Where's The Faith? Resources for Young Adults

Chalice Press, the Disciples' denominationally-related press, is issuing what looks to be a most interesting series of books. Entitled: WTF? Where's the Faith?, the series is edited by Christian Piatt and Brandon Gilvin. These two editors have designed the series to address the issues young adults are wrestling with from a Christian perspective. The titles are a bit edgy, because the issues they're addressing are ones that tend to be taboo in Christian circles -- issues like sex and politics. The books, at least the first two to be released in 2010, are collections of essays.

And, it shouldn't surprise you that the first book that will appear in the series, entitled Oh, God! Oh, God! Oh, God!, addresses issues of sex -- from marriage to homosexuality and more. It comes out in February 2010. The second book, coming out in August 2010, is called Split Ticket and deals with politics. It will be some time before the books appear, but this looks to be a series keeping an eye out for.

For more information you can click here for the Chalice site. But also watch this brief video for an excellent introduction to the series.

Iranian Voices Continue to Be Heard -- Despite Repression

Despite threats of beatings and imprisonment, the Iranian opposition remains in place. It may have scaled back its efforts, but it hasn't disappeared. Today, in Teheran, the leading clerical opponent of the current regime, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, gave the sermon at Friday Prayers. Though not televised, it was heard on state radio.

Rafsanjani is a careful politician, and while he kept the tone moderate, never calling out the Supreme Leader, he did criticize the Guardian Council and the Government for their handling of the election and for sowing seeds of discord and unrest -- placing the onus on Ahmadinejad rather than the opposition -- due to the election results. He called for unity, for sympathy for the opposition, release of prisoners, and a relaxing of suppression of the press. In the audience was the leading opposition leader, Mir Hussein Mousavi.

Outside thousands of opposition supporters rallied -- they were also attacked by militia and riot police using batons, tear gas, and maybe more.

So, what does this say? It says that Iran remains in a very tense and transitional place. The hardliners are hunkering down, doing whatever they can to stamp out opposition, but the opposition isn't going away. And so we continue watching, hoping for change and openness. Hoping that the Republic part of the equation doesn't get lost -- knowing that Ahmadinejad is part of a movement to rid Iran of democracy.

The Radicalism of "Caritas in Veritate" -- Sightings

Benedict XVI recently met with President Obama, and apparently had a pleasant and fruitful conversation. Yes, they talked about abortion, but they also talked about other things, things upon which they apparently agree. Benedict isn't my first choice for Pope -- I'd like someone more modern and progressive -- but at times he seems more open than some of his American supporters on the Catholic Right -- you know the ones that didn't think President Obama should speak at Notre Dame's Graduation Ceremony.

Now I learn about a new papal encyclical that takes a rather progressive position on social justice -- and earns a bit of disdain from the American Catholic Right. They're not pleased with the peace and justice elements. Here is analysis of this encyclical from Rick Elgendy, a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago, in today's edition of Sightings.

**********************************

Sightings 7/16/09

The Radicalism of Caritas in Veritate?

-- Rick Elgendy

The Vatican recently released the long-awaited papal encyclical Caritas in Veritate, which ranges from theological to political and economic themes. Now that the dust has settled, the encyclical and reactions to it can be seen to be rather remarkable.

Papal comment on social ethics is not itself unusual; Caritas in Veritate is the latest in a long line of encyclicals exploring Catholic social thought. What might be surprising, however, is the character of this encyclical, given its source. Benedict XVI, frequently remembered (from his days as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) for his participation in the institutional resistance to Latin American Liberation Theology, has long been perceived as reactionary by the masses and the media. Yet, this encyclical adopts positions about distributive justice that defy the presumption of papal partisanship. Benedict argues that charity goes beyond but “never lacks justice,” and that “I cannot ‘give’ what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice.” Thus, “charity” given under the conditions of systemic injustice is not charity.

Elsewhere, Benedict discusses development (“authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension”), world hunger (food and access to water being “universal rights of all human beings”), the moral responsibilities of corporations (to shareholders, workers, clients, suppliers, and “the community of reference”), and the role of the market (which requires forms of solidarity and mutual trust to fulfill its own function), as well as the usual “life” issues. In doing so, he represents the “seamless garment of life” described by the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadin: the essential continuity between the Church’s concern with issues ranging from abortion and euthanasia to structural inequality and international peace.

