merefaith: discipleship in the ruins of empire

American Revolution...Conflated and Marbleized

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:11:00 +0000

The "Spirit of '76" is being invoked a lot lately. In the past year we have seen the "Tea Party" movement consciously adopt the symbols and rhetoric of the American Revolution as needed and applicable instruments of protest in the current political climate. Protesters show up to rallies waving Revolutionary-era flags, holding up signs proclaiming their continuity with the principles of the founders, and even wearing replica costumes of statesmen and soldiers.

I've been entering another kick of reading about the American Revolution and the early American experience and just the other day I decided to enter "american revolution" as a search term on the Youtube home page. The majority of videos that were listed on the opening page were not documentary pieces about history but political videos promoting the need for a "Second American Revolution."

The idea of a second revolution has been invoked before, of course. The label has been affixed to the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Some of the founders may have even envisioned a regular reoccurrence of "little revolutions" every couple of decades in the calling of constitutional conventions to address new reforms.

Unlike the liberal critics of the Tea Party movement that I have read, I have some sympathy for the protesters. They are not simply racist, ignorant wingnuts but concerned individuals and families reacting to uncertain times. However, I do agree with the liberal critics that the Partiers are generally incoherent. There is no need further to belabor the point that they were not out in force as a white president loaded the country with debt to fight two wars and engineer the bank bailout.

But beyond that fact the real incoherence I see is the adoption of the American Revolution as exemplary model for current political protest. I understand that mass rallies aren't places of critical nuance, but nevertheless I see a lot of confusion about what the Revolution was and was not. As many working-class Americans and women lionize the Founders they whitewash their biographies to invoke them as guiding spirits. But in truth the landed gentry and rising businessmen who make up the American pantheon would likely not be pleased with the Tea Party rallies. Many, if not most, of the participants in the movement would be denied the vote or the chance to hold office by the founders. These men generally supported the property qualifications set by the states for political participation, resisting the idea of full suffrage for white men - let alone blacks or women. They believed in the purportedly wise rule of the deserving, the "better" or at least "middling" sort that possessed land and education. They were terrified of any action on the part of the "mob" and resisted public demonstrations by a crowd of Average Joes (unless, of course, said crowds were managed by them). If a Hancock or a Morris were to hear the ignorant declaration to "keep your government hands off my Medicare" they would immediately call up the militia to disperse the "rabble."

This is not to suggest that the founders were simply evil elites. Elites they were, yes, but perhaps guided more by a paternalistic mindset and the blindness of their social position rather than any conspiratorial bent to oppress others. Some, like Jefferson, may have viewed the masses more favorably. But, in general, they supported what was truthfully a system of minority rule. Pennsylvania was the only Revolutionary-era state to adopt universal male suffrage, and New Jersey adopted women's suffrage in 1776 only to repeal it within a couple of decades.

But there is more to the Revolution than the visible white men on pedestals. It has become commonplace among scholars to speak of multiple revolutionary visions that were imagined and argued in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Instead of a unified, homogenous revolutionary movement there were competing factions and shifting alliances. The language of liberty was disseminated and shared across the social spectrum but it received multiple interpretations as it played in the minds of aristocrats, yeoman farmers, laborers, women and slaves. Some of the happenings of the Revolution were beyond the control or the wishes of the astounded founders as many took opportunity into their own hands.

The Tea Party is incoherent in that it wants to establish continuity with all these competing elements. Simultaneously, the protesters connect with Madison and Paine, the Constitution and Common Sense. In one video I saw one protester holding a sign that says "I believe in the Constitution." I doubt she is aware that the Constitution was a retrenchment by the elite founders against democratizing forces, as demonstrated in such works as Woody Holton's Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution and as acknowledged even by Gordon Wood, a scholar with a more positive view of the founders who argued for The Radicalism of the American Revolution. I also doubt many Tea Party participants are aware that Thomas Paine, upon returning to America in 1802 after a fifteen-year absence, believed that the ideals of the Revolution had been betrayed.

But such is the fate of history when it is made to serve current political needs and when its many shades are whitewashed in the name of idolatrous American exceptionalism. The American Revolution, a confused, tumultuous, violent spectacle, part triumph and part tragedy, has become a conflated unity and marbelized as the monumental backdrop to make any and every protest today noble because it is said to share a supposed common spirit.

1 Thessalonians versus Empire...Who Knew?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:22:00 +0000

At least, that's the question that has come to mind as I've re-engaged Paul's earliest extant letter.

For some time I have not paid particular attention to the Thessalonian correspondence. Part of the avoidance may be the sour taste of overdone eschatological speculation that has drawn from these letters. 1 Thess supposedly teaches the "rapture" and 2 Thess explains the "coming world leader Antichrist blah blah blah." In other words, these two brief letters have been scripted into the otherwordly and spiritualized narrative of contemporary First World apocalypticism. Just give us that pie in the sky, Jesus, we're waiting to go home!

But what if there's more going on in this correspondence than meets the eye? I've recently come across some interesting work on these letters, most particularly 1 Thessalonians, as anti-imperial rhetoric. Paul writes to a community that is suffering difficult ostracism and persecution. The archaeological and historical record indicates that the elites of Thessalonica strongly cultivated Roman beneficence. Alongside the state-sponsored cult of Cabirus the imperial cult was established and promoted early. The small community of Christians thus encountered opposition not from "Judaizers" but from their "own countrymen" (2:14). Nevertheless, Paul reminds the believers, Jesus Christ is truly "Lord" (and, it is implied, not Caesar) and he is the one who brings salvation (again, not the guy in Rome).

These believers belong to an alternative brotherhood (1:6-8) that operates independently of Roman patronage system and in separation from Caesar's claim of the empire as household and family. Looking forward to their future vindication, Paul tells the Thessalonians that those who live to see the Lord Jesus return will "meet" (apantesis) him in the air. This term was used to describe the ceremonial reception of a visiting emperor or other such official who is met outside the city gates and then escorted on the final leg of his journey. The point, then, is not that Christians get to escape this world but that they have the honor of receiving the true Sovereign just before he arrives. Further still in 5:3 Paul criticizes the claim of "peace and security," which was something of an imperial slogan from the days of Augustus.

What we have in 1 Thessalonians, argues Abraham Smith, is a document of moral formation "designed to support the shared values of a network of ekklesiai in the face of competing values in the larger society." ("1 and 2 Thessalonians," A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings, 312).

Humble Tips for Fellow Garden Beginners

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:41:00 +0000

After having unusually cold and snowy weather for a while, we broke out into an unusually warm and sunny weekend! I understand that a recent Tom Friedman column in the New York Times spoke of "Global Weirding" and I think he's right!

Winter really does feel like a creeping, quiet hibernation time when one is both a) a southerner who looks at the first snowfall each year and thinks to himself, "Huh...I wonder just what is this stuff??" and b) a day-dreaming newbie gardener almost ready to rip up the whole lawn and homestead his heart out. So today I got out and made the most of this break before the temperatures drop down a bit again in the coming days. It was long and hard work, but by the late afternoon I could sit my tired self down and celebrate a new garden bed running down the gentle south slope from our largest oak tree. Part of this evening was spent in devotions with a nursery catalogue, selecting candidates for the latest mini-ecosystem at our house.

This is now my fifth straight season of gardening and the third in the current residence. I have no doubt that I am still quite the beginner in this experience. But this has been enough time of reading and practice for me to learn a few things along the way that may be worth sharing, especially for friends who have also started to take up gardening as practice or at least as hypothesis. Maybe you know all this already or maybe this will be helpful. Either way, I'm going to keep typing.

1. You will not achieve your miracle garden overflowing with luscious vegetables, all-season long, in the first season. In fact, I haven't achieved anything close to that yet. Developing a good garden takes time, especially if you make the effort to pursue ecological harmony instead of the "easy" way out of Miracle Gro, fertilizer and pesticide. Gardening is perhaps ultimately about reaching a genuine sense of place so that your little hamlet of the natural world becomes "home" in a very true sense. You get to the good garden because you know your soil, your climate, your critters, your sun and your shade. And you don't know all of these things your first season, or your second. Moreover, just when you think you know them, something new is added to the mix. Creation is always flowing in the flux that the good Lord intended, so you can't become complacent. Observation is critical, and I should know because I'm not good at it. But once you have good knowledge of your garden place, both empirical and intuitive, then you have the baseline that helps you adjust readily to ever-changing circumstances.

