression begins now by our taking part in this process. Lasn may not mention Christ, and he may stress using our anger and rage too much, but when guided correctly, his approach could make a positive contribution to our consumerist culture.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
thursday reflection for week 5
Today we talked for part of the class period on Jesus redefining the idea of family in Israel. One of the aspects of his redefinition caught my attention. Jesus redefined family in the sense that there was no division between blood relatives and other people in the family. In this way, Jesus created alternative communities of people that he considered family. This alternative community consisted, most likely, of blood relatives along with people who were simply friends, followers, disciples, etc. To dovetail this alternative community concept, Ryan then gave a personal vignette about the church he is attending right now.
He said that his main reason for he and his family to attend their current church is the family ties that he has with people there. The relationships that Ryan has with the people in his church mean more to him than the liturgical aspects of the worship service. This church is Ryan's alternative community. This was great to hear because I have not found a church that I am for sure going to attend. I realize I have only been in Pasadena for about six weeks, but I an bothered by the fact that I have not found a church in which to get involved. However, Jesus' alternative community approach and Ryan's vignette encourage me to find a place where the relationships are the most authentic, organic, and life giving. This is a much healthier approach for finding a church.
Today we talked for part of the class period on Jesus redefining the idea of family in Israel. One of the aspects of his redefinition caught my attention. Jesus redefined family in the sense that there was no division between blood relatives and other people in the family. In this way, Jesus created alternative communities of people that he considered family. This alternative community consisted, most likely, of blood relatives along with people who were simply friends, followers, disciples, etc. To dovetail this alternative community concept, Ryan then gave a personal vignette about the church he is attending right now.
He said that his main reason for he and his family to attend their current church is the family ties that he has with people there. The relationships that Ryan has with the people in his church mean more to him than the liturgical aspects of the worship service. This church is Ryan's alternative community. This was great to hear because I have not found a church that I am for sure going to attend. I realize I have only been in Pasadena for about six weeks, but I an bothered by the fact that I have not found a church in which to get involved. However, Jesus' alternative community approach and Ryan's vignette encourage me to find a place where the relationships are the most authentic, organic, and life giving. This is a much healthier approach for finding a church.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
tuesday reflection for week 5
At one point in time, two women fell in love. Not the kind of sisterly love, but they became the kind of lovers that most people picture between a man and a woman. People in our society would label these women either "gay" or "lesbian." Both women were ostracized in their city for being lesbians. They were even mistreated by many of the churches in town where the pastors and people talked about love, grace, and forgiveness that goes beyond all boundaries. As these two women became closer and closer, they decided that they wanted to fully commitment to each other. They wanted to get married. They were denied by church after church and pastor after pastor. Truly, I say to you that in the kingdom of God these two women will be able to fully express their love and commitment to one another without being ostracized.
If Jesus were alive today, would this be the kind of thing that he would be saying to us? I never realized that Jesus' message was so controversial and revolutionary to the people in Israel. He came as a prophet teaching stories in which the outcome of the story is opposite of what was expected. He came as a political revolutionist, a prophet, riding on a donkey, a symbol for peace not war, preaching about a new kingdom in which the poor and weak prevail. He came redeeming ties between the poor and the rich, subverting the table fellowship laws, and the sanctification laws of the Temple. He completely flipped the world view of the Israelites upside down.
The story that began this blog was hard for me to write because I do not agree with the lifestyle of the people in the story. However, this is the kind of story that would be turning the heads of religious leaders everywhere if a long awaited messiah came preaching it. We would label this messiah heretical. I am not trying to argue that Jesus would tell such a story to us today. He might tell it or he might not. However, I do know he used the language and concepts of the time in order to get his message across. What kind of language would Jesus use today? Would he talk about environmental problems? Would he talk against corporate power? Would he speak against our beloved president? Would he talk about homosexuals? I do not know for sure, but the chances of these topics and others coming up in his teachings are pretty high.
At one point in time, two women fell in love. Not the kind of sisterly love, but they became the kind of lovers that most people picture between a man and a woman. People in our society would label these women either "gay" or "lesbian." Both women were ostracized in their city for being lesbians. They were even mistreated by many of the churches in town where the pastors and people talked about love, grace, and forgiveness that goes beyond all boundaries. As these two women became closer and closer, they decided that they wanted to fully commitment to each other. They wanted to get married. They were denied by church after church and pastor after pastor. Truly, I say to you that in the kingdom of God these two women will be able to fully express their love and commitment to one another without being ostracized.
If Jesus were alive today, would this be the kind of thing that he would be saying to us? I never realized that Jesus' message was so controversial and revolutionary to the people in Israel. He came as a prophet teaching stories in which the outcome of the story is opposite of what was expected. He came as a political revolutionist, a prophet, riding on a donkey, a symbol for peace not war, preaching about a new kingdom in which the poor and weak prevail. He came redeeming ties between the poor and the rich, subverting the table fellowship laws, and the sanctification laws of the Temple. He completely flipped the world view of the Israelites upside down.
