This House of Bishops began with Bp. Ian Douglas of Connecticut pointing out that we would be dealing with a seemingly wide array of issues from immigration to gay inclusion. But he suggested they are all tied together in that they are part of the changing context in which we do ministry. So he invited us to ask the basic missiological question of contextual theology. Let me unpack that church jargon. Contextual theology is the study of how doctrines are shaped by the situation in which they arise. Missiology is the part of theology that deals with the mission.
So what is the basic question of mission in our context? Someone (I forget who) made the profoundly important observation that “The church does not have a mission. God has a mission in which the Church participates.” The question then is not what our mission is in this new cultural context. The question is “What is God up to?” We are not the ones changing the context. God is. So what is God doing and how can we cooperate?
Yesterday, we dealt with evangelism in general. Today we dealt the Immigration Reform and evangelism with Latino/ Hispanic people. So immigration:
We all have our stories. One of our Nevada Episcopalians who supports Arizona Bill 1070 tells the story of an American citizen rancher who was killed by a drug dealer who came here illegally from Mexico. My story is different. When I was 25, an undocumented worker, at risk to herself and her family, saved my life from two American citizens who had just robbed me and were bent on killing me. Our stories are bound to shape our attitude.
We did not deal with the issue as theologically as I would wish. The Bible Study was not well focused. The texts were not well chosen. We do not do as good a job as we ought in developing the theology behind our social justice stands. This may be why a the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just reported that a very large percentage of Americans say their political convictions on abortion and same sex relationships are shaped by their religious convictions, but hardly any base their views on Immigration on their religion. Yet, the only references to same sex relationships in the entire Jewish law are in 2 verses of Leviticus (actually one verse repeated) while Leviticus alone commands the welcoming of the alien 37 times. The alien seeking asylum and opportunity is a central theme – going from the wandering Abraham, to his descendants indentured in Egypt, to their escape into Canaan – all the way to the Holy Family – Jesus born in Judah instead of his native Galilee, the flight into Egypt, and so on. We did hear one theological statement that is central. I forget who said it. The alien, the sojourner is the “other” who we must dare to know and befriend if we are to befriend ourselves and know ourselves in Christ. The alien spiritually completes us. We needed to develop that much further.
We noted that no one worries much about immigration during times of prosperity, but during hard times we look for someone to scapegoat. That is a major theological issue. Rene Girard argues that Judaism and Christianity are the great spiritual voices speaking against the human impulse to violent blame shifting. That needed more reflection.
What we did learn were some practical and economic considerations. We have 12 million undocumented workers in the US. The cost of deporting them would be $240 billion dollars. That is the deportation alone. The states would then lose most of the $2.4 billion these people pay in taxes, thereby compounding the fiscal crisis in state government. The cost to state government occasioned by the presence of undocumented workers is less than the taxes they pay; so deportation is a net loss to state governments. Undocumented workers have paid $520 billion dollars into the Social Security system which they will never get back. It goes to support us. Economically, the contributions of undocumented workers are a benefit to middle class citizens with high school degrees, and a detriment only to those who have not completed high school. The HOB media brief for today reported:
“Joe Rubio, senior organizer of the Valley Interfaith Program presented an overview of political and economic issues. ‘This country deals with this issue every 25-30 years,’ he said. ‘The last time was 1986 with the Immigration Control act signed by President Reagan.’ While it provided amnesty, it did not provide a means for people to come into this country. Arizona is the main way into this country from Mexico and noted that frustration is on all sides. Arizona Bill 1070 was the flashpoint and he predicts the situation will get more dangerous. He pointed out: ‘There is no way we are going to be able to deport 12 million people’. . . .Immigrants work mainly in construction, hospitality, and agricultural industries. Underscoring the complexity of the issue of immigration, he pointed out, is that there is a benefit to a younger immigrant population balancing the aging population of the United States. His suggestions for the future: ‘We need to work on comprehensive immigration reform. We need to bring 12 million people out of the shadows. It needs to be bipartisan.’ He said the passage of the Dream Act would be significant if it passed. The story needs to be changed to show that ‘people are willing to come here, work hard and educate their children. Immigration has always changed the way this country worked, but in a positive way.’”