Plus, good gardens create communities of plants (not zombiefied monocultures like on agribusiness farms) and it takes time to know what communities work each year (for annuals) or to establish strong communities year-over-year (for perennials). Sometimes you really just have to grow into a good garden. Again, I'm not there yet!

2. With good planning and principles in hand, a lot of the hard work comes up front but tapers off after that. This at least is true if one is trying to garden according to the permaculture ideal. In other words, it's back-breaking labor first to build those garden beds, plant those fruit trees, and so on. But once a pretty good garden has been established then it's supposed to be a matter of letting nature doing most of the work and then cooperating with that. If good soil has been formed, plants have been placed well, birds and bees and butterflies are showing up, and there's no severe drought, then you can have less of the hard labor and more of the sheer enjoyment. But this means ignoring a lot of "conventional" gardening - i.e., organizing plants in rows and tilling the soil each year. You'll find out that not only is this way of doing things ecologically irresponsible, it's also very tiring.

3. Don't get ambitious about feeding yourself and your family with your vegetable garden and expect to have other enjoyments or a job. Besides, self-sufficiency isn't a Christian virtue. Go the farmer's market or co-op grocery. Sign up for a share with a local CSA. I think a best practice is to look at your diet, look at what local farmers offer, and think about planting the missing ingredients, if possible. Don't think that your garden is the lifeline to survival if you lose your job, get slapped with heavy medical bills, or Western civilization collapses. A stable, sustainable garden will certainly help your resilience. But it won't keep you alive - especially if you don't have the space to grow the protein-rich stuff like grains or lots of potatoes. I should know - I have a lot that's nearly half an acre and, based on reading my copy of Small-Scale Grain Raising, we'd probably need to turn just about every inch of sunny lawn over to grain to have, in potential, enough survival bread for a good chunk of the year.

4. If you're serious about a resilient, sustainable vegetable garden, don't buy the super-cheap seed packets at the box stores. Suppose you wanted to save the seeds from your bell pepper you got at Lowe's and plant them next year? Good luck with that one. Almost all the seeds in the stores are hybrids and so their descendants will not return "true to type" but start deviating into unpredicable varieties from which they were bred, which will span the range of edibility (or lack thereof). If you want to save seeds, buy heirloom varieties from places like Seed Savers Exchange. You'll be promoting biodiversity and preserving all kinds of endangered tastes and colors that have been pushed aside by agribusiness uniformity. And you can do this at the same time as you save yourself money and enhance your resilience - who knew? Keep in mind, though, that you need to either plant a LOT of a variety to keep the gene pool broad and healthy, or get involved in the actual exchanging part of groups like SSE.

5. Compost, compost, compost. It's the miracle drug of gardening. Don't even think of skimping on this part. And upgrade to composting with worms! I haven't done this yet, but everything tells me I need to get on board soon so my plants can get a really super hit of the good stuff.

6. Don't make the garden just about you. As suggested above, the birds, bees and butterflies are your friends. Birds eat bugs, especially a lot of the ones you don't want around. Bees and butterflies make a lot of plant sex happen, which will be good if you're planting heirloom varieties and want to save seed. So be sure to build so-called "ornamental" beds, or beds that mix food crops and those with other purposes. Get plants that flower, bear fruit that you may care little about eating, or that are known for generating seed that birds love.

7. Go native! A lot of the plants that are even at your friendly, local garden center are exotic species that may look pretty but are not best suited for your region. They may be poisonous to certain animals or invasive species that destabilize natural habitats. Or they may just need more attention to grow well in places foreign to their evolved dispositions. Even non-native species that serve some useful purposes are out-done by the home team. For example, we bought a butterfly bush last year to do you can guess what. But the butterfly bush, while pretty and helpful in attracting butterflies to feed, has a distinct limitation. Butterflies here in the eastern US will not lay their eggs on the butterfly bush. But there are pretty, native plants that offer food and suitable circumstances for hatching and larval development. Why settle for less?

8. Don't ignore your garden in August because it's hot. This brings us full circle back to number one. Don't stop thinking about your garden in January either. It is a practice of constant observation, reflection and action. Make this a year-round commitment or just stick to growing a potted tomato plant on your porch each summer.

For what it's worthy, these are my thoughts on what fellow beginners should know as they set out. Feel free to share what you think are other important bits of advice.

Decline Going Mainstream?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:29:00 +0000

At the beginning of December I commented on the Newsweek cover story, "How Great Powers Fall," in which economic historian Niall Ferguson openly entertained the idea that America's huge load of debt may herald the end of her superpower status. At the time it appeared, to my eyes at least, as a lonely statement of historical inevitability. It has been surrounded by assurances, or at least hopeful assumptions, that our unequivocally bad times, however severe, are still just bumps on the road to renewed prosperity and might. Perhaps most Americans are still pessimistic about the current state of affairs and the near-term future, but I wager that few conceive that dramatic changes in their way of life, or the global order writ large, are plausible.

The latest issue of Newsweek, however, mentioned the prospect of imminent decline multiple times. In a column on Chinese-US relations, Fareed Zakaria writes about a

great fear that the U.S. economy is in deep structural decline. If American politicians cannot muster up the courage to make the U.S. economy competitive again, and Beijing perceives that it is dealing with a superpower in inexorable decline, relations between China and America will change fundamentally. [emphasis mine]

Turning the page, the next column by Jacob Weisberg comments on the nation's current political paralysis, turning blame from the politicians to the "biggest culprit of all: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large." In aggregate, he says, the American people live "in Candyland" by simultaneously holding desires for government both to tackle big problems and "get out of the way." This is his concluding paragraph:

Our inability to address long-term challenges makes a strong case that the United States now faces an era of historical decline. To change this storyline, we need to stop blaming the rascals we elect to office, and look instead to ourselves. [emphasis mine]

Turn the page yet again and Robert Samuelson's column warns that delay in addressing the budget deficits will eventually compel odious tax increases and painful spending cuts. Turn the page yet again and Evan Thomas' article on Obama's "candor deficit" stresses that the public's trust in a better future for their children is in jeopardy and the time has long since come for politicians to drop slogans and speak honestly about the challenges and sacrifices necessary to forge a better future. One wonders how successful such honesty will be since, as Thomas writes, "liberal democracies are notoriously unable to demand sacrifice from their citizens, outside of time of war."

Elsewhere in the mainstream media, decline is openly discussed or otherwise implied. Economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman recently wrote about Obama's "cluelessness" in a New York Times column. Responding to the president's recent pro-business and pro-banker comments, including a statement about the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies, Krugman ends his column with these words:

We're doomed.

Canuck commentator Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun wrote a column last week about America's black hole of military spending, stating that the U.S. has reached "imperial overreach." Meanwhile, Paul Farrell of MarketWatch, part of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network, lists 20 "made-in-America" time bombs of debt that threaten the global economy and can "destroy your retirement."

Signs and portents, perhaps.

What do I owe Stanley?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:30:00 +0000

A couple of recent experiences have led me to this post in which I reflect on the influence, or lack thereof, that Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas has had on my own theological development. On his own blog a friend of mine reproduced one theologian's parabolic critique of Hauerwas after I commented on his statements concerning Anabaptist theology in a previous post. I understood this as an apparent attempt to "bait" me into further discussion and while I could be wrong he hasn't yet disputed my read on it. The assumption behind my friend's post, as I see it, is that Hauerwas is a critical, perhaps central figure in my formation as a Radical Reformation sort of Christian.