The story that began this blog was hard for me to write because I do not agree with the lifestyle of the people in the story. However, this is the kind of story that would be turning the heads of religious leaders everywhere if a long awaited messiah came preaching it. We would label this messiah heretical. I am not trying to argue that Jesus would tell such a story to us today. He might tell it or he might not. However, I do know he used the language and concepts of the time in order to get his message across. What kind of language would Jesus use today? Would he talk about environmental problems? Would he talk against corporate power? Would he speak against our beloved president? Would he talk about homosexuals? I do not know for sure, but the chances of these topics and others coming up in his teachings are pretty high.
Monday, October 23, 2006
BOOK REVIEW: Klein, Naomi. Fences and Windows. New York: Picadora, 2002.
Walter Wink states, “The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed.” If you doubt the corruption of the powers and their need of redemption, Fences and Windows will change your mind. Naomi Klein, an award-winning journalist and internationally known columnist, rose to the forefront of the globalization debate with her book No Logo. Following No Logo, Fences and Windows takes you further into the rollercoaster ride of the current state of the globalization issue affecting our world.
Through this collection of columns, essays, and speeches about globalization, Klein exposes the fences and windows in our world. Only through pushing up against and stretching the barriers, that is, the fences, that the government has placed on public resources can we begin “opening up windows, breathing deeply, [and] tasting freedom” (XXVII). Despite the mess our governments have created through erecting fences, Klein shows that change is possible through a bottom-up transformation.
Klein has two focuses: the corruption of the powers through putting up fences and the hope of change from grassroots activist groups. To illustrate the corruption of the powers, Klein notes that our current globalization plan has had negative effects around the world. These effects include: “mass migration of people, widening wealth disparities, [and] weakening political power” (194). Furthermore, Klein writes, “Globalization was suppose to be about global openness and integration…[but] our societies are steadily becoming more closed, more guarded, requiring ever more security and military might just to maintain status quo” (81). This state of affairs must change.
Klein focuses on grassroots activist groups for signs of change. These activists are often labeled as violent anarchists who are anti-globalization, anti-progress, and anti-democracy. Klein begs to differ. These activists are a group of people ranging from university students to steelworkers who could be labeled anti-corporate because they “[oppose] the logic that what’s good for business—less regulation, more mobility, more access—will trickle down into good news for everybody else” (4). They do not want to rid of globalization; rather, they want a new globalization that focuses on having a “global ethical approach to the environment, labor relations, and monetary policy” (80).
In a world run by power hungry, money driven governments, corporate power, and privatization of goods, these activist groups argue that “decentralizing power and building community-based decision-making…is essential to countering the might of multinational corporations” (16). The activists empower the people “to give birth to a unified movement for holistic social, economic, and political change” (14). This movement involves taking a holistic approach to security (118), decommodifying our relationships (127), binding the global and local initiatives (244), and making room for everyone’s voice, “showing that it is possible to challenge imperialism while embracing plurality, progress, and deep democracy” (245).
Klein’s Fences and Windows is difficult to follow because of the multifarious articles and essays. You have to search for the connection between articles in order to find the bigger picture in Klein’s writing. If this connection is made, Fences and Windows is an awakening for many people because apathy and sloth are no longer options. Although Christ’s commands are never mentioned, his tactic of agitating the people resonates throughout Klein’s stories, and her bottom-up approach echoes that of Claiborne and Linthicum. Now is the time for all of us to cry out to the powers, “Ya basta! Enough is enough” (215) because history is ours to make.
Walter Wink states, “The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed.” If you doubt the corruption of the powers and their need of redemption, Fences and Windows will change your mind. Naomi Klein, an award-winning journalist and internationally known columnist, rose to the forefront of the globalization debate with her book No Logo. Following No Logo, Fences and Windows takes you further into the rollercoaster ride of the current state of the globalization issue affecting our world.
Through this collection of columns, essays, and speeches about globalization, Klein exposes the fences and windows in our world. Only through pushing up against and stretching the barriers, that is, the fences, that the government has placed on public resources can we begin “opening up windows, breathing deeply, [and] tasting freedom” (XXVII). Despite the mess our governments have created through erecting fences, Klein shows that change is possible through a bottom-up transformation.
Klein has two focuses: the corruption of the powers through putting up fences and the hope of change from grassroots activist groups. To illustrate the corruption of the powers, Klein notes that our current globalization plan has had negative effects around the world. These effects include: “mass migration of people, widening wealth disparities, [and] weakening political power” (194). Furthermore, Klein writes, “Globalization was suppose to be about global openness and integration…[but] our societies are steadily becoming more closed, more guarded, requiring ever more security and military might just to maintain status quo” (81). This state of affairs must change.
Klein focuses on grassroots activist groups for signs of change. These activists are often labeled as violent anarchists who are anti-globalization, anti-progress, and anti-democracy. Klein begs to differ. These activists are a group of people ranging from university students to steelworkers who could be labeled anti-corporate because they “[oppose] the logic that what’s good for business—less regulation, more mobility, more access—will trickle down into good news for everybody else” (4). They do not want to rid of globalization; rather, they want a new globalization that focuses on having a “global ethical approach to the environment, labor relations, and monetary policy” (80).