The last time we reformed the Immigration System with the 1986 Amnesty, it was a substantial boost to the economy and was part of the prosperity of the late 1980s. Economists project that comprehensive immigration reform would add $180 billion to our Gross Domestic Product.
The Dream Act is far short of comprehensive immigration reform. It is just a chance for children. The Dream Act offers the undocumented workers’ children who have learned English, graduated from high school, and kept clean records the chance to become citizens so they will be eligible to attend college and receive financial aid. That way they can become more productive citizens, earning more money and contributing more to society.
There is no legislative proposal for “open borders;” nor is anyone in the House of Bishops advocating that. But there are more human and less humane ways to enforce the immigration laws. The call for comprehensive immigration reform is largely an appeal for more humane enforcement and a chance for 12 million people already here to come out from shadows. A basic consequence for the Church is that since the passage of Arizona Bill 1070, church attendance has dropped dramatically because the undocumented workers are afraid to drive. Children live in fear that when they come home from school, their parents will be gone. Such fear presents a moral and spiritual issue for the church to address.
So, back to Bp. Douglas’s question: “What is God up to?” What is God saying to us with the presence of undocumented workers? What is God inviting us to do?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Live From Phoenix I
Preliminaries: Here's my emotinoal pattern with House of Bishops. For weeks beforehand, I grumble about having to attend. I have work to do in Nevada. Then I get to HOB and immediately realize how lonely my vocation is. Being bishop is like being ET, the only one of my kind for a long, long way. Then I arrive at HOB and begin throwing my arms around and clinging to everyone I see. It's a community of my own kind. Then a few days into it, I remember I am an introvert and all this bonding makes me feel irrationally depressed and utterly out of place. So this time, I did the first step -- grumbled. Now I am happy to be here. But I'm taking the second step slower, pacing myself to avoid the spiritual equivalent of the pancreatic dump that follows a sugar rush. Still it is very good to be with these folks -- an altogether wise and holy assembly. I still feel that I don't quite fit but they accept me anyway.
About not quite fitting, we are staying and meeting at the Ritz Carlton. I am considerably more at home at the Best Western. But I guess the Best Western didn't have room for all of us.
Today, we had a series of presentations on evangelism that actually turned controversial --though this controversy will never make it into the popular press or the Foxy blogs. On the one side we had the Missioner for Congregational Vitality and the Communications Officer for The Episcopal Church. They presented the first edition of the new Evangelism Tool Kit, complete with all sorts of sociological data about what the unchurched are seeking, what they cherish and what they despise from their previous religous experiences, what they think of us before we meet, how they perceive us on first impression, and if they stay, what makes them stay. It was full of surprises and practical, helpful information. This was such a striking contrast to the persuasive and winsome presentations of two academicians at our last HOB who basically said, "It's over. Just close the doors and cheer for the 'spiritual but not religious'." This presentation was pretty darn hopeful in my book.
Then came the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA who was one of the most powerful and persuasive preachers I've heard in a long time. He didn't have any use for the tool kit or sociology or marketing or any of that. He also thought the seekers were seeking the wrong thing and the finders (folks who stayed in the chruch) had found the wrong thing. He insisted that we need to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ which is the best news ever -- but it turns our lives upside down instead of patching them up as many of the seekers would prefer.
So there it was: one group proposing a medium; the other, proposing a message. As for me, I agree 100% with the ELCA PB that our messsage is Jesus. One could read our Episcopal sociology as advocating our vaguely spiritual message of muddle. I am with the Lutheran voice that we need to state our case boldly and without equivocation. However, rejecting 21st Century communication insights is not necessary to a faithful proclamation of the good news.
We need to know how desperate people are to experience grace -- not a dogmatic sermon but a welcome, an unconditional acceptance. In a nutshell, that was the moral of the story in the Evangelism Tool Kit. People need a safe place for themselves and their children. They need uncondtional acceptance, which is what Jesus is all about but churches are not always about. When we church people are feeling secure about our vital statistics, we are apt not to welcome people at all. When we are nervous about our vital statistics, we are apt to latch onto them conditionally, as pew fodder or pledge units. Grace is welcoming people absolutely unconditionally to show them God's love regardless of whether we ever expect to see them again. Paradoxically, that will win more lasting relationships than a sales pitch for "joining our church." And proclaiming Jesus does not mean shouting about a moral or spititual hurdle for people to jump over. "Believe this or die!" It means proclaiming God's infinite mercy made manifest in a human being who shares our life.