Interestingly enough, the same assumption was on display two days ago when I orally presented my PhD proposal in the research colloquium at the International Baptist Theological Seminary, where I shall remain for another week. One professor's assessment of my proposal was that the broad range of disciplines it brings into discussion reminded him of Hauerwas. He went on to say that he, too, had been a student under Hauerwas and understood the influence, but that he was concerned Hauerwas should not be one to emulate for dissertation work. Once again, it was assumed that Hauerwas is a critically formative figure for me.

On the surface, the assumption is reasonable. I attended Duke Divinity School. I took Hauerwas' "War and Peace in the Christian Tradition" my first semester. I consider myself an adherent to Christological pacifism and I am more concerned with letting the Church be the Church than figuring out how to get the State to align more with the Kingdom of God. Ergo, Hauerwasian?

But I humbly suggest that this is far from actually the case. First of all, when I sat in Hauerwas' lectures I had no idea what was going on. Though I appreciate the training I received at Louisiana College it was largely in historical-critical and exegetical methods. I was not genuinely prepared for theological discourse, so the reasoning that Hauerwas employed was alien to me. His lack of interest in defending his pacifism with exegetical work puzzled me and, in fact, continues to be one of his major weaknesses from my point of view. When we read Reinhold Niebuhr's Love and Justice it sounded very reasonable to me...so much so that I hid that acceptance under calm detachment as I listened to a friend light into Niebuhr. In the end, coming together with a study group helped me piece enough together to do well on the final examination. I came out of that class with a greater awareness of the positions and issues in this great debate of moral theology, as well as a greater awareness of how to think theologically about all of it, but nevertheless I emerged an undecided on issues of war and peace.

And that was the last I had of Hauerwas apart from the occasional lecture or sermon. I was never interested in the courses he taught or co-taught in Catholic moral theology or Anglican ethics. I stayed away from the course he co-taught with Romand Coles on Christianity and radical democracy, intrigued but a bit scared by a course intended primarily for PhD students. It's a regrettable decision given my own research is in that arena now.

But the point here is that, despite being so close to the Sun, I didn't catch on fire. I didn't even read much of Hauerwas' writings outside of what was assigned in that one class. My acceptance of pacifism came gradually over the course of several months afterward and through a variety of influences. I read Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. I had conversations with friends who had already made the journey. Elements of theological reasoning from other classes stirred my thoughts. Exegetical indicators gradually emerged. For a while I would describe myself as a believer in Christian nonviolence but not as a "pacifist," perhaps partly out of a fear that others would quickly conclude that one formidable figure stood behind that declaration.

If I sound so much like Hauerwas, then in truth it is because I have been heavily influenced by the giant that has influenced Stanley and so many others - John Howard Yoder. Some may think that Hauerwas is the centerpiece of Duke but it is Yoder who is like the northern star around which all others turn. And I wouldn't say Yoder himself. I've been fond of saying that Yoder and Barth are the ghosts that "haunt" the halls of Duke Divinity. I would add George Lindbeck to that list but he would take exception to the idea that he is dead!

Independently of Hauerwas, Yoder has impacted so many at Duke. I remember Sam Wells, Anglican clergy-theologian and dean of the Chapel, recalling in a sermon how he simply came across Yoder's writings in a bookshop by accident but was transformed in the encounter. Others at Duke (and IBTS) may share similar stories. Of course, Hauerwas is a particularly prominent interpreter and promoter of Yoder - that cannot be denied. And, in the end, that is what I owe Stanley. Yes, I do think Stanley has good things to say on his own terms. But, in the end, that is not what Stanley did for me. He introduced me to John Howard Yoder, whose work I have had far more interaction with. And I don't think Stanley would disagree that, a few centuries from now, the odds are much better that Yoder will still be read and discussed instead of Hauerwas.

Getting to Know the Neighbors

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 16:16:00 +0000

By that I do not mean my human neighbors. Two of the three houses next to ours are empty, which leaves a certain impediment in that quest. Our own property claims always overlap with the homes and territories defined across different lengths and dimensions by the animals who share our space. Our birdfeeders have given us the most rewarding opportunity to discover some of the winged community members whose daily living mingles alongside ours.

I have always been something of a fan of the Northern Cardinal. The bright red plumage of the male is always lovely to behold and looks especially impressive against a snowy background such as we have experienced on a couple of occasions this winter. Cardinals also tend to form bonded pairs. So two of our neighbors are a male and female Cardinal couple who never stray too far from one another. One may venture away about hundred feet or so but it often isn't long before the other arrives on the scene as well. And when they are separated they seem insistent on keeping contact. Just the other day when I was leaving the house after lunch I saw the female repeating short, single chirps from a tree at the house next to our driveway. The male echoed each chirp from an evergreen tree at the abandoned house across the street. But more often than not I see them hiding together in the ample bush near our seed feeder.

Our other known neighbor is a male Red-Bellied Woodpecker, which is kind of a dumb name since the distinctive red mark is on their heads. He's a much bigger, noisier fellow with a loner personality and a territorial zeal. Whether by intent or sheer frightening size he scares the other birds away from the feeders in a hurry. He comes to both feeders but prefers the suet hanging from the oak tree out front. I feel like he deserves a name but I haven't decided on a fitting one for him yet. Any suggestions?

Review of For the Common Good

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:57:00 +0000

This is an economics for our time.

While reading For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, I was struck by its prescience. When former World Bank economist Herman Daly and theologian John Cobb, Jr. first published this collaboration the year was 1989. The problems that they considered as looming possibilities and inevitable challenges are now either upon us already or knocking louder and louder at the door. Tragically, their warnings about the need for drastic corrections in our practices and attitudes, corrections which they deemed urgent even then, remain generally ignored even now in these dark hours of economic and ecological collapse. What they call the "wild facts" are now bearing fangs and leering hungrily at us...but somehow we still, in general, do not honestly acknowledge the dangers we face.

Their driving concern rests on a logical thesis that is so simple it should be indisputable if not for the mummery of neoclassical economists. Economic growth, as we understand it and measure it, and upon which the entire system depends, is unsustainable in the face of Earth's biophysical limits. Growth means more spending, more capital, more extraction, more pollution, more land, more water, more cows, more fish, etc. The economy cannot grow without growinginto ecological space previously left undisturbed, or at least less disturbed, by human manipulation. The economy is situated within larger, natural systems upon which it depends - what Wendell Berry calls the "Great Economy." As greater shares of the Great Economy are taken up by our human economy, the capacity of both to sustain themselves becomes increasingly questionable. Technology cannot simply be assumed as our deus ex machina to save us from our creaturely limits. Economics as the practice of growth, a tradition no more than two centuries old, needs to come to an end.

From there Daly and Cobb set out to make other claims. They reiterated the now oft-stated critique that the economists' anthropology, Homo economicus, is a distortion of human nature that has been incorrect descriptively but, unfortunately, has turned into a prescriptive formula. Human beings may not naturally function as individualistic, self-interest maximizers, but the capitalist assumption that they are has become a mandate that they shall become. Our economy, built around narrow measures and definitions of success and "welfare," has engaged in a process of destroying community at all levels of human organization. This is a related point to the "limits to growth" concern because a revival of community virtue and orientation will be needed to shift economic practice from growth to sustainability, or what Daly and others call a "steady state economy."

The repeated fallacy that Daly and Cobb say is responsible for economic distortions of natural order and human character is called "misplaced concreteness." This fallacy occurs when economists abstract too severely from concrete experience and attentive observation, turning partial and heuristic models into timeless truths. Abstractions about the "market" or "land" become reified in economic dogma, detached from the contexts of their historical origins and floating free in the Platonic world of forms. These models are then appealed to for justification without recognition of changing circumstances over time and place that have displaced them and so make them misplaced as descriptors of reality.

Daly and Cobb do not devote all their energies to criticism. Part III of the book they devote to fairly specific policy ideas for the United States. In Part IV they consider how "to get there," to move the academic professions, policymakers, and the general public toward the dispositions needed for these radical changes. They also close with one overtly theological chapter indicating why they believe theism is helpful for this process.