In a world run by power hungry, money driven governments, corporate power, and privatization of goods, these activist groups argue that “decentralizing power and building community-based decision-making…is essential to countering the might of multinational corporations” (16). The activists empower the people “to give birth to a unified movement for holistic social, economic, and political change” (14). This movement involves taking a holistic approach to security (118), decommodifying our relationships (127), binding the global and local initiatives (244), and making room for everyone’s voice, “showing that it is possible to challenge imperialism while embracing plurality, progress, and deep democracy” (245).
Klein’s Fences and Windows is difficult to follow because of the multifarious articles and essays. You have to search for the connection between articles in order to find the bigger picture in Klein’s writing. If this connection is made, Fences and Windows is an awakening for many people because apathy and sloth are no longer options. Although Christ’s commands are never mentioned, his tactic of agitating the people resonates throughout Klein’s stories, and her bottom-up approach echoes that of Claiborne and Linthicum. Now is the time for all of us to cry out to the powers, “Ya basta! Enough is enough” (215) because history is ours to make.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
thursday reflection for week 4
Church : World :: Jesus : Israel.
I'm sorry if that analogy reminded you think of the SAT. If it made you vomit a little in your mouth, then I am sorry. Even more apologies if you had to swallow it. AGHH! I hated the SAT, largely because of the analogies, but this analogy speaks some truth in how the church should operate. The main focus of Jesus' mission was the kingdom of God and pointing to people toward it. Likewise, the church should—heavy emphasis on "should" because even on a good day, the church probably does a poor job of this—point to the kingdom of God that Jesus established on earth. The church should be a conducive place of participating in this kingdom.
I stress the words "point to" and "participating" because for a long time I talked about the church's responsibility of establishing the kingdom of God in places that it has not been. Read the other posts below and you will find that I used this language. However, a discussion with my ethics professor and our class today made me realize that the kingdom is, and Christians are to point to the fact that it is. Instead of saying we establish the kingdom of God in places it has not been, we can begin saying that we show others how to participate in the already established kingdom of God. The kingdom has been and is in the practice, but we show how to participate in that kingdom. This may be arguing semantics, but this argument makes a huge difference in our approach. The kingdom is everywhere. We need to start pointing to and participating in it.
Church : World :: Jesus : Israel.
I'm sorry if that analogy reminded you think of the SAT. If it made you vomit a little in your mouth, then I am sorry. Even more apologies if you had to swallow it. AGHH! I hated the SAT, largely because of the analogies, but this analogy speaks some truth in how the church should operate. The main focus of Jesus' mission was the kingdom of God and pointing to people toward it. Likewise, the church should—heavy emphasis on "should" because even on a good day, the church probably does a poor job of this—point to the kingdom of God that Jesus established on earth. The church should be a conducive place of participating in this kingdom.
I stress the words "point to" and "participating" because for a long time I talked about the church's responsibility of establishing the kingdom of God in places that it has not been. Read the other posts below and you will find that I used this language. However, a discussion with my ethics professor and our class today made me realize that the kingdom is, and Christians are to point to the fact that it is. Instead of saying we establish the kingdom of God in places it has not been, we can begin saying that we show others how to participate in the already established kingdom of God. The kingdom has been and is in the practice, but we show how to participate in that kingdom. This may be arguing semantics, but this argument makes a huge difference in our approach. The kingdom is everywhere. We need to start pointing to and participating in it.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
tuesday reflection for week 4
The church I attened in college, University Baptist Church, was one of the first churches in the late nineties to begin doing things differently. Years later the group of churches who were doing things differently came together under the name "emerging churches." Describing my church in Waco to other people was always difficult. I would usually end with, "You just have to come see for yourself." The emerging chruches are difficult to characterize. However, from Ryan's lecture today, I think I can give some broad characteristics of emerging churches:
The church I attened in college, University Baptist Church, was one of the first churches in the late nineties to begin doing things differently. Years later the group of churches who were doing things differently came together under the name "emerging churches." Describing my church in Waco to other people was always difficult. I would usually end with, "You just have to come see for yourself." The emerging chruches are difficult to characterize. However, from Ryan's lecture today, I think I can give some broad characteristics of emerging churches:
- The dominant theology is the concept of the kingdom of God as the redemption of earth inwhich we particpate.
- Social justice issues are written all over the people of the church community.
- The church looks like the culture around it.
Monday, October 16, 2006
BOOK REVIEW: Linthicum, Robert. Transforming Power. Illinois: InterVarsity Press: 2003.
Following the thoughts and ideas of Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, and the contributors of Transforming the Powers, Robert Linthicum, in his work Transforming Power, provides a practical approach to subverting the power used in societies. Linthicum is the president of Partners in Urban Transformation, which dedicates its work to empowering churches and communities, and has experience in urban ministries throughout the world. Linthicum’s field experience bleeds through every page of Transforming Power, giving his writing a personal touch. As you read, you realize that Linthicum is not simply postulating ideas for people to follow. Rather, he is giving ideas that have worked for him through the years of empowering people to change their communities.
