"God's preacher-prophet-watchperson must be aware that lonliness comes with the territory. In fact, the watchperson, is in a perpetually lonely situation, for a watchtower cannot hold a crowd. -Beecher Hicks Jr.
Life in the desert has a way of having its way with you. You can watch the world from a lonely hilltop or in the darkness of night stare at the sliver of the moon. Watching and waiting generally proves frustrating. Maybe that is why one is prone to wander. Follow old trails, visit old haunts explore uncharted canyons hidden within the desert lanscape. There is an internal desire to be lost, all but forgotten; killed by indians, mortally injured by a careless fall, a water hole run dry. A lot can happen to a man in the desert. Is he not just one more soul lost to civilization?
I have wondered about Paul, lashed to the mast on his journey towards Rome. He stared up at the same sliver of moon comtemplating hopes and dreams and dreading warnings unbidden. With the smell of winter in the air and oracles which fell on deaf ears, the sea of glass became white caps with the coming of November. She shuddered with her belly and heaved within her hull. Taste the spray and ride the rage to a bitter shore.
"I wonder as I wander out under the sky.........."
"Lonliness for the preacher-watchman is most striking because it is most internal. This lonliness is one that friends can not erase and for which congregational families can not compensate. It is a kind of existential lonliness coming in the darkest part of the night and forcing us to meet the ambiguities of life. To struggle with the self that can not be expressed is to be lonely. To struggle with the tension of calling and purpose, knowing all the while that what you wish to be is at odds with what God requires you to become, is to be lonely. To stand in that strange and eerie place where you used to hear from God, where he used to show up but now is undeniably absent and silent, is to be lonely. So then, it apprears that because I have this calling and this vision, I am condemned to be lonely- believing, at the same time, that by God's promise I am never alone. It is the very essence of faith. It is a conundrum." (Beecher HIcks)
And so the desert wanderer presses on. In search of? Only God knows what. Perhaps more appropriately, who he searches for. There on the mountain, in the cloud. A place of unknowing, where for Moses the mysteries of heaven were unlocked. The place where for Moses life must have at times become exceedingly tedious. Waiting for wanderers to become worshippers. Sola Fide, WHB
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
An Exaggerated Imagination
"A regular practice of speaching may well be an act of relational violence, one that is detrimental to the very communities we are seeking to nurture." Doug Pagitt (Preaching Re-imagined)
The problem with books is that it is a one way conversation. Aren't there times when you just wish the author was sitting there right next to you and you could talk to them about what you just read? Then there is the tragedy of too little too late. The tragedy for me is that I listened to, and conversed with Doug Pagitt at the recent National Conference on Preaching (speaching). Alas, I wish I had read his book first and met him second. We would have had so much more to talk about. Frankly he would have had a lot more explaining to do.
I just read Doug's book, "Preaching Re-imagined." It is quite the rage in the pomo/emergent community. He suggests a whole new approach to preaching which he calls 'progressive preacihng.' The pastor engages the congregation in an ongoing discussion of a selected text. Pre sermonic work is done with a team leading up to the service. The team is open to whoever wants to be there. In that sense I suppose the planning session is conceptual (this is what it might be about). The sermon/service itself would be formational. It is in effect created and proclaimed in community. That is my spin on what Doug was trying to say (which I think I said much better than he did).
All that aside this is an engaging easy read. Which is nice. Nice because it is easy to read and nice because it is engaging. Not in the sense that it draws you in to a good story but engaging in that it is a controversial topic. Lets face it for some (preachers), preaching (or speaching as Pagitt calls it) is the holy grail of Chirstianity. Doug embarks on a worthy discussion and merges the issue of preching with a variety of issues confronting the church today. To some it will read like a hodge-podge but they are legitimage issues nonetheless. Doug's concept of community and preaching are so bound together that it is impossible for him not to stray into other arenas. In this sense he does us a favor in starting a worthy conversation. Unfortunately, what could be a great discussion read like a one-way rant. Sure, there are plenty of minions (those who buy into anything and everything pomo leaders are saying) who will embrace his thoughts but he failed to present himself in such a way that those who need to join the dialogue will be apt to listen. Funny, he talked about language and choice of words in progressive preaching. Too bad it did not exude from his writing. In person and in his book he came off as rather arrogant (I'm right and you are wrong). Not that I'm offended mind you (unless it is in that I met someone who is better at it than I am). Personally I think it's just his passion spilling out. And what preacher/pastor can't respect that in another shepherd? Shouldn't we be passionate about Christ and his body?