Many of the issues and concerns that drive the current communities of sustainability advocates are already present in this book: resource depletion, global warming, agricultural practices, relocalization, ending free trade, and the matter of overpopulation. Meanwhile, they also refer to Catholic social teaching, particularly the doctrine of subsidiarity. Their proposals therefore make them natural allies of the Catholic distributists in articulating an economic "third way" to capitalism and socialism. What I appreciate about Daly and Cobb is their thorough and informed discussion free of the (dare I say it) "sectarian" feel of many greens and many distributists. For example, they don't bash "capitalism" in toto (or socialism, for that matter). They speak approvingly of markets and defend them as valuable economic spaces that have done much good and may continue to do so, provided they are tempered by a broader social and ecological framework.

If you're languishing in the confusion of how to understand economics from a Christian vantage point, tired of the capitalist-socialist dichotomy but longing for something meaty that cuts to the heart of the matter while offering something substantial in alternative, then I do suggest checking out this book. It may be over 20 years old, but the same problems are with us and their solutions are no less applicable in the second decade of this new century. In fact, the need for their voice to be heard is more urgent now than ever.

Avatar and the Agrarian Vision

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:09:00 +0000

So yesterday I went to a movie theater to watch Avatar, the consummation of filmmaker James Cameron's 15-year effort. I have to say that I really enjoyed it and I was spectacularly entertained. The visuals were indeed stunning, the 3D worked wonderfully, and the the story, however "simple," warmed this heart, at least.

What reviews I have read online are very divided. Some accuse the movie of racism, sexism and misanthropy. Others contend that its message is sublime and of paramount importance. I do think that the former tend to misunderstand the movie or are sadly unaware of the multitude of historical precedents for the tragedy that unfolds in the film. The former might take the movie a bit too seriously, but that is largely because it is a rehash of, well, a LOT of other movies, including at least the following: Dances with Wolves, FernGully, The Last Samurai, The New World, and At Play in the Fields of the Lord. I also have to say that there is one bit of Hollywood in Avatar that keeps me from making too much of it. In the end, Cameron gives us a happy ending, making the film improbable even by science fiction standards. And that's because the kind of story being told here, one that has been repeated throughout history, has sadly enjoyed few happy endings.

Let's see what I can sum up without ruining the plot. The story is set in 2154 and humans are traveling to the stars, although slower than the speed of light. A life-filled moon named Pandora, orbiting a gas giant planet, contains a highly valuable mineral useful for the energy needs of a dying Earth. However, mining for this mineral puts human interests at odds with the needs and desires of a sentient, humanoid population living a clan-based, hunter-gatherer existence - the Na'vi. The corporation that collects the mineral entertains multiple options for getting what it wants: scientists who study the native Na'vi and seek to earn their trust and military mercenaries who will gladly blow some junk up to git r' dun. A paraplegic ex-Marine arrives to participate in the scientists' avatar program, in which his mind directs a genetically-engineered Na'vi body. When the Marine, Jake, gains entrance into one of the clans, he must decide between helping the people whose ways he is learning or feeding tactical information to his fellow soldiers.

The Na'vi are referred to as the "indigenous population" or sometimes as the "savages." The parallels to the real-life experiences of indigenous peoples, and Native Americans in particular, should be too obvious to miss. What the mercenaries of the corporation intend to do is what has been done in Central America, on Manhattan Island, at Wounded Knee, and countless other places. The tall, blue Na'vi even oddly look like Native Americans, at least in their faces, I thought.

I thought the connection was particularly strong when it came to the profound sense of place held by the Na'vi clan that welcomes Jake. The entire group inhabits a gigantic tree known simply as "home tree." They have lived there for generations and could accept no material inducement to abandon it. Not far away there is another tree which is a sacred landmark. Its destruction would traumatize the Na'vi for generations to come.

This strong sense of place, of trees that cannot be bought and sold, commodified and packaged, is very strange to us, but not to American Indians. The Cherokee of western North Carolina believed that their ancestors emerged from the Smoky Mountains and it was their sacred trust to preserve forever. The Lakota Sioux of the plains, meanwhile, saw the Black Hills as holy ground. Most Americans don't realize that Mt. Rushmore is a horrendous blasphemy to them. Of course, I think it's a horrendous blasphemy as well, although for other reasons...

In other words, the land is intrinsically valuable and it holds a claim on the people more than they hold a claim on it. The land cannot be purchased or traded because it is invaluable. It is more than "resources" or capital. It is life itself. It is blessing and gift. I don't imagine most Christians in the West think of the land where they dwell this way. We've wandered a great deal from the land ethic of the Old Testament, in which adam comes from adamah, or, as the pun describes it, "human from humus." We do not share the sense that the land is nahalah, a gifted inheritance made possible by the relationship between the people and God. If we Christians look at Avatar and the first thought is "pagan tree-hugging nonsense," then perhaps we have forgotten the land ethic to which our Scripture calls us. This ethic is not alien to what the Native Americans traditionally felt or what the fictional Na'vi see in their trees. But it is alien to us now. Or, rather, as in the movie, we ourselves are now the aliens.

Louisiana under rising sea levels

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:00 +0000

Here's a graphic of my home state of Louisiana as it would look if sea levels rose just one meter:

But that's nothing. A recent study suggests that just 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the upper limit to which several nations supposedly committed themselves at Copenhagen, could result in 6 meters or more of rising seas. Louisiana would then look like this:

In either case, say goodbye to New Orleans, Houma and Slidell. No more fishing off of Grand Isle and no more swamp tours in Jean Lafitte State Park. No more "Cajun Riviera" in Cameron Parish and no more barrier islands in the Gulf to face the hurricanes. At six meters, we can say goodbye to Lake Charles and Lafayette. Baton Rouge becomes a coastal city and the replacement hurricane target after the disappearance of New Orleans. Someone tell Bobby Jindal that if he wants to save his state he shouldn't stand in the way of carbon regulation...

Some genetically-engineered crops require more herbicide

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:19:00 +0000

Go figure...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2009/1221/More-herbicide-use-reported-on-genetically-modified-crops

The so-called "Climategate" in a nutshell

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:53:00 +0000

Is the Bible Agrarian or Primitivist? Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:22:00 +0000

Primitivists continuously target "civilization" as, if not the mother of most ills, then at least the great facilitator of them. Blogger and author Keith Farnish writes that a better world awaits us if we "stop believing that the answers lie within the most destructive thing that humanity ever had the misfortune to create." The rub, of course, lies in the definition of civilization, which can be a somewhat slippery thing. Richard Heinberg, an outside sympathizer of primitivism, notes that civilization may imply such characteristics as social stratification, organized warfare, and writing, but that the historical evidence does complicate matters. Jason Godesky, a primitivist trained in anthropology, lists five primary traits widely accepted in the field:

1. Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.

2. Full-time labor specialization.

3. Concentration of surplus

4. Class structure

5. State-level political organization

Meanwhile, the characteristics headlined in the Wikipedia entry are agriculture, long-distance trade (a secondary characteristic in Godesky's list), state-form of government, specialization, urbanism, and class structure.

Primitivists tend to conclude that one characteristic naturally and inevitably follows from the other. As a result, agriculture, as opposed to foraging, is inherently negative because it results in food surplus that are (always?) exploited by elites for the suppression of others. In his reference entry on anarcho-primitivism and the Bible, Ched Myers writes, "Agriculture inexorably gave rise to concentrated populations and increasingly centralized and and hierarchical societies in built urban environments. These in turn developed into oppressive city-states, an aggressively colonizing civilization that exerted a powerful centripetal force on the hinterlands."

