Keith Drury's Thinking Blog

Keith Drury is a model for me of a thinking/wondering Christian. Some of the things he is pondering can be read at http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/blog.thinking.agenda.htm

A lot of what he has been thinking about I have been wondering about, some of it for over 25 years now. Can't say I have arrived at the conclusive answer. Wouldn't it be wonderful to invite Keith over for coffee, and pursue even one of these topics?

DRURY writes:

3) ... I’ve been thinking that my greatest mistake has been theological—I’ve not fully grasped the importance of the church. I’ve been a true “man of the enlightenment” in emphasizing individuality… personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a personal walk with God, personal devotions—to the exclusion of the corporate elements of Christianity. I’ve got to think more on this before writing, but I’m increasingly thinking that there is no such thing as just a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” apart from a relationship with the church. I know, I know—this sounds incredibly Catholic. But I’ve been wrong to ignore the central role of the body of Christ in the life of a real Christian—not just to helps Christians be better people or to be a locker room for real life outside the church, but I’m increasingly pondering the thought that there is so salvation outside the church. I’m fed up with a world charmed by Jesus who reject the church. But the world’s dismissal of the church is not my central concern—but Christian’s dismissal of it


4) Which has led me to the question, What is the church? For instance we Protestants believe the Bible is the basis of Christian truth and practice. But we don’t. Most of us believe the Bible says things based on the church’s teaching. Indeed that is what our articles of religion are—a list of interpretations of what the Bible really says. But we keep saluting the flag of a “Bible-based doctrine” and we keep running up the sola scriptura flag and saluting it as good protestants. Yet how did we get our Bibles? Was it not the church led by the Spirit who decided what would get in our Bible what would not make the cut? (We’ve been recently reminded of this recently through the popular book (and coming movie) the Da Vinci Code. But who is the church? Is it some mystical spiritual body—the church unseen? What good is that? Then is it the broken frail self-centered fleshly contraption we know as denominations? I am thinking about the inadequacy of the notion that I personally am supposed to read my Bible personally to find out what God is saying to me. That sort of thinking leads to all kinds of wacky results including Waco, Texas. So if I am to read the Bible collectively, with the guidance of the church, which church? To what church will I give authority to help me understand what the Bible really says about abortion, war, speaking in tongues, divorce, and governments? To which church will I give that authority? My local church? But even a whole local church could be wrong couldn’t they? Who will be a “check” on my personal interpretation of Scripture? A denomination? The general collective agreement of evangelical scholars? The Pope? Who is “the church” if I grant authority to “the Church” to guide my reading of Scripture?

8) And speaking of worship, I’ve been pondering how worship among my students is so privatized—sort of like “having personal devotions in a group.” Is this a good thing? Is worship at its best a corporate thing or a personal thing? Certainly in heaven worship is corporate, What is corporate worship… and is there such a thing as when “the sum is greater than the parts”—when something different happens when a group worships together not as individuals – as sort of worship gestalt?

10) . I’ve been meditating a lot on the Bible and how we know what it means. The immature answer “It means clearly what it says” doesn’t work for me. I see too many Christians and denominations saying it means something different. So how do we know what it means? These questions of a bible hermeneutic are constantly on my mind the last five years—especially since I talk about it several hours a week with my colleague, Ken Schenck. As mentioned above, I see how the church has a role in determining what the Bible means, but I’ve got to think more about this before I write more on it. Right now I am objecting to the “original meaning” scholars who argue that the Bible can only mean what it originally meant. These scholars mock my students quoting Jeremiah as if God meant He actually had plans for them personally. This group of evangelical scholars argue that the meaning of the Bible is locked up in the original meaning—and SURPRISE—only they have the key, since the ordinary person can barely access the ancient meaning of the text, I am wondering if this is any better than the medieval Catholic church when the Pope controlled the meaning of the Bible. I’m increasingly being convinced the Bible can be read today by people today and God speaks through the Bible in ways the ancient writers would not even understand. This “Bible as sacrament” notion is how I was raised, how most of the evangelical church lives, and how all the most spiritual people I know use their Bible. Are all these folk wrong and the “original meaning mafia” right? Or is the “original meaning is the only meaning” crowd about to pass off into history as a new generation of (postmodern?) scholars rise up to scoff at their predecessors fetish with the original meaning—as if they could actually get it by their precious literary method. I’ve got to think a lot more on this because I’ll be getting some powerful Bible scholars at Asbury and elsewhere really mad if I write it. So I’ll just keep thinking about it.

