The cross talk continues...

Appropriate for Holy Week, I find myself more deeply engaged in theology of the cross than I have been recently. I took a little vacation from my deep theological questioning to attend a Navy conference on "Advisement". It was really interesting stuff and the week was a wonderful experience - full of salutes and my efforts at military bearing - but it lacked theological depth. It was about being a Professional Navy Chaplain and was a nice change of pace. I think I might regret that change of pace now that I'm back to my classwork and the last minute preparations for the Three Days.

Now that I'm back into my readings, I encountered this in C.S. Song's work, "Jesus, Crucified People":

But the problem is that some Christians, particularly some evangelists and theologians, speak as if they have read God's autobiography, know God's will inside out, and can speak on God's behalf with absolute certainty. This often results in religious authoritarianism, dictating the life and faith of believers with creeds, doctrines, and laws. But God is neither the sum total of Christian teachings nor the magnum opus of erudite theologians. [emphasis his](p.102)

Once again I am in debt to someone for providing the words (although I looked up erudite to be sure I understood what he was saying - ironically it means "book smart") for what I have running through my head but often fail to adequately communicate. Song's claims about how we see God are foundational and, in an odd way, life-giving to me. I feel I am always in a war against religious arrogance, the belief that we can work hard enough and long enough to come to the final answer - to reduce the revelation God gives us in scripture to clearly defined bullet points to answer all of life's seemingly unanswerable questions. In fact, many of those questions will quite possibly remain unanswered. I don't think I want to know, right now, the answer to why a four year old dies in a tragic accident. I don't want to know clearly and finally how God is at work in the stories I've heard of combat. If I had all the clear answers from God, I fear I would end up too far down the road of absolute certainty to function. I think I'd rather live in the ambiguity. I'd rather continue to "see in a mirror, dimly." (1 Cor 13.12) because it leaves the opportunity for God to continue speaking.

Song writes of what God is. He claims God is a God who speaks -past, present, and future. That is a God I'd like to worship and serve. God is the one who speaks and I'll continue to search the "biography" we have to try to understand what God is saying. But, I will always remember it is a biography - seen through the lens of those who lived on earth and it's not always a clear lens.

Thank you Mr. Song for your words.

It's a start...

I have avoided for a long time putting together an official blog. Mostly, I don't know that I want the pressure of trying to be pithy and interesting in this media. So many people are better writers and thinkers that I fear I am only going to reveal my weaknesses. But then again, weakness is part of life.

I'll start these ramblings by sharing a little of what is running through my head as I work through my final semester in seminary (Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg). As luck would have it, I completed all of my required courses prior to this semester and thus had the freedom of choice. I chose (in no particular order) Luther's Lectures on Genesis, Theologies of the Cross, and Global Christologies without much hesitation. I struggled with a fourth class and after a scheduling snafu, I ended up in Pietism and Social Liberation - which meant virtually nothing to me at the time.

What has become interesting as we approach the midpoint of the semester is the overlap between these courses and what it is doing to my theological grounding. In Theologies of the Cross (ToC) we've been reading Moltmann. In Global Christologies (GC) we've read Haight (Jesus Symbol of God) and Sobrino (Jesus the Liberator) and in Pietism we've been reading Spener, Francke, and about Johann and Christoph Blumhardt.

I always knew I gravitated to theology of the cross because, well...because. I think it helps me understand God and what God does in the world. I read Moltmann saying, "This inner contradiction, as it was bound to appear to any outside onlooker, is resolved only in the light of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus by his God and Father, in that through his very poverty, lowliness and abandonment the kingdom, the righteousness and the grace of God come to the poor, lowly and abandoned and are imparted to them." (Crucified God, 131) and I think, "Yep, I buy every word. That's exactly where I think God wants us to be" and "Why can't I write that powerfully?"

What I didn't know is, besides being a theologian of the cross, at heart I may also be a pietist and a liberation theologian. Not that I think either label fits me exclusively, but I have realized how interrelated all of these concepts are. Sobrino relied heavily on Moltmann as he worked from his El Salvadoran context. Apparently Moltmann relied on the Blumhardts as the article I'm about to read will show ("Before Bloch there was Blumhardt: a thesis on the origins of the theology of hope.") I know my own development will nuance these thoughts into my own personal theology at some point - a theology that I think will encourage people to recognize the weakness of the cross in their own lives and in the broken systems of the world and bring hope that we can bear fruit in this world by finding freedom in the gospel.

See, I knew that wouldn't sound as good as Moltmann. Perhaps this blog will help me learn to say it...