Though frequently presumed to be the source of authority for those who would, say, deny communion to pro-choice politicians, Benedict here refuses to accept the ideological categories assumed in American politics: The same theological commitments that inform his convictions about the integrity of life demand a reimagining of prevailing social arrangements. Catholic and non-Catholic onlookers alike might hope that the encyclical will inspire political discourse that reexamines the standard binaries and turns to principled and civil conversation before partisan rancor (as Benedict himself did, by most reports, in his recent meeting with President Obama, in sharp contrast to how others dealt with the president’s Notre Dame commencement appearance).

Reaction from some commentators has been as remarkable as the encyclical itself. Michael Novak, for instance, echoes Benedict’s theology, emphasizing that, “[f]or Catholics, all social energy flows from the inner life of the Trinity. Everything is gift.” Yet, Novak draws starkly different ethical conclusions: “Thus, it is no surprise when empirical research shows that people who are believers give more of their time and resources to the needy than do unbelievers, and people who cherish limited government (conservatives) give more than welfare-state liberals.” Whatever its “empirical” status, this is a strange response to an argument that charity is specifically not best expressed in noblesse oblige. Novak’s further comments clarify his intention, though, as he suggests that “[t]he Catholic tradition – even the wise Pope Benedict – still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.”

George Weigel argues that the encyclical is the latest episode in a sordid history of attempts by The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace to insinuate its social thought into the mainstream. As a result, it is “a hybrid, blending the pope’s own insightful thinking on the social order with elements of the Justice and Peace approach to Catholic social doctrine,” and those in the know could easily enough “go through the text…highlighting those passages that are obviously Benedictine with a gold marker and those that reflect current Justice and Peace default positions with a red marker.” Weigel finds those Benedictine sections “strong and compelling,” and exhibits suspicion about the other sections (because, at Justice and Peace, “evidence, experience, and the canons of Christian realism sometimes seem of little account”). He concludes, “Benedict XVI, a truly gentle soul, may have thought it necessary to include…these multiple off-notes, in order to maintain the peace within his curial household.”

Weigel’s redaction recalls the work done in the Jesus Seminar, attempting to reveal the sayings and actions of the “historical Jesus” behind the veil of the New Testament. Though the Jesus Seminar uses four colors instead of Weigel’s two, the presumption that one can sort out the wheat from the chaff, the genuine meaning of the authoritative author from the accretions of inexpert subordinates, remains common to both. Apropos, then, is Albert Schweitzer’s well-known suspicion, expressed after decades spent on his own such searching: that the person resulting from such quests often bears a striking resemblance to ourselves. To assimilate the encyclical to our own status quo, however, would mean the tragic loss of its potentially prophetic voice.

References:

The full text (in English translation) of the encyclical can be found at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Michael Novak’s comments (“The Pope of Caritopolis”) can be found on the First Things website, here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/07/07/the-pope-of-caritapolis/

George Weigel’s comments can be found on National Review Online, here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTdkYjU3MDE2YTdhZTE4NWIyN2FkY2U5YTFkM2ZiMmE=

Rick Elgendy is a PhD student in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

----------

In July’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, “Flowers in the Dark: African American Consciousness, Laughter, and Resistance in Toni Morrison’s Beloved,” ethicist Jacqueline Bussie of Capital University pursues the question of why, in so many accounts, people in oppressive situations of suffering respond with laughter. Focusing on the example of Toni Morrison’s slavery-era novel, Bussie, in an excerpt from her Trinity Prize-winning book The Laughter of the Oppressed, explores the complexities of the human condition and points toward a more nuanced understanding of ethics. Invited responses will be posted later in the month from Joseph Winters, Cooper Harriss, John Howell, and Zhange Ni.

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Historical Criticism, Imagination, and Preaching

Walter Brueggemann is one of the premier biblical scholars of our day. He is fully versed and immersed in the historical critical method, a method most of us are taught in seminary. Yes, I was taught the historical critical method in seminary. But, while it provides a solid foundation for our work as preachers and teachers, it also has its drawbacks and dangers. Brueggeman suggests that ultimately we as preachers must get beyond historical criticism if we're going to be effective preachers.

I invite the readers to listen to this brief video from WorkingPreacher.org, consider it, and offer thoughts. I find it provocative! Thanks to my friend Glen Miles, Sr. Minister of Country Club Christian Church in Kansas City, MO for suggesting this video and the site.