So if I can live with Doug's passion then what is my problem with his book? Well, I think it lacks credibility. For instance, he argues for progessive preaching from a biblical and a historical argument. Biblically he uses Acts 10 and Peter and Cornelius' conversation as a proof text for progressive preaching. He seems to suggest this would become the norm for the early church. Historically speaking he insists that speaching is a relatively new phenomenon in church having been born out of the enlightenment. Both of these arguments by some might be called "straw men." In reality they are downright fallacious. This is what makes Doug's work questionable in that it lacks scholarly integrity. First the Acts 10 thing is akin to textual violence (to use Pagitt's terminology). Luke is not prescribing any preaching method he is only documenting events and supplying pertinent conversations and sermons relavent to the fulfillment of his purpose. One has to wonder if Doug knows anything about Greek or Roman rhetoric and the role it played in the first and surrounding centuries. In fact Luke gives us a clear picture of what speaching sounded like in the early church. Paul at times used a classic method known as "Narratio" (Acts 22, 26). His sermons follow a Greek rhetorical pattern as popular in that day. Keep in mind 'rhetoric' was a positive term in Luke's day unlike ours. Nor is it plausable that Luke was not telling the whole 'story.' Historiography in Luke's day was very factually oriented. Embellishment was not likely or considered necessary. Acts is a historical narrative of the work of the Holy Spirit in the fledgling church as seen in the events outlined by Luke. The conversations and sermons serve to inform the reader as to motivations, beliefs and perceptions of the people participating in God's new movement. The accuracy of the sermons is as critical as the accuracy of the events being described.
Doug says nothing of the reading of texts within the community either. Even Acts for as long as it is can be a lively read. Luke almost certainly planned it so; event-speech-explanaiton is a common flow of the text. Did the listeners converse and discuss the text? One would think so but it was in no way a 'progressive sermon'. Nor does Doug make any mention of Pauls blunt expectation that women shut up (my translation) in church. What is one to do with that? Doug goes so far as to suggest that everybody stops talking when a baby cries in church because everyone has to be heard. So this read not only lacks credibility but it gets downright sappy.
At the end of the day I think Pagitt "doth protest too much." He insists progressive preaching is not another method of 'speaching'. Yeah, right. That's exactly what it is. Such an admission would make his arguments more tenable. For he is right in asserting that preaching affects the context of the community. That being said forms of progressive preaching have their place. It is a valuable tool which helps create community. But spare me the arrogance that he has come up with something that is 'other than' what he calls speaching. He himself digresses on personality (his) and how it effects his formation of a sermon. Hey, some things work better for other people.
The funny thing is, the pomo crowd insists they are a breed apart. Well maybe they are. Their arrogance and pontificating remind me of Fundamentalism (we are the last great basteon of hope, blah, blah, blah). I am considering the idea that postmodern is a code word for fundamentalist. Postmodernity is a code word for fundamentallism and emergent is a code word for fundy (pejorative). Rermember the common denominator of fundamentalism is militance. And Doug Pagitt is militant. Maybe that's why I feel like I can have a lively conversation with him. Sola Gracia, WHB
The problem with books is that it is a one way conversation. Aren't there times when you just wish the author was sitting there right next to you and you could talk to them about what you just read? Then there is the tragedy of too little too late. The tragedy for me is that I listened to, and conversed with Doug Pagitt at the recent National Conference on Preaching (speaching). Alas, I wish I had read his book first and met him second. We would have had so much more to talk about. Frankly he would have had a lot more explaining to do.
I just read Doug's book, "Preaching Re-imagined." It is quite the rage in the pomo/emergent community. He suggests a whole new approach to preaching which he calls 'progressive preacihng.' The pastor engages the congregation in an ongoing discussion of a selected text. Pre sermonic work is done with a team leading up to the service. The team is open to whoever wants to be there. In that sense I suppose the planning session is conceptual (this is what it might be about). The sermon/service itself would be formational. It is in effect created and proclaimed in community. That is my spin on what Doug was trying to say (which I think I said much better than he did).