The problem, as Heinberg points out, is that these elegant lists are naturally descriptive instead of prescriptive. Exceptions are to be found and it is not clear why certain essentialist visions must be accepted. Heinberg specifically cites archaeological research of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Maskan-shapir. The data suggests at least one example of urban culture without class divisions. Moreover, I am struck by the question of how exactly early Israel is supposed to be classified. Israel was clearly an agricultural society (or, perhaps, "horticultural" according to certain definitions - see Godesky's article in which horticulture is deemed acceptable). Israel continued the practice of growing domesticated plants and keeping domesticated animals. For some primitivists, domestication is a big no-no; the first step down the slippery slope to domesticating other human beings, as Myers writes. And yet, Israel's earliest known laws, the Covenant Code in Exodus, command kindness for the alien and stranger. Israel did not seek empire; not at first, not until external political pressures (instead of, say, some kind of subconscious logical leap from farming to enslaving) led to a monarchy that then chose self-aggrandizement through conquest. So yes, Israel aped the majority tradition of civilization eventually, but not at first. At first, Israel was settled, but not "civilized" according to the criteria above. She did not consist of nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers, but nor did she build a stratified society on crop surpluses. So was Israel civilized, or wild?

I ask that question because the primitivist material I have read suggests a certain tendency toward dualist thinking. Even Godesky acknowledges a "cultivation continuum" between "horticulture" and "agriculture" only to rob it of significance in the end. Perhaps some dualisms have their merits, but I don't see this one in Scripture. There is room enough for John the Baptist to preach in the wilderness and Jeremiah to preach in Jerusalem. An agrarian vision is more hopeful that this is not schizophrenia. We can learn to honor wilderness while managing and domesticating. We can overturn oppression and see the dawning day as New Jerusalem the golden city. In other words, there is a hope for redemption of perhaps even the most tarnished of human projects. Perhaps even something like "civilization," whatever that means, can be saved. But it will have to learn its place in a wild world in which, as God says to Job, the rain is made to fall in the desert where no human lives.

Keeping it Simple: Unprecedented AGW in Pictures

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:04:00 +0000

Skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, the overwhelming consensus position of climate science, do not tend to publish original research. They simply cherry-pick data from published material, take it out of context, and make simplistic, conspiratorial arguments out of it. Detailed rebuttals of this charade have been made at Skeptical Science, Real Climate, and Climate Progress, among other places [Side note: I acknowledge Joe Romm at CP is unabashedly biased towards the Democratic Party. If that offends you, get over it, because that bias does not impact the science. If anything, it is the stubborn anti-science position of many Republicans that probably reinforces his partisanship. If it will make you feel better, visit Republicans for Environmental Protection to help prove that climate change isn't a progressivist conspiracy].

I could not think to reproduce the detailed arguments of climate scientists. Instead, I'd like to offer a fairly simple, graphically-rendered rebuttal of a simple, graphically-rendered skeptical argument.

Critics of the scientific consensus (which, by the way, is increasingly based on empirical evidence and not just "modeling") argue that current warming reflects natural variability and is not out of step with climatic history. In fact, they say, some periods were significantly warmer than today. The "Medieval Warm Period" of the 10th-14th centuries is a frequently-touted example. Note this graph provided by the denier site Watts Up With That:

In this graph, you can see the highest average temperature peak around 1000 AD. In context, the so-called "hockey stick" of the modern instrumental record for the last century is dwarfed in comparison. The world was warmer while Christendom and Islam were fighting the Crusades, and we managed to survive alright. Ergo, conspiracy.

Problem: the data set for this graph is not worldwide but reflects temperature variability only in Central Greenland. As everyone knows climate varies considerably by region and region-specific trends themselves are distinct from overall trends. The total accumulated data reveals that, during the Medieval Warming Period, the upward departure from average occurred only in specific areas, not worldwide. Much of the world actually experienced downward temperature trends. And where did the greatest increases in average temperature across the largest area occur? Who'd have thought it? Right around Greenland!

Meanwhile, the so-called Medieval Warming Period looks very, very mild when compared to a global picture of temperature pattern for the past decade set to the same color scheme...

All this correlates with a a tremendous increase in emissions of CO2, which is indisputably-proven to be a greenhouse gas.

What I cannot present in a graph is the evidence that climate change in the past has meant massive disruption of the Earth's ecosystem, including major extinction events. Climate change was likely a factor in the extinction of the Neanderthals, for example. Critics are right about one thing: life will go on and it will adapt. But that's a slow process not measured in human time scales. Nor is this adaptation easy, simple, and universal. Once-dominant forms of life may diminish or vanish as others rise. And successful adaptation for humans will not take place without great suffering along the way.

Home

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:05:00 +0000

Yann Arthus-Bertrand, publisher of the Earth From Above series of photography books, has put out a new documentary film version of the books that narrates the huge extent of the human impact on landscapes and ecosystems. You can watch the whole 93 minute film for free on Youtube. You can also download many of his aerial pictures here.

Is the Bible Agrarian or Primitivist? Part I

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:47:00 +0000

When I first read The Essential Agrarian Reader I devoured it very quickly with a strong voice in my mind telling me, "This makes sense." I had the same reaction when I read Ellen Davis drawing out the agrarian tones of the Bible in Scripture, Culture and Agriculture. But when I read Ched Myers' entry on "Anarcho-Primitivism in the Bible" from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, my attitude took a decidedly less sanguine turn. And that was because I couldn't simply add Myers to Davis like putting milk in my tea.

Primitivism, in its more radical and systematic forms, holds one of three developments as the beginning of human disconnection from nature and emergence of patterns of dominance: a) the birth of agriculture and the resultant concentration and increase in populations, leading to social divisions, resource hoarding, increased warfare and disease, etc; b) domestication of plants and animals, which opened the conceptual door to "domesticate" nearby human beings; or even c) the rise of symbolic mediation (language) as the dominant form of communication. Most primitivists I have come across tend to stick to a) or perhaps b) - the third option is extreme for most. In all three cases, however, agriculture is indicted as a lamentable mistake, perhaps even unredeemable, and (it seems) automatically oppressive.

But the experience of Israel runs counter to these assumptions. God may lead Israel into the wild land of Sinai to instruct her, as Ched Myers points out, but Israel does not remain a wanderer. She is invited to settle, to build and to plant. And yet she is not called to a vision of hierarchy and dominance. Thus the land is understood as a priceless inheritance, as a space that instantiates God's limits for his creatures, and as a gift that is not to be squandered or taken for granted. Through the giving of manna and the laws about kindness to the stranger, gleaning, and Jubilee restitution of land, Israel is instructed to do what many primitivists say is impossible: practice agriculture in a manner that respects the land, maintains humility, and honors the neighbor as an equal to whom one is responsible. And the textual data of Judges-1 Samuel, alongside the archaeological evidence of early Israel, do point toward a society stubbornly egalitarian and resistant to the pressure of kingship and the hierarchy it generates.

I admit that agriculture has been practiced un-ecologically and made to support oppressive structures of power for much of history. May the primitivists tell us it was not simply "improvement." But the testimony of Israel points to agriculture as a practice of humility and sharing as well. God didn't call his people to be nomads and hunter-gatherers. If "civilization" is one of the powers at work in our world today, then perhaps it, too, may be redeemed.

Why attack the science when you can attack Al Gore?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:13:00 +0000

From the blog Wit's End...

Every denier point has to include Al Gore, usually mentioning his weight and/or his house. They NEVER mention how much money he has spent to green his house, how he gives everything he makes from the movie and investments in green technology to a green foundation to educate morons, and how, the theory (theory, like evolution, gravity, and plate tectonics, not a wild proposition) of global warming is grounded in scientific research, not Al Gore.

I know some people are just going to assume Al Gore is evil. He may in fact be evil, for all I care. But global warming wasn't invented by the former vice-president; nor is the consensus that it is already happening, human-caused, and dangerous a product of his movie. "Al Gore" is a useful shibboleth - if you hear someone utter that name, then you may safely conclude that he or she doesn't care about science, evidence, rational thought, or facts.

In the meantime, three senators made a bipartisan announcement yesterday about forthcoming climate change legislation...

And you thought it was OK to use a projector in church...

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:53:00 +0000

My friends, I've come not to praise civilization, but to bury it.

Yesterday I was visiting Jesus Radicals, a website dedicated to Christian anarchism, where I came across a report from a conference held in Philadelphia back in October. Its keynote speaker was Ched Myers, author of a great political commentary on Mark, Binding the Strong Man, and a promoter of alternative economics. However, this event, called "Gathering Around the Un-Hewn Stone," aimed for a much larger prize. Why stop at critiquing global capitalism when you can go after the whole system - and I mean the whole system. Myers did nothing less than question, well, civilization itself.