Similar to Shane Claiborne, Linthicum advocates a bottom-up approach for changing communities and the systems in a society. Linthicum grounds his approach with an “Iron Rule” derived from the prophet Nehemiah: “Never do for others what they can do for themselves” (93). Linthicum argues that Christians need not fear using power in order to shape our communities and world. He believes, “Whoever you are, you can’t hope to bring about systemic change if you don’t know how to use power” (13). Thus, in this book Linthicum provides an “articulated and acted-out theology of power,” derived from a biblical framework, through which Christians can make systemic change in their communities” (12). This use of power begins and ends with relationship or “relational power."
Linthicum defines power as “the ability, capacity, and willingness of a person, a group of people, or an institution to act” (81). Thus, power is not evil or good in itself, but value is given to power in how it is used (Ibid). According to Linthicum, our world operates with “unilateral power”—a “power over the people” (81). Instead of unilateral power, Christians must learn to use “relational power” in the hands of God (83). This power is a “power with [the people]” that is “pleasing to God and [transforms]” the people (82,83). Linthicum asserts that Jesus used this kind of power to establish the kingdom of God on earth. As imitators of Jesus’ life, Christians take part in continuing this kingdom ministry Jesus began (69).
Based on the examples of Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Paul, and Jesus, Linthicum provides practical steps for Churches and Christians to take in order to continue the ministry of Jesus. These steps include: becoming God’s presence in the community, praying for the community, practicing faith through action, and brining a new social reality to the community through proclaiming the good news (75-77, chapter 6).
Although Linthicum’s approach is heartfelt and practical, at times he seems to be providing a universal step-by-step process that ensures success in transforming power. In doing this, he neglects the particular situations that people find themselves when wanting to effect change in their society. A person’s context is essential, and Linthicum almost looks beyond that.
Nonetheless, if you have ever asked yourself, “How can I make a difference and change things even though I am not in a position of power?” you should read Transforming Power. Linthicum advocates the use of power, but his approach does not require the position of power in a society because power begins with the people. Power to the people!
Following the thoughts and ideas of Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, and the contributors of Transforming the Powers, Robert Linthicum, in his work Transforming Power, provides a practical approach to subverting the power used in societies. Linthicum is the president of Partners in Urban Transformation, which dedicates its work to empowering churches and communities, and has experience in urban ministries throughout the world. Linthicum’s field experience bleeds through every page of Transforming Power, giving his writing a personal touch. As you read, you realize that Linthicum is not simply postulating ideas for people to follow. Rather, he is giving ideas that have worked for him through the years of empowering people to change their communities.
Similar to Shane Claiborne, Linthicum advocates a bottom-up approach for changing communities and the systems in a society. Linthicum grounds his approach with an “Iron Rule” derived from the prophet Nehemiah: “Never do for others what they can do for themselves” (93). Linthicum argues that Christians need not fear using power in order to shape our communities and world. He believes, “Whoever you are, you can’t hope to bring about systemic change if you don’t know how to use power” (13). Thus, in this book Linthicum provides an “articulated and acted-out theology of power,” derived from a biblical framework, through which Christians can make systemic change in their communities” (12). This use of power begins and ends with relationship or “relational power."
Linthicum defines power as “the ability, capacity, and willingness of a person, a group of people, or an institution to act” (81). Thus, power is not evil or good in itself, but value is given to power in how it is used (Ibid). According to Linthicum, our world operates with “unilateral power”—a “power over the people” (81). Instead of unilateral power, Christians must learn to use “relational power” in the hands of God (83). This power is a “power with [the people]” that is “pleasing to God and [transforms]” the people (82,83). Linthicum asserts that Jesus used this kind of power to establish the kingdom of God on earth. As imitators of Jesus’ life, Christians take part in continuing this kingdom ministry Jesus began (69).
Based on the examples of Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Paul, and Jesus, Linthicum provides practical steps for Churches and Christians to take in order to continue the ministry of Jesus. These steps include: becoming God’s presence in the community, praying for the community, practicing faith through action, and brining a new social reality to the community through proclaiming the good news (75-77, chapter 6).
Although Linthicum’s approach is heartfelt and practical, at times he seems to be providing a universal step-by-step process that ensures success in transforming power. In doing this, he neglects the particular situations that people find themselves when wanting to effect change in their society. A person’s context is essential, and Linthicum almost looks beyond that.
Nonetheless, if you have ever asked yourself, “How can I make a difference and change things even though I am not in a position of power?” you should read Transforming Power. Linthicum advocates the use of power, but his approach does not require the position of power in a society because power begins with the people. Power to the people!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
thursday reflection for week 3
After reading Transforming the Powers and hearing Ryan's lecture on Walter Wink's theory that all powers have both an outer and inner dimension, I have begun to wonder if this is a dangerous dualism. I am always hesitant to full on agree with someone who thinks dualistically—even though I too think dualistically (one the downfalls of Descarte and Modernity)—because I think this kind of thinking does more damage than good.
