Memento Mori Transfigured: All Saints Day as a Christian Memorial Day

From the Ekklesia Project’s blog:

Where I live, remembering and honoring the dead is celebrated annually in May. Over Memorial Day weekend, families flock to cemeteries, flowers in hand, to decorate the graves of loved ones who have passed. In many cases out-of-town relatives come in for this ritual. It’s a pretty big deal.

The church remembers the dead at an entirely different time of year. In Protestant churches, on either November 1st or the first Sunday in November, we celebrate All Saints’ Day. In the churches I’ve served, we remember and name the members of the congregation who have died since All Saints’ Day the year before.

What prevents the Church’s practices on All Saints’ Day from turning into ancestor worship, and what makes those practices different from the practice of decorating graves?

… A Church which takes seriously its liturgical responsibility on All Saints’ Day provides a tremendous act of pastoral and congregational care to those who grieve. Let us offer something greater than putting flowers on a grave.

Go read the rest here.

Two AAR Sessions to be at

In case you’re unaware of Halden’s and Ben’s notices, there will be two excellent sessions on apocalypticism:

A Saturday session (6:30 pm-9:00 pm, FQE-Hochelaga 5) titled “Whither Apocalyptic? Critical Reflections in the Wake of Nathan R. Kerr’s Christ, History and Apocalyptic: The Politics of Christian Mission”; it features Douglas Harink, Travis Kroeker and Cyril O’Regan, with a response by Nate.

And a Sunday session (6:30 pm-9:00 pm, FQE-Hochelaga 5) on “The Apocalyptic Gospel: Theological Responses to the Work of J. Louis Martyn”. This is chaired by Douglas Harink, with papers by David Belcher, Walter Lowe, Ben Myers, and Philip G. Ziegler.

I for one eagerly look forward to both.

Hear ye, Hear ye, I have Found the Most Awesome-est Journal. Ever.

Andy, a fellow student at Marquette, has alerted me to the awesome-est journal ever. I am seriously considering developing a paper for submission. What journal is this, you might say? Why, it is GOLEM: Journal of Religion and Monsters.

Now, if you feel like this might be a hack enterprise, then you don’t understand the true impetus behind science fiction, fantasy, zombie movies, vampires, and the like. So :P you. Yeah, I’m mature, but at least I will be ready when the zombie apocalypse comes — the all knowing facebook has told me so. By the way, I call dibs on the shotgun.

The Cruciform God and the Civil god

In light of this first theological conclusion, we must affirm that the “normal” “civil” god of power and might is an idol, and it must be named as such. This god is not the Lord God revealed in Jesus Christ and narrated in the theopolitics of Phil 2:6-11. The “normal” god of civil religion combines patriotism and power; this is the god of many American leaders and of many Americans generally. (This god has, of course, had many other incarnations in human history.) Most especially idolatrous in light of our exegesis of Philippians 2 is the image of God (and/or of Christ) as military power incarnate, whether in the crusades or in Iraq or at Armageddon. As the Spanish historian-theologian Jaume Botey Vallès said about the political theology that underwrote the U.S. response to 9/11, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the god of George W. Bush (and, we might add, of many presidents, prime ministers, and kings) is a god of military might. That simply is not the God revealed by Jesus, Vallès rightly says. Neither is it the cruciform God of Paul. In other words, military power of the cross, and such misconstrued notions of divine power have nothing to do with the majesty or holiness of the triune God known in the weakness of the cross. The “civil” god, though perfectly “normal,” is not only unholy; it is an idol.

Michael J. Gorman, Inhabitating the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, 34-35.

Williams Responding to the Catholic Move

Conclusion: We’ll see what’ll happen, but for now, it is business as usual.

This isn’t exactly out of the norm for Catholics. There is precedent for allowing Anglican clergy to convert and stay married. But it seems, by virtue of this new quantitative move — taking this from case by case basis to allowing an Anglican rite (seemingly similar to the Eastern rite) — there may inadvertently be a qualitative move — what will this mean for a whole slew of things: current Catholic priests, eccumenical dialogue, etc.