Hunter-gatherer economics? "Rewilding"? "Feral faith"? Do what now?

Needless to say I launched into a bit of reading to learn more about - picture this - the anti-civilization movement, also known as primitivism. Joined with anarchism it becomes anarcho-primitivism. And it's got some Christians right in the thick of it.

The critique is more substantial than the constructive proposals. In essence, the emergence of organized, complex societies built on agriculture and the division of labor has resulted in the creation or expansion of various ills that did not plague humanity in the long prehistorical era. The list includes social stratification and oppression, gender inequality, burdensome work, and increased warfare and disease.

It's not entirely as crazy as it sounds. The original sins of agriculture, as it has been commonly practiced, have been documented by Jared Diamond (PDF) and Richard Manning, among others. The evidence from contemporary hunter-gatherer communities suggest that under such conditions the amount of time spent on "work" is far less than the hours put in by, say, a decently successful middle-class American. There is debate as to whether pre-civilized humanity was more or less violent than today. Meanwhile, in the Bible, we do find some attacks on mass society, at least as it manifests in oppressive forms (cf. J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image, and the chapter on Genesis 1-11 as Mesopotamian ideology critique).

And, of course, we know full well by now that our current course of allegedly never-ending economic expansion and resource depletion is unsustainable. But a massive die-off of the vast majority of the world's inhabitants so that the survivors can "rewild" themselves is particularly unsavory. Not to mention that, having been nearsighted before LASIK surgery, that my life would not have gone very well if there were no civilization.

The anarcho-primitivists, so far as I can see, are short on solutions for a way forward. Some, it seems, actually think we should all be hunter-gatherers again and abandon science, medicine, indoor plumbing, hot showers, even coffee for those of you strangely in love with the bean. Most, I imagine, try to be more nuanced, but I have yet to see a vision of the future that seems worthy, attainable, and accounting of civilization's benefits. It will be fascinating to keep reading, but I won't be working on those atlatl skills just yet.

In the Land of the Living: A Journal of Anarcho-Primitivism and Christianity

Primitivism

Anti-Civ Book List

Happy St. Nicholas Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:15:00 +0000

At divinity school my friends and I would sometimes get together on saints' feast days and hang out. Surely one way of redeeming the time would be to get together and pop open some cool ones not just because the government says it's Labor Day but because the Church says an exemplar of the faith must be honored. So, in thankfulness for the mercies of God and in honor of your willing submission to the Spirit, here's a glass to you, the real St. Nick!!

Advent and the Fall of Empire

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:02:00 +0000

Just like last year, I will be preaching on the fourth Sunday of Advent. The gospel text for Year C is Mary's Magnificat. In this wonderful New Testament psalm, bearing echoes of Hannah and her namesake Miriam, Mary praises the mercies of a God who has looked with favor on both his humble servant and his long-suffering people in conceiving the anointed king and savior. All generations will call her blessed; the hungry will be filled. As a member of Israel's "poor ones," Mary rejoices in the long-awaited deliverance of the oppressed and downtrodden. The wealthy and arrogant who oppose God in their injustice will be, in fact, have already been dismayed by the in-breaking of YHWH's rulership.

It almost seems no coincidence to me that the cover story for the latest Newsweek is entitled "How Great Powers Fall." Written by Harvard economic historian Niall Ferguson, renowned for his book The Ascent of Money, this piece argues that America's heavy deficit may mean the end of its superpower hegemony. This country is not immune to the same forces that weakened Hapsburg Spain, pre-Revolutionary France, and the late-19th century Ottoman Empire. "Call it the fatal arithmetic of imperial decline," he declares.

Theologically, of course, the decline of empires and hegemons, no matter how benign they conceive themselves (or are judged relative to others), is an inexorable demand of Christ's crown rights. Not even constitutional democracy can secure the peaceable kingdom. In fact, the constitution has not guaranteed matters of great social and political concern in Scripture, such as equitable distribution of wealth. Instead the current economic crisis has demonstrated that our "free" system is now held captive to the success of elites whose wealth has mushroomed as the incomes of the middle class have stagnated. And, if the critique of political theorists such as Romand Coles is correct, our Western liberal system is in fact deeply susceptible to anti-democratic tendencies.

The Newsweek cover is meant to alarm. And indeed it is alarming, for weakening American power and economic burdens such as debt repayment and possible default will generate burdens to be borne by all, not just the elites. But, as the first cover story for a national news magazine in this liturgical season of preparation for the coming King, it can also be a welcome reminder. The kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. Come, Lord Jesus!

Light a Candle...Online...

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:13:00 +0000

Over the years, various Christian communities have experimented with digital spaces that imitate online the elements and practices of the Church's embodied worship. Of all the "virtual chapels" I have come across, the richest and most interesting was put together by The Methodist Church in Britain. It featured a visual simulation of a Methodist church combined with a sort of chatroom feature. People could come and go, place themselves in the church as virtual parishioners, and talk during the service (as the Spirit lead, of course). All the while, a British Methodist liturgy continued its uninterrupted journey.

After following a link from Jacob's blog, I came across this virtual replication of an Orthodox iconostasis fronted by two candlestands. There, following the custom in Orthodox churches, one may pick up a candle from the side, light it, and place it on the stand as a visible sign of one's prayer intentions. A short playlist of Orthodox chant completes the experience. I remain very happily non-Orthodox, but I almost want to say that this program tops the prayer request page we're working on for our church web site. I only almost because, while lacking this high-sensory experience, our received prayer requests will receive intercession, after all...

Click on the picture below to light your candle.

Is it Worse than We Thought?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Every now and then I've mentioned discussion about the potential threat to political and economic stability known as "peak oil" - that is, the period of time when the rate of extraction of petroleum falls below the rate of demand/consumption. The key to understanding the danger in such a shift is the realization that we are dependent on oil for most of the world's agricultural production and for sustaining economic growth.

Peak oil garnered a bit of mainstream media attention last week when Britain's The Guardian newspaper published an article claiming that a whistleblower from within the International Energy Agency said that American pressure has led the body to downplay the rate of decline in existing reserves and to overplay the chances of finding new oil fields. Other recent reports that suggest governments are ignoring an imminent threat have been presented by the NGO Global Witness, the UK Energy Research Centre, and the Global Energy group at Uppsala University, Sweden. George Monbiot of The Guardian has suggested that, if the whistleblower and these reports are correct, "the global economy is stuffed."

Granted, on the flip side, the IEA denies any cover-ups and there are industry experts out there who are much more optimistic. However, it is important to keep in mind the precautionary principle, and the debate highlights how much we don't know about the future production of a substance we have become so utterly dependent upon. In the end, I'm not expecting us to descend into Mad Max chaos. Who knows, perhaps an article in the latest Newsweek suggests the miracle of cold fusion is on the way after all. However, we could be in for a rather bumpy ride. Fortunately, the kinds of preparations that can be helpful for a more unstable future are the kinds of practices we should already be putting in place to combat climate change and promote sustainable, healthy living. These include growing more of our own food, conserving rainwater, buying locally, reducing waste, eating less meat, developing more practical skills, and turning away from the consumerist lifestyle. As sustainability and homestead activist Sharon Astyk writes, the changes to be made in our lives in light of global warming and fossil fuel depletion are complementary. I would add that they happen to coincide with a more faithful reclamation of the biblical vision for community, creation, and shalom.

Creeds, Councils, and the Congregation

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:45:00 +0000

My friend Jacob's question given in his comment to my previous post is a good and worthy one. What kind of authority would the ecumenical councils (and, perhaps most importantly, the creeds they produced: Nicene, Chalcedonian) have in the baptistic paradigm of congregationalism?

It might seem at the outset that the creeds would be given no validity in such an ecclesiology. First, there is the fear that they take away from the authority of Scripture. Second, they are often interpreted as having been imposed upon the early church by emperor and bishop and thus might be forced upon churches as alien "litmus tests" today. Third, the introduction of an external creed may be understood as a violation of the rights and responsibility of each congregation to discern the mind of Christ in their own context.