I have learned from our reading that Wink emphasizes the unity of both dimensions because we see the unity in our material world. From what I understand, we cannot separate one from the other. Due to this inability to separate the two dimensions, I think Wink hopes to prevent a dualistic perspective. However, how can we know that these systems have these two dimensions? Does there need to be proof of the two dimensions?
I think Wink saying this: "Every power on earth—anything on earth really—is fully spiritual, but, for us, this spirituality is instantiated in the material world; if this were not the case, then we would not be able to perceive and interact with it. As a result, two realms exist, but they only exist when bound together." If this is what he is saying, then I feel this avoids dualism. If not, what is he saying?
After reading Transforming the Powers and hearing Ryan's lecture on Walter Wink's theory that all powers have both an outer and inner dimension, I have begun to wonder if this is a dangerous dualism. I am always hesitant to full on agree with someone who thinks dualistically—even though I too think dualistically (one the downfalls of Descarte and Modernity)—because I think this kind of thinking does more damage than good.
I have learned from our reading that Wink emphasizes the unity of both dimensions because we see the unity in our material world. From what I understand, we cannot separate one from the other. Due to this inability to separate the two dimensions, I think Wink hopes to prevent a dualistic perspective. However, how can we know that these systems have these two dimensions? Does there need to be proof of the two dimensions?
I think Wink saying this: "Every power on earth—anything on earth really—is fully spiritual, but, for us, this spirituality is instantiated in the material world; if this were not the case, then we would not be able to perceive and interact with it. As a result, two realms exist, but they only exist when bound together." If this is what he is saying, then I feel this avoids dualism. If not, what is he saying?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
tuesday reflection for week 3
Ryan helped me better define and characterize two things I have struggled with for the past four years have. First, I have always struggled with the balance between focus on community and focus on individualism. Modernity and the Enlightenment gave us this individualistic focus that we all fall prey to. Postmodernity stresses the social aspect or communal aspect, almost to a fault. We are not soley made up of our communities or social interactions, but they tremendously shape who we are.
When looking at a community it is not simply a group of people, it is a group of individuals with their own idiosyncrasies that make each of them unique and should not be lost. Where is the balance? Ryan's practice theory provides this balance. This theory says that as individuals we have power, but this power is always in a context. Thus, the individual is important with his or her uniqueness, but this uniqueness comes fully alive within the communal aspect. Great!
Secondly, I have struggled with the idea of having a criteria for what areas or activities of culture are beyond redemption. We say that activity "y" is redeemable, but activity "z" is not. What is our criteria? I have never had a good criteria, I still don't, but Ryan gave a good postfoundational solution for this struggle. He said that as certain practices become more dominating and more oppressive in culture, then the practices become more irredeemable. This is great because it does not give concrete criteria to mark off to ensure that we are able to redeem a part of culture. Instead, it gives us a starting place with no defined boundaries, and we can work from this. Mystery is maintained in this model. I love it.
Ryan helped me better define and characterize two things I have struggled with for the past four years have. First, I have always struggled with the balance between focus on community and focus on individualism. Modernity and the Enlightenment gave us this individualistic focus that we all fall prey to. Postmodernity stresses the social aspect or communal aspect, almost to a fault. We are not soley made up of our communities or social interactions, but they tremendously shape who we are.
When looking at a community it is not simply a group of people, it is a group of individuals with their own idiosyncrasies that make each of them unique and should not be lost. Where is the balance? Ryan's practice theory provides this balance. This theory says that as individuals we have power, but this power is always in a context. Thus, the individual is important with his or her uniqueness, but this uniqueness comes fully alive within the communal aspect. Great!
Secondly, I have struggled with the idea of having a criteria for what areas or activities of culture are beyond redemption. We say that activity "y" is redeemable, but activity "z" is not. What is our criteria? I have never had a good criteria, I still don't, but Ryan gave a good postfoundational solution for this struggle. He said that as certain practices become more dominating and more oppressive in culture, then the practices become more irredeemable. This is great because it does not give concrete criteria to mark off to ensure that we are able to redeem a part of culture. Instead, it gives us a starting place with no defined boundaries, and we can work from this. Mystery is maintained in this model. I love it.
Monday, October 09, 2006
BOOK REVIEW: Gingerich, Ray and Ted Grimsrud Eds. Transforming the Powers. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.
Principalities and Powers? What does this language mean? What are these? Ray Gingerich and Ted Grimsrud, professors at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, successfully provide answers to such questions in their book Transforming the Powers. In this compilation of essays, Gingerich and Grimsrud “offer tribute to [Walter] Wink and…contribute to the ongoing task that he has laid out for us” (6). Walter Wink has been a prominent character in the discussion surrounding the biblical language of the “Principalities and Powers.” Each contributor of Transforming the Powers adds to Wink’s idea that “The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed” (2).
In chapter one, Wink sets the tone for the book by arguing that the Powers and every corporate entity have an inner and outer form—“the integral worldview” (21). The inner form of these corporate entities “does not exist apart form its physical manifestations….It is the unity of outer and inner that characterizes our experience of the integral worldview” (22).