15) Are we free to change sacraments? That is, can the church drop a “sacrament” or demote it and invent new ones? If a sacrament is a God-ordained means of grace—a channel through which God prefers to pour his power and grace—can God discard old sacraments like wineskins and raise up new one like holy laughter? Or more direct for revivalists like my own denomination, can we demote the sacrament of Holy Communion and replace it with personal devotions as the chief form of spiritual growth? And can we demote baptism and replace it with the altar call conversion as our new sacrament of induction into the kingdom? Or, is it OK for my students to consider “worship” (meaning the musical praise part of the service) as the primary sacrament—the primary channel of God’s changing grace for them today?

16) Should I even be thinking about these things? Is it good to think? Or is it dangerous? Should I spend more time dreaming up new programs for pastors to initiate in their local churches? These things I’m thinking about aren’t directly demanding in the “real life” local church. Has my thought life become representative of the ivory tower academic world more than grass roots local church? Is it a waste of time for me to think (and write) about such things?

Worship, Work and Play

I subscribe to Chip Stam's Worship Quote of the Week. This is what appeared today:

"Most middle-class Americans tend to:
worship their work;
work at their play; and
play at their worship.
That which we worship, we serve,
and that which we serve we will give our all--heart, soul, mind and body."
— Gordon Dahl, from WORK, PLAY, AND WORSHIP IN A LEISURE-ORIENTED SOCIETY, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1972. ISBN: 0806612339

Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith

Well, it was better than the first two, but I had a hard time restraining myself with that line, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." Excuse me? Don't the Jedis believe that the Dark Side is absolutely evil--always and everywhere to be avoided and overcome? In none of the films do they appear as relativists, who would say, "well, if the dark side works for Anakin, then it's ok for him see it as good and order his life around it accordingly." Absolutes are the whole point of these stories: that the Jedi are Good, and give their allegiance to the Good, while the Sith are Bad, and in league with evil. It's not just a matter of perspective, as Palpatine insinuates. The dark side is really evil; but in the end, we see that, though the Dark Side is real, it is not absolute after all: the emperor is destroyed, and so is Darth Vader.

I also had problems with the Jedi doctrine of "detachment." (Actually, it's a problem with Buddhism, but the Jedi doctrine is Buddhism lite.) So was Ani supposed to be "detached" from Padme? If so, why don't the Jedi practice "detachment" from other Jedi? Why is there a Jedi "council?" Why is there such a close relationship between Masters and Padwans?

At another point in the film the Sith are condemned for being self-centered while the Jedi are praised for their selflessness. Lucas equivocates on that concept of selflessness. Is it the Christian ideal of "dying to self," in order to "find oneself" through serving others? Or is it the Buddhist notion of the complete extinction of the Self? ("The extinction of self is salvation; the annihilation of self is the condition of enlightenment; the blotting out of self is Nirvana.")

Though this film wasn't really about philosophy, I think we need to keep our ears and minds open, and be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. But insofar as Star Wars I-VI is the story of the fall and redemption of Darth Vader, I think it is great. Someday someone will remake episodes 1-3, following the plot line but adding genuine dialogue, character development and humor. Those will be films worth waiting in line for...just like we did long ago for episodes 4-6.

A priest's tombstone at Notre Dame

When we lived in married student housing at Notre Dame, every day I would walk to work at the library and pass the tiny cemetary of the Holy Cross priests. One tombstone became especially dear to me:

EDWARD LEE GREENE 1843-1915

"A man for whom nature in all her phases attracted and engaged, and for whom she opened a door leading unto the house of God."

Resurrection Documentary on 20/20 Tonight

What happened Easter morning? Why was the tomb empty? Was Jesus' resurrection a physical event, or a spiritual experience in the hearts of His disciples? Tonight (Friday, May 20) at 10 pm the ABC news magazine, "20/20" will air a special entitled "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Searching for Answers." What makes this program different is that, in addition to the usual perspective represented by the likes of John Shelby Spong and Richard McBrian, there seems to be an attempt to include more conservative voices.

According to the website, http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Resurrection/, that perspective will be represented by

• Lee Strobel, journalist, author of The Case for Christ, and teaching pastor at Saddleback Community Church
• William Lane Craig, Research professor of theology at Talbot University; author; apologist (known for his debates with Antony Flew, John Dominic Crosson and others); and contributor to "Leadershop U" at http://www.leaderu.com/
• Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, internationally respected scholar, and author of over 30 books including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest.