I will examine these potential objections in reverse order. The final charge against creeds reflects an assumption that congregational authority is properly understood as congregational independence and "autonomy." While "local church autonomy" is often labeled a "Baptist distinctive" in our day and age, in truth Baptists have largely believed that each church is also answerable to the the larger association and assemblies for guidance, correction, and mutual admonition. For example, the 1644 London Confession declared that, although each congregation is a distinct body, "yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affairs of the Church, as members of one body in the common faith." Or, as Nigel Wright of Spurgeon's College puts it in his book Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision, a congregation's prerogatives do not include redefining the essential Christian faith. The Baptist vision is not properly marked by an "anything goes" or "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude; nevertheless, it is defined by a belief that congregations sincerely seeking the mind of Christ, internally and externally, will move toward a unity that is not coerced or imposed, as Yoder states. Part of that movement toward unity includes the recognition that the faith taught and lived by a particular church is also the faith defined and symbolized in such a statement as the Nicene Creed.

Moving to the second objection, we see that this is in fact, historically, the way the creeds were received. As Baptist patristics scholar D.H. Williams says, "Credal statements had to represent the common mind of the church or else they would not be accepted and employed by the wider body of believing Christians" (Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism, 155f.). We look at Nicea as a watershed moment but it took decades for the formula drawn up by the bishops to become accepted. D.H. Williams again:

Even the epithet "ecumenical" was assigned to the Council of Nicaea, in the
sense of being a special and definitive category of synod, only gradually.
The problem of the "fall" paradigm with regard to Nicaea is that it exaggerates
the centrality of the council's position in history, even though little
acknowledgment owas made of its creed for roughly thirty years. Evidently,
it was not at all clear to the majority of bishops after the council that the
Nicene Creed was the best articulation of the Christian doctrine of God (162).

Indeed, the creed remained controversial and alternatives were presented during the next quarter-century. Most churches continued to prefer their own local, pre-existing creeds for baptismal interrogations. Only in the mid-350s did the Nicene Creed start to emerge as the singular orthodox standard. Even then it continued to be opposed. The Council of Ariminum (359), the largest so far in the west, rejected the Nicene Creed and put forth a substitute. Over time, however, Nicea was "proven and internalized by the life experience of the churches (Williams, 163)." Even in Orthodox literature I have seen the point made that a creed or ecumenical council decision is only truly thus once approved by the faithful. In other words, the authority of creed and council is something tested, discerned, and then either received or rejected...by local gatherings of believers seeking the mind and will of Christ. D.H. Williams concludes his chapter on councils and creeds by noting, contra Vatican II, that the early church did not view councils as infallible or as oracles of divine revelation.

Finally, the creeds are properly understood as derivative of Scripture, marking out the space in which interpretations are understood as faithful and excluding interpretations that make Scripture incoherent. The most controversial element of the Nicene Creed's formulation, homoousios, was controversial precisely because it was not Scriptural language, and it took Athanasius' persuasive argumentation to show that it cohered with biblical testimony. As the history of drawing up confessions of faith shows, Baptists are not averse to making claims about what they believe are the sensible and valid interpretations of faith to be proclaimed and to which assent is encouraged.

So how have Baptists interpreted the theological value of the creeds and councils? It must be admitted that there is a mixed history. However, it is clear that the "no creed but the Bible" claim is derivative of the Stone-Campbell movement in the southern United States and not an original Baptist principle. The early General Baptist leader Thomas Grantham declared that the Nicene, Chalcedonian and Athanasian creeds should be received and believed by all, and this was also the conclusion of the Generals' Orthodox Creed of 1678. At the first meeting of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905, Alexander MacLaren asked, as the first order of business, that all delegates stand and recite the Apostles' Creed as an affirmation of their shared faith with the church catholic. The delegates could recite the creed from memory (a feat not repeated at the centennial celebration in 2005, in which a projector was required!).

Baptistic theological writings have, to various degrees, stressed the validity of the creeds and councils. D.H. Williams finds engagement with the historic tradition necessary and unavoidable but cautions against labeling the patristic creeds as "inerrant" (Evangelicals and Tradition, 78). James McClendon reiterates that creeds have no status as supplemental authorities, but "they may briefly witness to the truth that is more fully witnessed in Scripture. And, indeed, according to their authors, that was the point fo the early creeds; their makers always understood them as guides to the reading of Scripture" (Doctrine, 470). Creeds are "monuments of tradition" that tell us how Scripture has been read and "invite us to read it that way if we can" (471). The most overtly positive assessment of the creeds perhaps comes from Stephen Holmes in his book Listening to teh Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology. He surveys potential methods for rejecting the Nicene Creed but, pointing to the strong consensus of the universal Church over space and time, concludes, "I find it difficult to envisage a situation in which there could be sufficient evidence to doubt the Nicene Creed" (161). What Holmes is doing, I conceive, is extending the logic of trust in Christ's Lordship and the Spirit's guidance outward from the local congregation and into the Church as the whole Body of Christ. Proper discernment of the mind of Christ entails recognizing the authority of the entire community of saints. Finally, this is the point and title of a chapter in Steven Harmon's book Towards Baptist Catholicity. It would take much time to reproduce it here, but this chapter, "The Authority of the Community (of All the Saints): Towards a Postmodern Baptist Hermeneutic of Tradition," is an extended examination of how the Baptist understanding of the derivative authority of a church as covenant community opens the way toward recognizing the derivative authority of the entire communio sanctorum in interpreting the convictions and duties of the Christian faith.

So what kind of authority do the ecumenical councils have? The same kind of authority as that of a local church meeting, a synod, a general assembly, or a convention. The councils have moral and hermeneutical authority by virtue of the fact that they were gatherings of Christians, intentionally brought together in prayer and worship, that sought to discern what the Spirit says to the churches. It is an authority of testimony that is then weighed, tested, and deliberated over by each church. With Holmes and Harmon I would argue that the Nicene Creed, for example, has been so heavily tested and affirmed as to place an enormously strong burden of proof on the church that chooses to reject it. With the entire Baptist tradition and with Yoder, meanwhile, I contend that the acceptance of councils and creeds must be a process of mutual recognition and affirmation in which nothing is coerced or imposed, but rather that churches in sincere and genuine discernment come to realize that they faith they seek to live and teach is one and the same with the faith presented by another deliberative body that has previously placed itself under Christ's Lordship. We are responsible for each other but we must not lord it over each other. I believe that the way forward must live in that balance.

The Specter of Anarchy

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:41:00 +0000

In the last chapter of what may be called a sacramental theology, Body Politics, Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder describes and propounds the "rule of Paul," which is the discernment of the mind of Christ by the power of the Spirit in the gathering together of a whole congregation. Known as the "church meeting" or "church conference" among Baptists (excepting where it has devolved into the "business meeting"), the rule of Paul reflects not a "low church" view but in fact a high one. It is a firm conviction, as stated by the early Baptist William Kiffin, that "Christ is the King of his Church; and that Christ hath given this power to his church, not to a hierarchy, neither to a national presbytery, but to a company of saints in a congregational way."

Early Baptists, alongside their Anabaptist cousins, were quick to point out that the responsibility and privilege of each church to discern the will of Christ in their context did not negate its responsibility to seek wise counsel of others. The long nineteenth and twentienth centuries have taken many of us through congregational independence and into autonomous individualism, but in following such a path under the guise of "soul competency" or "private rights" the original, theocentric vision has been diminished or even lost.