Harry Potter offers important lessons

With the latest Harry Potter movie -- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince -- out today (I've not yet seen it) I thought it worth re-posting the column I wrote in 2005 about the lessons the series offers us, about such things as morality, courage, and the like. I'll let you know what I think of the movie, after I see it, but for now, check this out.

I wrote this column for the Lompoc Record -- my Faith in the Public Square column.

*********************************************************

Harry Potter offers important lessons

Earlier Published column ---

Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record/Santa Maria Times
November 20, 2005

Harry Potter hits the big screen once again this weekend, and I'm looking forward to the big event. I may be a 47-year-old pastor with a Ph.D. in theology, but I have been intrigued with Harry's story since I first read “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone” to my then 8-year-old son.

Praised by teachers, community leaders, and even some religious leaders, the series has not been without its critics. Critics from the Christian community charge the books with glorifying the occult, witchcraft and paganism.

Although the heroes may be wizards and witches, witchcraft is not the point of the books, nor is it their main attraction. They are attractive because they are imaginatively written, and they strike young and old alike with a sense of empowerment and moral courage. Instead of leading children into Satanism, the books offer important lessons about courage, loyalty, determination, and even death.

Harry Potter follows in the footsteps of other beloved fantasy stories, including C.S. Lewis' beloved “Chronicles of Narnia” (coming to the big screen Dec. 9) and the “Wizard of Oz.”In many ways, Harry Potter may find its strongest parallels in the “Star Wars” movies. As with “Star Wars,” the intent of Harry Potter is not religious, but spiritual lessons are inherent in both series.

“Star Wars” and Harry Potter raise the question of good and evil, posing for us both the attractions and the dangers of evil, while helping us see that life is full of complex choices that are not always black and white. Harry Potter, like Luke Skywalker, is a hero who battles evil and makes choices that are at times ambiguous and even unsavory. He disobeys his elders, challenges authority, fudges the truth at times, and yet he is the hope of his community, the chosen one.Though it appeared that Darth Vader was to be the chosen one, he was lulled into evil and was redeemed by his son who resists the temptation of evil. Harry Potter also must resist the lure of evil so that he can save his own community from evil's threat.

Harry Potter is a risk taker and a questioner. He is wise beyond his years and takes a life-path that would be difficult for ones much older than he. Still, he consistently makes the right choices, and, like Luke, he goes in the company of friends who remain loyal to him, and he to them.Then there is the wise and sometimes distant figure of Dumbledore, who like Obi Wan, watches over Harry. Dumbledore gives Harry room to grow, to choose, and even to fail, but the hope of the community lies in Harry's hands and so Dumbledore is there to guide him.

There is another theme that runs through the series.Harry is marked, even protected, by the sacrificial love of his mother who had died at the hands of his nemesis Lord Voldemort. A scar on his forehead forever stands as a reminder of his mother's love that turned away the evil designs of Voldemort and continues to protect him as he matures.

Though I cannot read my own theology into Ms. Rowling's words and images, her description of an act of love does remind me of something I read in my Scriptures about one whose death serves as a sign of divine love for humanity. Even as Harry acts in response to his mother's love, I, too, seek to act in response to this expression of love given from a Roman imperial cross.

Harry Potter is not for everyone. The books become darker and more intense as the series and Harry mature, with death, disappointment, and loneliness looming larger in the later volumes.Parents of younger children may want to read and discuss the books with their children, but if you choose to read (or watch the movie), take note of the message of courage, of loyalty, of persistence, and of love that mark these books as a worthy read for people of all ages.

Dr. Bob Cornwall is Pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc.

November 20, 2005

The Empathy Standard

It appears that if you're a Republican member of the judiciary committee, empathy is a bad thing. Empathy, in their mind, is equivalent to bias and partiality, and well we wouldn't want anyone on the court with "bias" or "partiality" -- unless, of course, it's our kind of "bias" and "partiality."

Supreme Court nominee, a Latina woman who has been on federal courts for 17 years, and was appointed to the Federal bench by George H.W. Bush, and thus has a fairly long judicial record to consider, is being questioned primarily about her "wise Latina woman" statement. Now, yesterday, she admitted upfront that it was a poor choice of words, and that as a judge she always sticks to the law.

But, back to empathy. Barack Obama has set out what he has called the empathy standard. Empathy means, according to the dictionary:

n. the power of entering into another's personality and imaginatively experiencing his experiences: the power of entering into the feeling or spirit of something (esp. a work of art) and so appreciating it full." (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. New Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1983).