Addressing both the inner and outer forms of any corporate entity is essential for Wink because “any attempt to transform a social system without addressing both its spirituality and its outer forms is doomed to failure” (2). Transforming the Powers addresses the inner and outer forms of the Powers in all areas of our society so that we can begin redeeming the Powers. Each contributor takes a multi-discipline approach in addressing the Powers. For example, Walter Wink combines Physics and Psychology with Theology and Nancy Murphy connects epistemology with a solution for redeeming the Powers.
Regardless of each contributors approach, the consensus for redeeming these Powers in our society is two fold. First, our approach should be holistic. Therefore, we must approach personal and corporate ethics from the narrative of Jesus (Stassen, chapter 11), depart from modernist individualism (Murphy, chapter 6), and begin to recognize that we are connected in all areas of life (Wink, chapter 1 and Grimsrud, chapter 4). Secondly, we should support pacifism—upholding the values of “nonretaliation” (Swartley, chapter 10). This pacifistic approach helps restrain our will to power (91, 160) so that we can engage and subvert the powers.
This holistic, pacifistic approach to the Powers is foreign to our domination driven society. However, if we adopted this approach we could begin pulling each other out of the holes we have dug for ourselves. I worry that our involvement with the red tape of our culture will hinder us from critically examining both forms of the Powers. Gingerich intimates this question when he asserts that the Powers have become invisible to us because “having become enmeshed in them, we are unable to distance ourselves from them sufficiently so as to get them into focus” (119). Perhaps our only hope for recognizing the Powers is Christ’s suffering and death (101). Beyond this, we do not have much hope.
In our multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith society, people are often marginalized by the concentration power. Glen Stassen asserts that amidst such a society, “we need a public ethic of justice if we are to make our witness. We need to be able to speak a language that communicates in multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith society” (171). This type of ethic values and communicates to people of all areas of life, from the rich to the poor.
Principalities and Powers? What does this language mean? What are these? Ray Gingerich and Ted Grimsrud, professors at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, successfully provide answers to such questions in their book Transforming the Powers. In this compilation of essays, Gingerich and Grimsrud “offer tribute to [Walter] Wink and…contribute to the ongoing task that he has laid out for us” (6). Walter Wink has been a prominent character in the discussion surrounding the biblical language of the “Principalities and Powers.” Each contributor of Transforming the Powers adds to Wink’s idea that “The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed” (2).
In chapter one, Wink sets the tone for the book by arguing that the Powers and every corporate entity have an inner and outer form—“the integral worldview” (21). The inner form of these corporate entities “does not exist apart form its physical manifestations….It is the unity of outer and inner that characterizes our experience of the integral worldview” (22).
Addressing both the inner and outer forms of any corporate entity is essential for Wink because “any attempt to transform a social system without addressing both its spirituality and its outer forms is doomed to failure” (2). Transforming the Powers addresses the inner and outer forms of the Powers in all areas of our society so that we can begin redeeming the Powers. Each contributor takes a multi-discipline approach in addressing the Powers. For example, Walter Wink combines Physics and Psychology with Theology and Nancy Murphy connects epistemology with a solution for redeeming the Powers.
Regardless of each contributors approach, the consensus for redeeming these Powers in our society is two fold. First, our approach should be holistic. Therefore, we must approach personal and corporate ethics from the narrative of Jesus (Stassen, chapter 11), depart from modernist individualism (Murphy, chapter 6), and begin to recognize that we are connected in all areas of life (Wink, chapter 1 and Grimsrud, chapter 4). Secondly, we should support pacifism—upholding the values of “nonretaliation” (Swartley, chapter 10). This pacifistic approach helps restrain our will to power (91, 160) so that we can engage and subvert the powers.
This holistic, pacifistic approach to the Powers is foreign to our domination driven society. However, if we adopted this approach we could begin pulling each other out of the holes we have dug for ourselves. I worry that our involvement with the red tape of our culture will hinder us from critically examining both forms of the Powers. Gingerich intimates this question when he asserts that the Powers have become invisible to us because “having become enmeshed in them, we are unable to distance ourselves from them sufficiently so as to get them into focus” (119). Perhaps our only hope for recognizing the Powers is Christ’s suffering and death (101). Beyond this, we do not have much hope.
In our multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith society, people are often marginalized by the concentration power. Glen Stassen asserts that amidst such a society, “we need a public ethic of justice if we are to make our witness. We need to be able to speak a language that communicates in multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith society” (171). This type of ethic values and communicates to people of all areas of life, from the rich to the poor.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
thursday reflection for week 2
I try to support the "mom and pop" businesses in whatever town I am living or visiting. I am motivated to do this because I think the larger corporations do more damage than good to local economies. After sitting in class today where we talked about mass media and the views people have held about mass media since the 1940's, I have realized that my supporting local businesses is my way of saying that mass media causes people to lose their uniqueness.