Still, I’m somewhat suspicious, if the news is true that the Vatican is doing this through the CDF and not the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

H/T: Ben

Why I am NOT an Evangelical

The attempt to provide an adequate definition for the word “evangelical” for the North American (aka USA) context may be impossible at best. Simply see the wide range for what constitutes “evangelical” in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy: Political Strategies for the Health of the Nation if you doubt me.

However, in my own experience, I have found at least one common element: the role of the conversion experience. Now, do not consider this an argument against a notion of conversion, response to a call, or simply a radical paradigm shift with a supernatural bent. Rather, this questions the conversion experience construed as the arbiter for Christian existence. But what does this mean “the arbiter for Christian existence”? It means that your identity and story is one of conversion, and simply conversion — to give an account of faith is to give an account of one’s conversion from unbeliever to believer.

Simply put, in the evangelical church, you must have a conversion story because it has been made the locus of Christian identity. The testimony has not only developed its own genre, away from simply testifying, but is recited as the badge of membership. Now, while the missional character of testifying is fine if properly understood, I would argue that there occurs a profound brokenness in the Christian life that employs the conversion experience as the meta-category.

Think of the Christian life this way. You’re at a theme park. You’ve arrived and entered through the gates — you’ve had your conversion experience because you’ve now moved within the specific boundary of Christianity. However, no matter how may times go on a ride, eat the food, or play a game, imagine trying to frame everything as if the primary category for experiencing the theme park is the decision to go through the gate, rather than the enjoyment of the twirling ride (the christoform life one is supposed to lead now).

Or think of the Christian life in another way: a significant relationship, you know, boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, spouse, partner, whatever. How often does one talk about the beginning? Well, it isn’t unusual to do so, while it might be odd to do so a lot. However, “the arbiter for Christian existence” would be more than simply reflection on ‘getting together’, but that every decision of your relationship, or the everyday life the relationship, would be viewed through the decision to go beyond that first date.

This backward looking, as far as I see it right now, makes the Christian life flat. Some might call it a bare life. Much happens beyond the conversion, indeed, if one understands the Christian life as becoming more like Christ, then the true arbiter of Christian existence is Christ and those around you in the same pursuit. We should not let a broken sense of mission warp how we should understand our movement towards the divine telos. We cannot stay as babes on milk. The christoform life is not thin! The christoform life matures within divine plenitude.

Therefore, we should also not confuse the call to return to your first love with making the conversion experience the primary category for the Christian life. If anything, we are called to be like him, and if that occasionally requires a return or a first conversion, so be it.

If I am right that American evangelicals on the whole do have this conversion primacy implicit in their theology, I don’t want any of it. There is a reason why evangelical kids are growing up and out of the evangelical church that is so dependent on conversion stories as the locus of Christian life. You can only evangelize your already Christian flock so many times.

And Now for Something Completely Different

Zombieland was pretty good, but not amazing; nevertheless, it was still awesome. It reminded me at times of Shawn of the Dead, but thankfully it still stood on its own. Some of the social criticism was particularly delightful — I will never see trinket shops the same way again, particularly ones that abuse native culture in the name of making a buck. I may have giggled like a school girl at the destruction.

An Introduction to Neo-Liberal Economic Theory

If I were teaching a class on contemporary theology, particularly one that touched on economics and our current crisis, I would most certainly use this very well done introduction:

Alone, Alone

Alone, alone, about a dreadful wood
Of conscious evil runs a lost mankind,
Dreading to find its Father lest it find
The Goodness it has dreaded is not good:
Alone, alone, about our dreadful wood.

Where is that Law for which we broke our own,
Where now that Justice for which Flesh resigned
Her hereditary right to passion, Mind
His will to absolute power? Gone. Gone.
Where is that Law for which we broke our own?

The Pilgrim Way has led to the Abyss.
Was it to meet such grinning evidence
We left our richly odoured ignorance?
Was the triumphant answer to be this?
The Pilgrim Way has led to the Abyss.

We who must die demand a miracle.
How could the Eternal do a temporal act,
The Infinite become a finite fact?
Nothing can save us that is possible:
We who must die demand a miracle.

W.H. Auden, “For the Time Being: A Christmas Oratorio”

Gluttony and Grace

I’ve had a question plaguing me for some time. Assuming that capitalism, and more basically, human inclination is gluttonous, how does then gift — an economy of grace — operate? Certainly there is martyrdom and the christological kenotic life, but there is also the responsibility for self-care, to make healthy choices. How do we reconcile the Christian work of universal gift, when it seems to conflict with healthy choices against people who would simply consume us?