So, what does it mean to have empathy? As I understand the definition, it means the ability to walk in the other person's shoes, to understand what their situation is, so as to better understand the situation. Back during the election, we were told that Barack Obama was an elitist, an ivory tower sort of person. Now, that we've gotten his first nominee, we're told that we don't want someone with life experience, that has the ability to walk in the shoes of another. No, we want an ivory tower type, one who won't be affected by the realities of life. Or so, I seem to hear from the rhetoric on the right.

Laurie Patton, a religious studies professor, writing in Religion Dispatches, speaks of the academic world's search for a balance between empathy and critique. She thinks if religion scholars can find this balance, so can Senators or Justices.

Both [Robert] Orsi and [Russell] McCutcheon take provocative positions in order to correct what they perceive as intellectual imbalances in the study of religions. But most scholars of religion today operate in this middle ground that [Thomas] Tweed so adeptly describes, and intuitively know that empathy and critique are part and parcel of the same imaginative task. Empathy, for them, is not a dirty word, nor is it a word signifying prejudice in the process of seemingly objective analysis. It is simply the capacity to imagine another’s position while reserving the right to come to one’s own judgment on the subject. Through open and engaging debate, scholars of religion have made some important progress when it comes to the word empathy.

And if scholars can do this when thinking about religion, surely senators can do this when thinking about the law. Most of us misuse words in everyday speech, and most of us would do well to consult a dictionary every now and then. But here we are witnessing the blatant distortion of a word’s meaning for political purposes—nothing new, to be sure, but certainly sad and striking coming from the mouths of our elected officials who claim to care about the judiciousness of the judiciary.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. Politics is clearly playing its role -- as is to be expected. There is a desire on the part of some Republicans to tar Obama as an extremist at every point so as to attract the independent/moderate voter. I don't think this will do the trick. Sotomayor's judicial record is quite mainstream. And, if Republicans are afraid that the court will somehow go liberal, remember that there is a strong conservative majority on the court. Sotomayor will simply step into the shoes of David Souter, himself a GOP nominee.

So, what is wrong with empathy? Why is having the ability to get into the shoes of another a bad thing? My expectation is that a good judge will try to get a sense of both parties -- through empathy. Empathy, as Dr. Patton reminds us, is not the same thing as sympathy (something the GOP Senators seem unable to understand).

Was Calvin a Theocrat?

The word "theocrat" has become commonplace these days -- I've used it myself on occasion. When we speak of Iran, for instance, we speak of theocracy, and point to the role that the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council play in "guiding" the nation. Westerners have been hailing the battles of Mir Hussein Mousavi against the theocratic leaders, but many seem to be ignoring that he supports the idea of an Islamic republic, just not this form. Indeed, he was Prime Minister when the Ayatollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader. We also use the term to describe members of the Religious Right that want to see a cozier relationship between church and state. But the question is -- in what way was John Calvin a theocrat?

I'd like to offer an extended quote from Harro Hopfl's The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge University Press, 1982). Hopfl writes specifically to this question:

If we are to make any sense of a term which in any case was not Calvin's or his century's, we must suppose it to mean the ideal of a commonwealth governed in accordance with the will of God. In that sense there are few sixteenth-century writers, and no evangelicals at all, who cannot be described as theocrats. Again, if by "theocracy" we mean the belief that the authority of governors derives from God rather than (say) the consent of the governed or the antiquity of the established order, then Calvin was a particularly extreme theocrat, who did not even allow that the authority of governors comes from God mediately; more precisely, he was indifferent about the manner in which political power was obtained, and saw the hand of God in the establishment and fall of princes and politics. The only relevant question is whether Calvin's theocratic view of polity was of a biblicist sort; in other words, whether he abandoned the respect for antiquity, for prudence in governors, and for the capacity of reason and experience in favour of Scripture as the only means of access to the will of God, in accordance with which the commonwealth is to be governed. And no unequivocal answer to this question emerges from Calvin's writings. Since experience, conscience, natural law and custom are reliable guides to the will of God only when tutored by Scripture, they are all capable of being construed as redundant for the Christian; on the other hand, they provide enough moral knowledge to enable pagans to sustain a semblance of civility and to condemn them in their own consciences, and may also be treated as supplementary political resources for the Christian. (pages 184-185).