The argument over impassioned gospel proclamation versus engaging the culture where it is goes back to Tertullian vs. Cyril of Jerusalem (3rd C) and carried on into the 20th Century theological dispute between Barth and Tillich. It's a generative tension. God bless it. I pray that we will proclaim the gospel boldly and faithfully to the people who are seeking salvation in terms they can hear and embrace until they are embraced by Christ himself.
About not quite fitting, we are staying and meeting at the Ritz Carlton. I am considerably more at home at the Best Western. But I guess the Best Western didn't have room for all of us.
Today, we had a series of presentations on evangelism that actually turned controversial --though this controversy will never make it into the popular press or the Foxy blogs. On the one side we had the Missioner for Congregational Vitality and the Communications Officer for The Episcopal Church. They presented the first edition of the new Evangelism Tool Kit, complete with all sorts of sociological data about what the unchurched are seeking, what they cherish and what they despise from their previous religous experiences, what they think of us before we meet, how they perceive us on first impression, and if they stay, what makes them stay. It was full of surprises and practical, helpful information. This was such a striking contrast to the persuasive and winsome presentations of two academicians at our last HOB who basically said, "It's over. Just close the doors and cheer for the 'spiritual but not religious'." This presentation was pretty darn hopeful in my book.
Then came the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA who was one of the most powerful and persuasive preachers I've heard in a long time. He didn't have any use for the tool kit or sociology or marketing or any of that. He also thought the seekers were seeking the wrong thing and the finders (folks who stayed in the chruch) had found the wrong thing. He insisted that we need to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ which is the best news ever -- but it turns our lives upside down instead of patching them up as many of the seekers would prefer.
So there it was: one group proposing a medium; the other, proposing a message. As for me, I agree 100% with the ELCA PB that our messsage is Jesus. One could read our Episcopal sociology as advocating our vaguely spiritual message of muddle. I am with the Lutheran voice that we need to state our case boldly and without equivocation. However, rejecting 21st Century communication insights is not necessary to a faithful proclamation of the good news.
We need to know how desperate people are to experience grace -- not a dogmatic sermon but a welcome, an unconditional acceptance. In a nutshell, that was the moral of the story in the Evangelism Tool Kit. People need a safe place for themselves and their children. They need uncondtional acceptance, which is what Jesus is all about but churches are not always about. When we church people are feeling secure about our vital statistics, we are apt not to welcome people at all. When we are nervous about our vital statistics, we are apt to latch onto them conditionally, as pew fodder or pledge units. Grace is welcoming people absolutely unconditionally to show them God's love regardless of whether we ever expect to see them again. Paradoxically, that will win more lasting relationships than a sales pitch for "joining our church." And proclaiming Jesus does not mean shouting about a moral or spititual hurdle for people to jump over. "Believe this or die!" It means proclaiming God's infinite mercy made manifest in a human being who shares our life.
The argument over impassioned gospel proclamation versus engaging the culture where it is goes back to Tertullian vs. Cyril of Jerusalem (3rd C) and carried on into the 20th Century theological dispute between Barth and Tillich. It's a generative tension. God bless it. I pray that we will proclaim the gospel boldly and faithfully to the people who are seeking salvation in terms they can hear and embrace until they are embraced by Christ himself.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Nevada Smith: The American Dante
Ok, I’ll admit there are some minor differences between Dante’s Divine Comedy and the 1966 movie classic, Nevada Smith. But basically Nevada Smith is a cowboy Dante for Americans.