A Most Difficult Maze: Picking a Gradschool List

First Things has a list ranking theological gradschools for those having a hard time trying to figure out who they’re looking for. I have some serious misgivings with it (lacunae, passing over cons, etc.), but still, it is something. The top five are:

1. Duke Divinity
2. Notre Dame
3. Princeton and 4. Wycliffe College/Toronto
5. Marquette

Unfortunately this list misses a great deal. For instance, it glosses over the fact, that if I hear rightly, Hauerwas is done taking PhD students. And Hays isn’t getting any younger. Duke has made some excellent hires (i.e. Paul Griffiths), but the future is their biggest hurdle. The next five to ten years will tell if they will maintain their current status and perhaps even develop a ‘Duke school’.

The list also misses some of ‘liberal’ protestantism. Yes, I hear Harvard Div is a mess right now, with even faculty rumored to have had shouting matches in the halls, but I know for a fact that Union meets the list maker’s ideals and Fordham is moving up, not back.

The way this list works is simple, if you like First Things, you’ll like this list. But that is nothing new. This is the way lists go today: they point to a persuasion or school of thought. Lists have a bias. They’re supposed to have a bias because there is a telos involved.

So what good is this list, other than the fact that R.R. Reno likes Marquette? This is at best a spring board. Those of you looking for a solid school to match your interests could find much worse lists. Reno certainly takes into account a plurality of factors (but not enough I think, like finances). However, do not let this list be the end of your own list.

Some may find it surprising how much work it will take to apply for a position: a good list of schools, communication with professors, visiting schools, talking to current students in the institution, etc. The application process is indeed daunting, but without a good list that assumes purpose, soul searching, and research among other things, you won’t get anywhere.

How do you begin constructing your own list? Remember, the game has changed: once you get high enough up the academic learning ladder, you match your interests to the interests of an institution. Fit is vital. Of course each institution should have a flourishing and healthy atmosphere that is both financially supportive and has a respected past, these stipulations I cannot stress enough, but ultimately, if there is an institution on your list where you don’t fit, and if you miraculously get in, you’ll wither inside.

My Review of Long’s Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth

Hey all. My review of D. Stephen Long’s Speaking of God: Theology, Language, and Truth is up at The Other Journal. Yes. I just reviewed the book of one of my professors. Apparently I have an academic death wish? Truth be told, I found it very helpful. Below is my first and concluding paragraphs:

Modern philosophers and historians were convinced of the death of metaphysics; they buried questions of existence and being deep in the grave. But according to D. Stephen Long, author of Speaking of God, even their proofs for this death borrowed from clear metaphysical assumptions, and so Long is neither surprised by the resurgence of metaphysics nor unprepared to explore its many relationships with other disciplines, particularly language, philosophy, theology, and politics. In Speaking of God, Long has fashioned a refreshing examination of these subject matters, specifically addressing reason and faith, philosophy and theology, power and truth, and metaphysics and politics. He pursues questions of reason and faith, and then, in the face of a hermeneutics of pure negation and a flat metaphysics, he argues for a richer, deeper Christian life, a flourishing life nourished by the search for truth.

…

In conclusion, Speaking of God is an incredibly helpful read; it is a book of which I am skeptically appreciative. And although it may dissatisfy us with several of its undeveloped implications, it is convincing in its primary aim, which is to make readers of theology take metaphysics more seriously. This is especially an important work for readers interested in metaphysics, language, theology, and politics. And one thing is certain, the seemingly myriad critiques of contemporary postliberalism must now go through this work. But, however, the book goes beyond the boundaries of an apologetic for postliberalism. Indeed, if Long is right about the return to metaphysics and about the close link between metaphysics and politics, this book will be vital for much of contemporary theology, and as such it merits a wide reading.

AAR

My plane tickets are booked, hotel reserved, and reservation made. Who else is going to AAR this year?

Jesus Loves You, And Keep Your Pipe Lit: A Very Short Introduction to Karl Barth

In Case You’ve Had One of Those Days