Seeing the course of this history, many will doubt the propriety of reclaiming this vision. Why not take the more stable route of a presbytery or episcopate? Isn't this claim for the local church just a path to anarchy and dissolution? Yoder reflects on these concerns in the final section of his chapter, "The Specter of Anarchy":

But can we afford to let local meetings in every place claim the same freedom for all to speak and for conclusions to be validated by consensus? Will the result not be chaotic diversity? That has always been the standard fear of the threatened paternalists. A small part, and a reasonable part of the answer is to say that such decentralization, founded in the belief that the Spirit speaks to and through everyone, will enable wholesome and realistic flexibility in adapting to local occasions and needs. The stronger, more theological, part of the answer is, however, that because Jesus Christ is always and everywhere the same, any procedure that yields sovereignty to the direction of his spirit will have ultimately to create unity. What does not create authentic unity is the centralized power tactics of the Caesars, the Inquisitors, or any other patriarchs or paternalists. A monarchical decree is quicker than careful listening, but is usually wrong. A quick majority vote may reach a decision more rapidly but without resolving the problem or convincing the overpowered minority, so that the conflict remains. Quaker consensus modes of decision, as I said, can administer a relief agency or a college just as efficiently as can the "corporate models" to which Presbyterians and United Methodists are accustomed. United Methodists know that annual conference decisions or congregational ones reached by a bare majority create new problems for the future.

...Because God the Spirit speaks in the meeting, conversation is the setting for truth-finding. That is true int he local assembly and in wider assemblies, in the faith community and in wider groups.

(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1992), 69f.

Chick tract parody

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:44:00 +0000

The Cthulhu mythos of H.P. Lovecraft is a rather twisted collection of horror writing. It's hard to imagine that atheistic nihilism could be topped, but it has....by ancient, capricious monster-deity nihilism! If you don't know anything about Lovecraft or the mythos, go look it up on wikipedia. Then read this parody of the Jack Chick tracts based on it and enjoy. Nihilism has never been so funny.

Click on the image to begin.

Human Evolution: A Reflection on Impediments, Evidence, and Theological Implications

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Schelin) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:11:00 +0000

NOVA premieres a 3-part miniseries on human evolution this Tuesday evening on PBS.

One of the greatest obstacles standing in the way of an evangelical acceptance of evolution is the component thesis that human beings descended from non-human ancestors. In both the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 and the Dover showdown over Intelligent Design eighty years later the animus for creationistic education policies reflected not only a theological commitment to Genesis 1 literalism but also what can only be described as a visceral revulsion at the thought of primate ancestors. This revulsion is exemplified by the tract Was Moses Mistaken? written by H.L. Hastings, a colleague of Dwight Moody, in 1896. Hastings asks which is preferable to believe: a lineage that traces through the biblical genealogies back to Adam, the "son of God," or a lineage that makes an ape the founder of one's family and that winds its way back to its origins in "mud."
The concern is not without merit. I need not remind the reader how frequently it has been stated that evolution complicates our understanding of the imago Dei and Fall in Genesis and Paul's typology of Adam and Christ the Second Adam in Romans. But the academic focus on theological and hermeneutical issues sidesteps the very real emotional, perhaps aesthetic, rejection factor driving anti-evolution sentiment. People don't want to be descended from "monkeys" as much, or more than, they believe that such a claim is unwarranted in light of Scripture. Somehow common descent strips away our uniqueness - literally dehumanizing us - so that we are supposedly left without the orderly boundaries that mark us as something higher and nobler. The acknowledgment of non-human ancestry is perceived as an open doorway to atavistic, bestial behavior. If one is just a little above the apes instead of a little lower than the angels then why not let nature (read: desires of the flesh) determine our ethical behavior?

The thoughtful Christian can easily spot the non sequiturs at work here. Evolutionary descent need not overemphasize similarity with our purported ancestors nor, interpreted within a theological framework, does it rule out God's intervention to form a relationship with humanity at a critical juncture of the story. The great Thomistic account of nature and grace is quite amenable to this account. Grace does not obliterate nature or work apart from it but transforms it and allows it to transcend itself in the encounter with God. The grace of God at the beginning of human history may have transcended hominid evolutionary development to infuse a new character of being beyond the natural potentialities. Analogously, Adam was formed from the dust and then the nephesh was breathed into him.

But can we move forward from reactive theologizing to search out a more positive claim concerning human evolution? I believe it is possible, but first a word may have to be spoken about the evidence for common descent.

I have previously related how Francis Collins offered rather convincing evidence of evolution at the National Youth Workers Convention last year. I could not recall this information because I did not remember it until encountering it in other sources recently. Collins pointed out that our primate cousins all have 24 chromosome pairs. Human beings have 23 pairs. The extreme similarity of our DNA genome compared to that of a chimpanzee, over 99% identical, suggests we share a common ancestor. The testable prediction made by evolutionary biology was that we would discover a fused chromosome pair in the human genome. And that did in fact happen. Human chromosome pair 2 is fused. The endpoint DNA segments known as telomeres also show up in the middle. Between the middle telomeres and the actual endpoint telomeres reside two centromere packets (one inactivated) instead of the single centromere in the middle of an ordinary chromosome.

I admit that, logically, an ID theorist could argue (and one blogger in fact has) that humans were created as a separate "type" but, being morphologically close to primates, were created with a nearly identical genome of 24 chromosome pairs. At some point in our early history one pair fused. However, the fusion of chromosome 2 is not the only molecular evidence of common descent. An interesting facet of our DNA is that a lot of it is material incorporated from outside sources. In particular, an estimated 8% of the genome consists of material formerly belonging to retroviruses (a classification that includes Hepatitis B). Comparative genetics has uncovered matching inserted retroviral material at matching locations in the human genome and in genome of the chimpanzee. Odds are not in favor of a coincidence, to say the least. As Christian geneticist Graeme Finlay concluded in a lecture on human evolution, "If it could be demonstrated that we and the chimps had, at the same sites, with the same target-site duplications, the same piece of retroviral DNA, then ineluctably we would conclude...we had received that endogenous retrovirus from a common ancestor." As he was pointing out, it has in fact been demonstrated. Similar retroviral inserts link humans with bonobos, gorillas and orangutans through common descent. Finlay said he entered the creation-evolution discussion in earnest so that he could tell his fellow Christians "that there was no longer any valid controversy."

You can find Dr. Finlay's lecture at the site for the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

But if we are to conclude that we as human beings have indeed evolved from now-extinct primates, what are we to make of this within the theological task? I offer a few tentative conclusions:

1. First, the descent of humanity can usefully serve as yet another nail in the coffin of that gnosticism which we have yet to bury for good. The evolutionary story emphatically declares that human existence is subsistent in prior natural realities and dynamics which have prepared the way for our arrival. God did not send us along a tangential line that skims the surface of creation. The world is not merely Origen's classroom for fallen souls. Rather, our creation has occurred in part through evolutionary development over time. This development has shaped the bodies, the senses, and the brains through which we offer worship to God and upon which he also acts so as to make them media for encountering his presence.

2. Correlative to this claim of our fleshly inheritance stands the ethical imperative as well. The current ecological crisis has been fueled in many ways by Christian complicity. The contribution of escapist eschatologies will have to be addressed by other means. But the story of common descent speaks a word against justifications of exploitative behavior on the basis of humanity's separation from creation and consequent dominion over it. How might the concept of "dominion" be reshaped if Christians recognized and affirmed a certain, however distant, "kinship" with the gorilla, the bonobo, or indeed the rest of the tree of life?

3. Recognizing human evolution could help us reemphasize the priority of grace in transforming human nature, particularly will and desire. On the other hand, a doctrine of special creation could have the unintended consequence of reinforcing notions of the "divine spark" or the distorted versions of E.Y. Mullins' "soul competency." In such cases, the laudable proclamation of inherent human worth and dignity morphs, implicitly or explicitly, into the kinds of affirmations of inherent goodness and spiritual independence that rot the Church. Perhaps the claimant of "just Jesus and me" is more naked ape than son of God (grin)?

4. Nevertheless, the challenge remains in articulating the historical transition from highly-developed animals to the unique creatures graced into relationship with God. If not Adam and Eve in the Garden 6,000 years ago, then where, when and who? Is it important to decide if there was an original couple or instead larger original population? Was the suggested "Great Leap Forward" 50,000 years ago evidence of God breathing spirit into "dust"?

So questions remain for this version of the beginnings of the God-human drama. But perhaps new insights and answers emerge here as well.