At about age 20 (“midway upon the journey of my life” –given the short life expectancy of an adventurer in the Wild West), Max Sand loses his parents. They are tortured, mutilated, and then murdered by 3 villains. Sand thereupon becomes “lost in the dark wood” of the myth of redemptive violence. That myth is the basic plot line of gratifying revenge. Think of The Outlaw Josey Wales, Collateral Damage, or most any action movie or TV show you have ever seen. Mythologist Joseph Campbell coined the term and Biblical Scholar Walter Wink says it is the actual religion of our culture. Drawn from ancient Sumer, it is still our dominant belief system even though it runs 180 degrees opposite to Judaism and Christianity. Max sets out to kill the malefactors but the story is about his own spiritual transformation as he becomes Nevada Smith. (Compare Man On Fire in the previous blog.)
Just as Dante began his quest trusting in his own inadequate resources, so did Max. Just as Dante was immediately waylaid by three obstacles – a lion, a leopard, a wolf, representing envy, pride, and greed; Max falls in with 3 ne’er-do-wells who prove to be envious, proud, and greedy. They steal his gun and his horse. Thus Max, stranded in the desert, wanders forth imitating the ascetic spiritual seekers of the Near East and Russia where they are called “poustniks” or desert people.
There in the sagebrush wilderness, Max meets his first guide – Jonas Cord, a gun merchant played by Brian Dennehy (who by the way appeared in the mini-series A Season In Purgatory.)Dante’s first guide was Virgil, a virtuous pagan who was able to help Dante along the way – but only so far. Just so, the gun merchant is not a Christian and is to some extent caught in the violence myth himself. But he has a good heart and just as important, good sense. He trains Max in the use of guns, but also in the life skills needed to do combat with viscous killers. Cord imparts what the Hebrew Scriptures call “hachma,” practical wisdom, knowing how to do the job. That is the foundation for the larger Greek version of Wisdom, “Sophia” -- regardless of what one is doing, even if it is drinking, gambling, and shooting, you need to know how to do it well. That is where Max properly begins his formation.
Max succeeds in killing the first murderer but is injured in the process. He is taken in by the Kiowa. Max is himself half Kiowa. How this interlude fits the story is not clear to me. But I think it may be that the bad guys will consistently characterize Max’s determined quest for vengeance as typical of his Indian blood. So this part of the movie shows the Kiowa urging Max to abandon his quest to stay with them. It may be there to prevent the racist reading of the plot.
Since the 2nd murderer is doing time in a Louisiana prison camp, located in a swamp, Max deliberately gets himself convicted of bank robbery so he can go there too. The brutal camp oddly allows conjugal visits by Cajun women who work in the nearby rice paddies. Granted, this is a stretch of credibility, but it advances the plot. Here Max meets his second guide, Pilar, a Cajun woman played by Suzanne Pleshette (deep sigh from the blogger). She helps Max and the murderer (who Max has befriended) escape in a canoe. In the swamp, Max guns down the unarmed man despite Pilar’s urgent pleas not to do this thing. It is then we know the significance of the crucifix she wears around her neck. She means it. During the escape, Pilar was bitten by a water moccasin. After the killing of murderer, she lies on the shore dying. Max wants to save her, but she will not go with him. She says he has used her to commit murder. She does not want “to die in sin looking at (his) face.” While Max is preparing the canoe to leave, Pilar dies. Her death is a judgment on Max who has lied to and manipulated her for his own violent ends. Then the righteous avenger says “I am sorry.” It is a moral moment. Remember Dante. His second guide was the Christian Beatrice whose death was the turning point in Dante’s life as the Cajun woman’s death ultimately proved to be for Max.
That death in the swamp was a moral moment but not a definitive conversion. Dante views life as the soul’s journey toward God and Harold Robbins who wrote the novel which was the basis for this film apparently agrees. Max is touched but not yet transformed. He continues his pursuit of the last villain, Joe Fitch (Karl Malden). In the vicinity of Susanville I would guess, he falls into the hands of Fitch’s gang who drag him with their horses through a river. Darned if that baptismal imagery doesn’t keep happening at just the right spot in the story (see Man on Fire post). As he comes out of the water, and is about to be dragged to death, out of nowhere, a Franciscan priest, Fr. Zaccardi intervenes, stops the violence, and take the physically and spiritually injured Max to his home, which from the cell where Max stays appears to be a monastery though we see no other monks. Max has met his 3rd spiritual guide.