In this way, I would have to agree with the views of Adorno and Horkheimer that Ryan explained in class. These guys said that mass media produces social conformity, with which I agree. I disagree with Adorno and Horkheimer's solution: supporting the high arts as in the high culture. Obviously, if I like to support the "mom and pop" business, then my solution would be to support the local art. The struggle is connecting this with the church.
On an ecumenical level, my reactions could have a negative effect, and this is what I struggle with. I think that mass media detracts from our uniqueness, and causes us all to become conformists—an assertion that seems to support individualism. However, community is essential within the church because we are not autonomous beings who operate on a purly objective level; we are affected by our history and the people we interact with on a day to day basis, our community. Yet, individuals make up communities, and the diversity of individuals in a community adds beautiful things to that community. There seems to be a fine line between focusing too much on our individual selves, by avoiding mass media, and focusing on the community aspect of church. I struggle with this balancing act.
I try to support the "mom and pop" businesses in whatever town I am living or visiting. I am motivated to do this because I think the larger corporations do more damage than good to local economies. After sitting in class today where we talked about mass media and the views people have held about mass media since the 1940's, I have realized that my supporting local businesses is my way of saying that mass media causes people to lose their uniqueness.
In this way, I would have to agree with the views of Adorno and Horkheimer that Ryan explained in class. These guys said that mass media produces social conformity, with which I agree. I disagree with Adorno and Horkheimer's solution: supporting the high arts as in the high culture. Obviously, if I like to support the "mom and pop" business, then my solution would be to support the local art. The struggle is connecting this with the church.
On an ecumenical level, my reactions could have a negative effect, and this is what I struggle with. I think that mass media detracts from our uniqueness, and causes us all to become conformists—an assertion that seems to support individualism. However, community is essential within the church because we are not autonomous beings who operate on a purly objective level; we are affected by our history and the people we interact with on a day to day basis, our community. Yet, individuals make up communities, and the diversity of individuals in a community adds beautiful things to that community. There seems to be a fine line between focusing too much on our individual selves, by avoiding mass media, and focusing on the community aspect of church. I struggle with this balancing act.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
tuesday reflection for week 2
Mass media came about in the 1920's and 1930's. During this time, society in the West was split into two main classes due to the industrial revolution: the high class and the working/low class. The high class folks feared that the working class folks would be influenced by the mass media and, thus, revolt. Consquently, the high class folks set out to educate the working class to encourage them not to revolt. Unfortunately, the high class folks' tactic for educating the people was to educate them to become high class. They did not respect the working class as themselves. The high class simply wanted to create more high class folks. Obviously this did not work.
I recap this part of class today because I wonder if we today are still attempting to do this. We want to redeem "the good" parts of culture. However, do we want to redeem these good parts of culture to higher status because we think they will truly be good once they are at a status of our liking? Or, do we want to redeem these good parts of culture simply because they are good? I do not know. I hope we are doing the latter. However, the dualism that has been prevalent through history—the separation of the classes—is still dominant today, and this makes me think we do the former.
This dualism acts on different levels today. For example, some of academia does not respect the writings and thoughts of women. Some women writers in academia change their name from Jane Doe to J. Doe when submitting works for publication because they do not want the editors and publishers to read their material with presuppositions based on gender. Women in academia should not have to do this. I hope we redeem things in culture simply because they are good and need to be redeemed as what they are, not what we want them to be.
Mass media came about in the 1920's and 1930's. During this time, society in the West was split into two main classes due to the industrial revolution: the high class and the working/low class. The high class folks feared that the working class folks would be influenced by the mass media and, thus, revolt. Consquently, the high class folks set out to educate the working class to encourage them not to revolt. Unfortunately, the high class folks' tactic for educating the people was to educate them to become high class. They did not respect the working class as themselves. The high class simply wanted to create more high class folks. Obviously this did not work.
I recap this part of class today because I wonder if we today are still attempting to do this. We want to redeem "the good" parts of culture. However, do we want to redeem these good parts of culture to higher status because we think they will truly be good once they are at a status of our liking? Or, do we want to redeem these good parts of culture simply because they are good? I do not know. I hope we are doing the latter. However, the dualism that has been prevalent through history—the separation of the classes—is still dominant today, and this makes me think we do the former.
This dualism acts on different levels today. For example, some of academia does not respect the writings and thoughts of women. Some women writers in academia change their name from Jane Doe to J. Doe when submitting works for publication because they do not want the editors and publishers to read their material with presuppositions based on gender. Women in academia should not have to do this. I hope we redeem things in culture simply because they are good and need to be redeemed as what they are, not what we want them to be.
Monday, October 02, 2006
BOOK REVIEW: Claiborne, Shane. The Irresistible Revolution. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. 2006.
Shane Claiborne prefers not to be labeled by contemporary culture because he feels that he does not fit any of the boxes that people attempt to put him. However, due to his lifestyle and beliefs, labels are inevitable. He accepts that he is “an ordinary radical” (20, 130). Radical because he is returning to the root of Christianity, and ordinary because many people during Jesus’ time lived in this same way (130). Therefore, the term ordinary must assist the term radical in defining his lifestyle. Why does contemporary culture consider Claiborne’s life radical?