All that aside this is an engaging easy read. Which is nice. Nice because it is easy to read and nice because it is engaging. Not in the sense that it draws you in to a good story but engaging in that it is a controversial topic. Lets face it for some (preachers), preaching (or speaching as Pagitt calls it) is the holy grail of Chirstianity. Doug embarks on a worthy discussion and merges the issue of preching with a variety of issues confronting the church today. To some it will read like a hodge-podge but they are legitimage issues nonetheless. Doug's concept of community and preaching are so bound together that it is impossible for him not to stray into other arenas. In this sense he does us a favor in starting a worthy conversation. Unfortunately, what could be a great discussion read like a one-way rant. Sure, there are plenty of minions (those who buy into anything and everything pomo leaders are saying) who will embrace his thoughts but he failed to present himself in such a way that those who need to join the dialogue will be apt to listen. Funny, he talked about language and choice of words in progressive preaching. Too bad it did not exude from his writing. In person and in his book he came off as rather arrogant (I'm right and you are wrong). Not that I'm offended mind you (unless it is in that I met someone who is better at it than I am). Personally I think it's just his passion spilling out. And what preacher/pastor can't respect that in another shepherd? Shouldn't we be passionate about Christ and his body?
So if I can live with Doug's passion then what is my problem with his book? Well, I think it lacks credibility. For instance, he argues for progessive preaching from a biblical and a historical argument. Biblically he uses Acts 10 and Peter and Cornelius' conversation as a proof text for progressive preaching. He seems to suggest this would become the norm for the early church. Historically speaking he insists that speaching is a relatively new phenomenon in church having been born out of the enlightenment. Both of these arguments by some might be called "straw men." In reality they are downright fallacious. This is what makes Doug's work questionable in that it lacks scholarly integrity. First the Acts 10 thing is akin to textual violence (to use Pagitt's terminology). Luke is not prescribing any preaching method he is only documenting events and supplying pertinent conversations and sermons relavent to the fulfillment of his purpose. One has to wonder if Doug knows anything about Greek or Roman rhetoric and the role it played in the first and surrounding centuries. In fact Luke gives us a clear picture of what speaching sounded like in the early church. Paul at times used a classic method known as "Narratio" (Acts 22, 26). His sermons follow a Greek rhetorical pattern as popular in that day. Keep in mind 'rhetoric' was a positive term in Luke's day unlike ours. Nor is it plausable that Luke was not telling the whole 'story.' Historiography in Luke's day was very factually oriented. Embellishment was not likely or considered necessary. Acts is a historical narrative of the work of the Holy Spirit in the fledgling church as seen in the events outlined by Luke. The conversations and sermons serve to inform the reader as to motivations, beliefs and perceptions of the people participating in God's new movement. The accuracy of the sermons is as critical as the accuracy of the events being described.
Doug says nothing of the reading of texts within the community either. Even Acts for as long as it is can be a lively read. Luke almost certainly planned it so; event-speech-explanaiton is a common flow of the text. Did the listeners converse and discuss the text? One would think so but it was in no way a 'progressive sermon'. Nor does Doug make any mention of Pauls blunt expectation that women shut up (my translation) in church. What is one to do with that? Doug goes so far as to suggest that everybody stops talking when a baby cries in church because everyone has to be heard. So this read not only lacks credibility but it gets downright sappy.
At the end of the day I think Pagitt "doth protest too much." He insists progressive preaching is not another method of 'speaching'. Yeah, right. That's exactly what it is. Such an admission would make his arguments more tenable. For he is right in asserting that preaching affects the context of the community. That being said forms of progressive preaching have their place. It is a valuable tool which helps create community. But spare me the arrogance that he has come up with something that is 'other than' what he calls speaching. He himself digresses on personality (his) and how it effects his formation of a sermon. Hey, some things work better for other people.