“But wait,” you say, “Dante only had Virgil and Beatrice.” Not so. Even Beatrice could not take Dante the last leg of his journey to God. The Blessed Virgin was his final guide. Just as Mary represents Mother Church, so Mother Church was well represented by Fr. Zaccardi. He takes Max into the church building. Max has never been in a church before. He is most struck by the crucifix. Fr. Zaccardi asks if Max has ever seen that man (Jesus) before. Max says he has. He saw him on a silver chain. (Pilar’s). Fr. Zaccardi gives Max a Bible, explains the faith, and tells his own story of the murder of his own parents. Max listens but is stubbornly unpersuaded and continues in his hunt for the wicked Joe Fitch.
By the time he meets Fitch, Max’s name is on wanted posters everywhere and Fitch knows Max Sand is after him. So Max takes the new name of Nevada Smith. The first name expresses his memory of the home he seemed to have lost. The second name shows his change from the raw material of sand (perhaps a reference to earth and humanity (“adamah” Hebrew word for humanity formed from the earth) to Smith suggesting a craftsman who forms the raw material into something of value. Eventually, he chases Fitch down and shoots him in the leg and hand, disabling him from doing further harm – but decides in that moment not to kill him. Fitch is furious and taunts Max to finish him off, calls him a weak coward. But Max will not yield to the temptation of redemptive violence. He turns away.
We know what happened to Dante. He received the beatific vision and was “lost in wonder, love, and praise.” What will happen to Nevada Smith? Will he go back to partner with Cord, to live with the Kiowa, or to join the Franciscans? Dante took us all the way on his story of redemption, but Nevada Smith has taken us along the journey only far enough to see the decisive step of turning. Conversion is not a sudden about face. To “shuve” (turn around in Hebrew) or experience “metanoia” (same thing in Greek) is a slowing, then an arching, curving half circle that sets us off in the new direction – headed toward life instead of death.
At about age 20 (“midway upon the journey of my life” –given the short life expectancy of an adventurer in the Wild West), Max Sand loses his parents. They are tortured, mutilated, and then murdered by 3 villains. Sand thereupon becomes “lost in the dark wood” of the myth of redemptive violence. That myth is the basic plot line of gratifying revenge. Think of The Outlaw Josey Wales, Collateral Damage, or most any action movie or TV show you have ever seen. Mythologist Joseph Campbell coined the term and Biblical Scholar Walter Wink says it is the actual religion of our culture. Drawn from ancient Sumer, it is still our dominant belief system even though it runs 180 degrees opposite to Judaism and Christianity. Max sets out to kill the malefactors but the story is about his own spiritual transformation as he becomes Nevada Smith. (Compare Man On Fire in the previous blog.)
Just as Dante began his quest trusting in his own inadequate resources, so did Max. Just as Dante was immediately waylaid by three obstacles – a lion, a leopard, a wolf, representing envy, pride, and greed; Max falls in with 3 ne’er-do-wells who prove to be envious, proud, and greedy. They steal his gun and his horse. Thus Max, stranded in the desert, wanders forth imitating the ascetic spiritual seekers of the Near East and Russia where they are called “poustniks” or desert people.
There in the sagebrush wilderness, Max meets his first guide – Jonas Cord, a gun merchant played by Brian Dennehy (who by the way appeared in the mini-series A Season In Purgatory.)Dante’s first guide was Virgil, a virtuous pagan who was able to help Dante along the way – but only so far. Just so, the gun merchant is not a Christian and is to some extent caught in the violence myth himself. But he has a good heart and just as important, good sense. He trains Max in the use of guns, but also in the life skills needed to do combat with viscous killers. Cord imparts what the Hebrew Scriptures call “hachma,” practical wisdom, knowing how to do the job. That is the foundation for the larger Greek version of Wisdom, “Sophia” -- regardless of what one is doing, even if it is drinking, gambling, and shooting, you need to know how to do it well. That is where Max properly begins his formation.