Steve and I know Bill Craig personally. He is a brilliant guy who has done an amazing job of obeying 1 Peter 3:15, always being ready to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ. He has been one of the persons behind a great theological and philosophical website called "Leadership U" as well as others like Beliefnet, and he has recently written an introductory philosophy textbook entitled Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. They hate him, but find him a worthy opponent over at The Secular Web/ Infidels.org. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.shtml

As for Richard McBrien, the disocesan priest who teaches at the University of Notre Dame and who will also be featured in this program: please realize that the ND theology department has a long history of "dissent" and holding positions at odds with the Bishop of Rome. See the following website for some examples: http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=954 It's ironic, but when we were at Notre Dame the philosophy department was the place to find orthodox Christians, not the theology department. I think that's probably still the case.

I'm looking forward to hearing Stobel, Witherington and Craig tonight, and encourage you to tune in. Let us pray that these men will be able to speak freely and faithfully in defense of our risen Lord, and that He will use this program to open a doorway for the Gospel into many souls.

Gallery of Regrettable Food

This site is priceless! Recipes from the fifties, which all seem to manage to incorporate jello. Peruse them, and their stomach-churning color illustrations, at http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/spec.html .
Some of my favorites: "The Other Other White Meat," the Lard Cookbook, Dr. Pepper/olive jello and coffee jello.


Also check out the larger site: Lileks's "Institute of Official Cheer" which is located at http://www.lileks.com/institute/index.html. Lots of wierd and funny stuff, updated daily, including "Interior Desecrations," showcasing incredible examples of interior design from the 50's-70's. It's all true. I was there. I know.

Discipleship as formation?

One of the issues in Christian education today is whether or not faith is "formed" in us. Here is a caricature, but it presents the pure positions available:

1) The premoderns saw discipleship as formation, with a disciple placing himself in a master's hands in order to be spiritually "shaped" to know God/truth/goodness etc. This is a very vulnerable spot, because it gives the one doing the discipling lots of power.

2) The modern notion of discipleship, because it is born of a period which is more skeptical and individualistic, emphasizes the disciple's choices, and his more active role in questioning.

3) The postmodern notion of discipleship, (if it even exists!) is even more focused on the disciple, who no longer questions (there aren't any answers) but rather stitches himself a quilt of ideas and practices which are personally meaningful (but not necessarily True...for after all, isn't truth relative?)

If what we are seeking is more of God in our daily lives, then which approach do you think is the one which works best? Which approach is most biblical? Are there other approaches?

Thoughts on Revelation 21

I have a slightly different way of interpreting Rev. 21, thanks to Dr. Stephen Bouma-Prediger of Hope College. The "new" in verses 1 and 2 isn't naios, the Greek word that would have been used to mean something absolutely, brand-spanking new, the result of completely starting over. Rather, it is kainos, which is used to refer to a thing which has been changed in the sense of "renewed," but not destroyed.

So as you can see I don't agree with the current Evangelical dispensationalist interpretation of John's vision. The images of fire in Malachi and Revelation seem to me to speak of a dramatic and dreadful refining/purifying rather than a total destruction, so that what God created and called good is finally "cleaned up," healed and restored to His original design.

This is important to me because I am fascinated by premodern philosophy (everything before Descartes), and a huge part of pre-modern philosophy is all about trying to understand the concept of "change." It seems to me that one of the big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is in how they would define the change called "conversion" and the changes involved in sanctification. The former distinguishes between "nature" (physis) and "world" / "flesh" (cosmos/sarx); while the latter tends to conflate them. But this gets me into more Greek word studies which I won't bore you with. : )

Let the Conversation Begin!

Thanks to Joanna, I finally have my own blog! (Without her I am helpless when it comes to the computer). My hope is that this will be a place where we can wonder together about God, human beings and the world.

Lately every other person I bump into is talking about "passion."

Luke gave me some readings from Relevant magazine. I'll be posting my reactions to them later on. Meanwhile, there's a great article by Keith Drury called "A New Second Work of Grace." Read it at
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/passion.htm. I think he's right on! But one of the attractions of philosophy for me is that--at least for the Premoderns-- it is a great conversation. So I would welcome your comments. How would you respond to him? Where would you begin?

Let the Conversation begin!