I think it's important to note that most 16th century people would not understand the distinction between church and state that came with the enlightenment. Thus, the only real question has to do with the nature of the relationship. Remember too that Calvin's understanding of predestination surely influenced his understanding of the government -- God is in control. Geneva was an experiment in a Christian Commonwealth, that was built upon the assumption that the state had a responsibility to create a context for sanctification. Thus, in the case of Michael Servetus, Calvin's response was rooted in his belief that Servetus's teachings would undermine the faith and practice of Geneva's Christians. Heresy and blasphemy were both sins and crimes and needed to be dealt with accordingly.

This isn't to excuse Calvin, but simply to better understand his response. It might be helpful to note that Calvin's comments about Servetus emerged out of a lengthy correspondence, in which apparently Servetus wasn't all that complementary to Calvin, then after this, with Calvin having said that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive, Servetus slips into Geneva and then goes to hear Calvin speak. Was Servetus testing fate? What was he up to and did Calvin play into his hands or the reverse? It should be noted that just about every community/prinicipality believed that Servetus deserved death -- Calvin just gets tarred with it.

As a historian I've been trained to look at things as objectively as possible. I make my judgments, but I try to make judgments in context. I may not like what is said or done, but I try to understand that the object of my study isn't a denizen of the 21st century!

Calvin's Mixed Legacy

With John Calvin's 500th birthday with us, there is much debate as to his legacy. I'm not a Calvinist, though I value aspects of his theology. As a Protestant I'm an heir of his work, even if at times it means that those who have influenced and formed me resisted his work. Arminians, of which group I likely am a part, are Reformed folk, they simply objected to the way the Reformation theology was being understood and developed. I don't like everything that Luther wrote or Zwingli or even Menno. Every movement has its dark side.

John Calvin was a product of his time, and his followers have taken his thought in any number of directions, many of which he probably would reject. But he likely gave a foundation to each of these trajectories.

I read today Paula Cooey's gracious post about Calvin and his legacy. Even as she rejects his involvement in the Servetus execution and his atonement theology, she finds much that is valuable as well. She notes that there are both right wing and left wing interpretations -- Capitalist and Marxist versions. Consider the very title of her reflections at Religion Dispatches: "John Calvin at 500: From Theocrats to Marxists, Calvin’s Vision of Joy and Cruelty Left Complex Legacy."


Cooey writes:

The legacy Calvin left is ambiguous at best. The dominant strain that runs through consists of an accentuated Augustinian proclivity to the transform world, a stewardship characterized by leaving the place better than one found it. “Better” is subject to interpretation and debate, of course. Many of his followers, somewhat more scholastic and ever more into policing human life and less into rejoicing, were and are a tough and all-too-often nasty lot, to say the least. In fact, Calvin, with others (that fiery redhead John Knox who smashed the stained glass windows of St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, to name the most notable among them) gave birth to the various denominations that make up the Reformed Protestant Church: Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and others all share the name Calvinist. In this country, these Calvinists range in their political and social world-transforming behaviors from avid theocrats, still capable of spewing a vituperative anti-Catholic polemic, to equally avid radical supporters of gay and lesbian marriage.

One note here -- while there are likely Calvinist Disciples, the Disciple founders made it very clear that they were breaking from Calvin. That said, it is important that we consider the legacy that Calvin has left, acknowledging both the positives and the negatives. I think it worth recognizing that whatever the proclivities of the founding fathers, the American nation has roots in the Calvinist vision. Even as Calvin sought to establish a Christian commonwealth in Geneva, so did the Puritans first in England, and then in America. We hail the Pilgrims, but they were separatist Calvinists of the most rigid kind.

I will post more about Calvin through the week, as I do think his is a legacy we must grapple with.

Homosexuality and Slavery in the Bible -- Sightings

Martin Marty speaks to an issue that is bound to come up somewhere, some place in Protestant gatherings --the place of gays in the church, whether it's membership, ordination, or marriage. Regarding the last point -- it's a question of broader society as well. Marty notes that when we gather we will either quote scripture or note that there's not much there that speaks about it, and that it is ultimately cultural. Anyway, Marty brings up the analogy of slavery and how it has been treated. Today there are few Christians who would justify slavery -- on biblical grounds -- but many of those who reject it today, continue to claim biblical justification for excluding gays and lesbians. So, is there something we can learn from the way Scripture and the Church has dealt with slavery in regards to homosexuality? Take a look. I think Marty is on the mark.