The funny thing is, the pomo crowd insists they are a breed apart. Well maybe they are. Their arrogance and pontificating remind me of Fundamentalism (we are the last great basteon of hope, blah, blah, blah). I am considering the idea that postmodern is a code word for fundamentalist. Postmodernity is a code word for fundamentallism and emergent is a code word for fundy (pejorative). Rermember the common denominator of fundamentalism is militance. And Doug Pagitt is militant. Maybe that's why I feel like I can have a lively conversation with him. Sola Gracia, WHB
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Box Canyons
"Stand firm and see the Lord's salvation he will provide for you today." -Moses
It's like Lious La'mour and one of his classic westerns. The good guys slide into a canyon to escape only to discover it's a death trap. A box canyon. There's no way out. Or is there?
Well I have returned from my hiatus. There is no excuse for my absence. I simply didn't feel like doing this. And this is one of the few things in life which my feelings are allowed to dictate what I do or do not do. Frankly life has changed. In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye or should I say a conversation, the ring of the phone or being late rather than on time. There is something to be said for God. He does have a way about him. In that he knows how to make a point or gain an audience.
When Israel crossed the Red Sea there was quite an audience. This is Israel's epic event about which prophets and poets write about. It serves as a stark reminder that our God is one of promise and fulfillment. And it reads, well it reads like a La'mour western. Desert crossings and box canyons. Trapped with seemingly no escape. Yes, God had Pharoah and Israel right where he wanted them. They are the spectators and Yahweh has the lead role in this divine drama. He arrrives right on time and Israel has only to watch and wait for the salvation of the Lord.
Without doubt God wanted to make a point. He wanted Israel to see the corpses lying on the beach, bodies bobbing in the churning waters. Even if Israel wanted to go back to Egypt they couldn't (and at times they seemed to). For not only had Israel been delivered from bondage but the source of the bondage had been broken. Pharoah was dead and Egypt was crippled. Things would never be the same again. Israel would have to learn to live in the desert, the land of opportunity. The place where God provides. They ate breakfast at Pinera Bread, at night ate at KFC and got their water from the Hard Rock Cafe. God was using this box canyon experience to cultivate Israel's faith in him. It's a matter of trust. If God had saved Israel to serve him it was imperative that they trust him. A lack of trust always tarnishes service and undermines worship.
No doubt we also need our box canyon experiences. I expect we can only mature so much on someone elses experiences. Sooner or later we have to have our own close calls where God arrives. In similar fashion our sinful state is a box canyon, from which only Christ can extract us. We would do well to trust him. Sola Fide, WHB
It's like Lious La'mour and one of his classic westerns. The good guys slide into a canyon to escape only to discover it's a death trap. A box canyon. There's no way out. Or is there?
Well I have returned from my hiatus. There is no excuse for my absence. I simply didn't feel like doing this. And this is one of the few things in life which my feelings are allowed to dictate what I do or do not do. Frankly life has changed. In an instant, in the twinkling of an eye or should I say a conversation, the ring of the phone or being late rather than on time. There is something to be said for God. He does have a way about him. In that he knows how to make a point or gain an audience.
When Israel crossed the Red Sea there was quite an audience. This is Israel's epic event about which prophets and poets write about. It serves as a stark reminder that our God is one of promise and fulfillment. And it reads, well it reads like a La'mour western. Desert crossings and box canyons. Trapped with seemingly no escape. Yes, God had Pharoah and Israel right where he wanted them. They are the spectators and Yahweh has the lead role in this divine drama. He arrrives right on time and Israel has only to watch and wait for the salvation of the Lord.
Without doubt God wanted to make a point. He wanted Israel to see the corpses lying on the beach, bodies bobbing in the churning waters. Even if Israel wanted to go back to Egypt they couldn't (and at times they seemed to). For not only had Israel been delivered from bondage but the source of the bondage had been broken. Pharoah was dead and Egypt was crippled. Things would never be the same again. Israel would have to learn to live in the desert, the land of opportunity. The place where God provides. They ate breakfast at Pinera Bread, at night ate at KFC and got their water from the Hard Rock Cafe. God was using this box canyon experience to cultivate Israel's faith in him. It's a matter of trust. If God had saved Israel to serve him it was imperative that they trust him. A lack of trust always tarnishes service and undermines worship.
No doubt we also need our box canyon experiences. I expect we can only mature so much on someone elses experiences. Sooner or later we have to have our own close calls where God arrives. In similar fashion our sinful state is a box canyon, from which only Christ can extract us. We would do well to trust him. Sola Fide, WHB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)