Claiborne attempts to live out Christ’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. In order to do this, he and some friends started an experiment in Philadelphia called Simple Way. Simple Way is an incarnational ministry in which participants live with the poor and oppressed of Philadelphia, attempting to “love God, love people, and follow Jesus” (121).
Drawing from his experiences at Simple Way and around the world, Claiborne has written The Irresistible Revolution. In this book, he illuminates some problems of Christianity, and articulates a solution for them. Claiborne argues that we begin taking seriously Christ’s commands through little acts of love and grace on a relational level, and through this bottom-up revolution we set “the oppressed and…oppressors free” (266) with a counter-cultural way of life. Claiborne supports this thesis through three major themes throughout his book: the rescue of Christianity from culture, the purpose of the church, and living a kingdom life.
Claiborne maintains that the Christian community needs to confess its sins of “getting drunk on the cocktails of culture” (357). The line “where Christianity ends and America begins” (193) has become thin. To thicken this line, Claiborne has begun loving, forgiving, and showing grace to marginalized people—foreign ideas to Americans who keep a safe distance from people who are unlike themselves. By rescuing the church from culture, Claiborne defines a new purpose for the church.
The church should be a community of activists and lovers who “love God, love people, and follow Jesus” (296, 121), talk about orthodoxy and orthopraxy (147-148), and support people above issues (293). The church is the model for living a kingdom life.
Claiborne believes that Christians play a monumental part in bringing the kingdom of God to earth because we are the “flesh and blood of Jesus alive in the world” (79). He believes invoking the kingdom of God on earth demands a holistic lifestyle that involves service, love, grace, finances, and politics.
Claiborne presents a convicting argument for Christians to live a holistic, sacrificial, and kingdom life. Additionally, his missiological approach to ministry is innovative for the power hungry society we embody. However, he does leave things open ended. The emerging church focuses its energy on finding God in areas of culture that people in the past labeled Godless. This focus brings the kingdom of God to places it has never been. However, Claiborne asserts that Christianity is counter-cultural, and does not address this pertinent issue.
Additionally, Claiborne gives little advice for people who are enmeshed in our affluent society. If Christians play a role entreating the kingdom of God to earth, then the affluent areas of society need a contextual, prophetic voice in order to initiate this new kind of life, right? Claiborne’s answer is unclear.
Shane Claiborne prefers not to be labeled by contemporary culture because he feels that he does not fit any of the boxes that people attempt to put him. However, due to his lifestyle and beliefs, labels are inevitable. He accepts that he is “an ordinary radical” (20, 130). Radical because he is returning to the root of Christianity, and ordinary because many people during Jesus’ time lived in this same way (130). Therefore, the term ordinary must assist the term radical in defining his lifestyle. Why does contemporary culture consider Claiborne’s life radical?
Claiborne attempts to live out Christ’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. In order to do this, he and some friends started an experiment in Philadelphia called Simple Way. Simple Way is an incarnational ministry in which participants live with the poor and oppressed of Philadelphia, attempting to “love God, love people, and follow Jesus” (121).
Drawing from his experiences at Simple Way and around the world, Claiborne has written The Irresistible Revolution. In this book, he illuminates some problems of Christianity, and articulates a solution for them. Claiborne argues that we begin taking seriously Christ’s commands through little acts of love and grace on a relational level, and through this bottom-up revolution we set “the oppressed and…oppressors free” (266) with a counter-cultural way of life. Claiborne supports this thesis through three major themes throughout his book: the rescue of Christianity from culture, the purpose of the church, and living a kingdom life.
Claiborne maintains that the Christian community needs to confess its sins of “getting drunk on the cocktails of culture” (357). The line “where Christianity ends and America begins” (193) has become thin. To thicken this line, Claiborne has begun loving, forgiving, and showing grace to marginalized people—foreign ideas to Americans who keep a safe distance from people who are unlike themselves. By rescuing the church from culture, Claiborne defines a new purpose for the church.
The church should be a community of activists and lovers who “love God, love people, and follow Jesus” (296, 121), talk about orthodoxy and orthopraxy (147-148), and support people above issues (293). The church is the model for living a kingdom life.
Claiborne believes that Christians play a monumental part in bringing the kingdom of God to earth because we are the “flesh and blood of Jesus alive in the world” (79). He believes invoking the kingdom of God on earth demands a holistic lifestyle that involves service, love, grace, finances, and politics.
Claiborne presents a convicting argument for Christians to live a holistic, sacrificial, and kingdom life. Additionally, his missiological approach to ministry is innovative for the power hungry society we embody. However, he does leave things open ended. The emerging church focuses its energy on finding God in areas of culture that people in the past labeled Godless. This focus brings the kingdom of God to places it has never been. However, Claiborne asserts that Christianity is counter-cultural, and does not address this pertinent issue.
Additionally, Claiborne gives little advice for people who are enmeshed in our affluent society. If Christians play a role entreating the kingdom of God to earth, then the affluent areas of society need a contextual, prophetic voice in order to initiate this new kind of life, right? Claiborne’s answer is unclear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