*******************************

Sightings 7/13/09

Homosexuality and Slavery in the Bible

-- Martin E. Marty

Annually I write the report on "Protestantism" for World Book and other yearbooks. For a dozen or score of years now, the lead story always has to be about churches tearing themselves apart in lose-lose battles over the blessing of gay marriages and ordination of homosexuals, et cetera. One could wish it were otherwise, so that more churches could get back or ahead to more gospel and more mission. There are, or may be, good reasons other than biblical ones to support or oppose issues on this subject. But citing the Bible in church conventions trumps other approaches -- we are, after all, talking about Protestants! -- and such citing leads to stalemates. On this subject, the five inches of type in my desk Bible (I measured them) get used to oppose any movement on this front. It’s "the Bible says" versus "the Levitical laws, the other 600-plus of which no one pays any attention to, speak to a different culture, with different understandings."

Is it possible to bring newer understandings forward without a) disdaining, b) relativizing, c) picking-and-choosing texts to one’s taste, or d) ignoring the Scriptures? Has not the church, almost universally, changed its teaching ("grown in understanding") on subjects? It certainly changed and "grew" when its various bodies for the first time supported religious liberty in civil orders two and three centuries ago. But many believe the best case is on slavery. The South's preachers and theologians, virtually unanimously, gave biblically-based arguments for the enslavement of humans by humans, and often opposed their release.

Mention that and you get a quick reply: "The Bible nowhere commands slavery, and it does forbid same-sex relations." One has to stretch to support the "nowhere commands" argument, since its divinely-inspired authors did something worse: They took slavery for granted and, without criticizing it, often appropriated its existence and norms for making other points. A review by Jennifer Knust of two new books in the July Journal of Religion indicates how that was done. Some quickly chosen excerpts: "Ancient Christian writings rarely challenge the abusive, exploitative, and gruesome mechanisms of first-century chattel slavery. ‘Slaves, obey your masters.’" "The Christian Bible has played an important role in legitimating slave systems," including in North America. Author J. Albert Harrill finds that Christian discourse participated in and promoted an ideology that belittled slaves and naturalized slaveholding. He "highlights the ways in which contemporary moral debates both shape and inform biblical criticism." On this subject "the New Testament cannot be viewed as a book of morals."

Everyone, including presumably New Testament authors, knew that domestic slaves, according to author Jennifer A. Glancy, had "the obligation to tend to the master’s physical body and sexual needs." Even Jesus’ "parabolic slaves are beaten, flogged, cut to pieces, seized, imprisoned, handed over to torturers, and assigned to eternal death in order to teach theological lessons." All taken for granted. The parables "reinforced the violent power relations that sustained ancient slavery." Arguments based on analogy, including this one, do not "prove" much of anything. They can, however, be instructive when the history of cultures, from the biblical settings to our own, is neglected, or when simply saying "the Bible says" shows unmindfulness of creative possibilities -- and can harm individuals, lead to schisms, and hamper future witness.

References:

Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford, 2002).

Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Fortress, 2005).

Jennifer Knust's review of these two books appears in The Journal of Religion, 89: 406-409, July 2009.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

In July’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, “Flowers in the Dark: African American Consciousness, Laughter, and Resistance in Toni Morrison’s Beloved,” ethicist Jacqueline Bussie of Capital University pursues the question of why, in so many accounts, people in oppressive situations of suffering respond with laughter. Focusing on the example of Toni Morrison’s slavery-era novel, Bussie, in an excerpt from her Trinity Prize-winning book The Laughter of the Oppressed, explores the complexities of the human condition and points toward a more nuanced understanding of ethics. Invited responses will be posted later in the month from Joseph Winters, Cooper Harriss, John Howell, and Zhange Ni.

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Does Denominational Identity Matter? -- Theolog Post

My post about denominational identity --- does it matter? -- appears at the Christian Century blog Theolog. In this brief posting I take a look at a quote from a recent book by Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn (Disciples: Reclaiming Our Identity, Reforming Our Practice, Chalice, 2009), and compare their thoughts about identity and renewal with comments made by a young Presbyterian minister (pending ordination) and blogger, Adam Walker Cleaveland, who is not so sure denominational identity has much meaning. I invite you to check out the post and then offer your thoughts -- there and here!