Max succeeds in killing the first murderer but is injured in the process. He is taken in by the Kiowa. Max is himself half Kiowa. How this interlude fits the story is not clear to me. But I think it may be that the bad guys will consistently characterize Max’s determined quest for vengeance as typical of his Indian blood. So this part of the movie shows the Kiowa urging Max to abandon his quest to stay with them. It may be there to prevent the racist reading of the plot.
Since the 2nd murderer is doing time in a Louisiana prison camp, located in a swamp, Max deliberately gets himself convicted of bank robbery so he can go there too. The brutal camp oddly allows conjugal visits by Cajun women who work in the nearby rice paddies. Granted, this is a stretch of credibility, but it advances the plot. Here Max meets his second guide, Pilar, a Cajun woman played by Suzanne Pleshette (deep sigh from the blogger). She helps Max and the murderer (who Max has befriended) escape in a canoe. In the swamp, Max guns down the unarmed man despite Pilar’s urgent pleas not to do this thing. It is then we know the significance of the crucifix she wears around her neck. She means it. During the escape, Pilar was bitten by a water moccasin. After the killing of murderer, she lies on the shore dying. Max wants to save her, but she will not go with him. She says he has used her to commit murder. She does not want “to die in sin looking at (his) face.” While Max is preparing the canoe to leave, Pilar dies. Her death is a judgment on Max who has lied to and manipulated her for his own violent ends. Then the righteous avenger says “I am sorry.” It is a moral moment. Remember Dante. His second guide was the Christian Beatrice whose death was the turning point in Dante’s life as the Cajun woman’s death ultimately proved to be for Max.
That death in the swamp was a moral moment but not a definitive conversion. Dante views life as the soul’s journey toward God and Harold Robbins who wrote the novel which was the basis for this film apparently agrees. Max is touched but not yet transformed. He continues his pursuit of the last villain, Joe Fitch (Karl Malden). In the vicinity of Susanville I would guess, he falls into the hands of Fitch’s gang who drag him with their horses through a river. Darned if that baptismal imagery doesn’t keep happening at just the right spot in the story (see Man on Fire post). As he comes out of the water, and is about to be dragged to death, out of nowhere, a Franciscan priest, Fr. Zaccardi intervenes, stops the violence, and take the physically and spiritually injured Max to his home, which from the cell where Max stays appears to be a monastery though we see no other monks. Max has met his 3rd spiritual guide.
“But wait,” you say, “Dante only had Virgil and Beatrice.” Not so. Even Beatrice could not take Dante the last leg of his journey to God. The Blessed Virgin was his final guide. Just as Mary represents Mother Church, so Mother Church was well represented by Fr. Zaccardi. He takes Max into the church building. Max has never been in a church before. He is most struck by the crucifix. Fr. Zaccardi asks if Max has ever seen that man (Jesus) before. Max says he has. He saw him on a silver chain. (Pilar’s). Fr. Zaccardi gives Max a Bible, explains the faith, and tells his own story of the murder of his own parents. Max listens but is stubbornly unpersuaded and continues in his hunt for the wicked Joe Fitch.
By the time he meets Fitch, Max’s name is on wanted posters everywhere and Fitch knows Max Sand is after him. So Max takes the new name of Nevada Smith. The first name expresses his memory of the home he seemed to have lost. The second name shows his change from the raw material of sand (perhaps a reference to earth and humanity (“adamah” Hebrew word for humanity formed from the earth) to Smith suggesting a craftsman who forms the raw material into something of value. Eventually, he chases Fitch down and shoots him in the leg and hand, disabling him from doing further harm – but decides in that moment not to kill him. Fitch is furious and taunts Max to finish him off, calls him a weak coward. But Max will not yield to the temptation of redemptive violence. He turns away.
We know what happened to Dante. He received the beatific vision and was “lost in wonder, love, and praise.” What will happen to Nevada Smith? Will he go back to partner with Cord, to live with the Kiowa, or to join the Franciscans? Dante took us all the way on his story of redemption, but Nevada Smith has taken us along the journey only far enough to see the decisive step of turning. Conversion is not a sudden about face. To “shuve” (turn around in Hebrew) or experience “metanoia” (same thing in Greek) is a slowing, then an arching, curving half circle that sets us off in the new direction – headed toward life instead of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)