I will be submitting a shorter review for print but anyone interested can read a longer engagement with a great new collection put out by CMU Press, The Gift of Difference: Radical Orthodoxy, Radical Reformation.
Archive for the 'David Driedger' Category
I think it is important to take note that Mennonites, perhaps more than ever are being watched by the larger theological and ecclesial world.
Inhabitatio Dei is one of the most active theological blogs out there. The administrator, so far as I can tell, did not ‘grow up’ Mennonite but actively engages our tradition as a vital resource for contemporary theology and ecclesiology. In his most recent post (that actually does not have to do with Mennonites) the comment section is quite instructive as to the larger conversation around Mennonite/Anabaptist tradition.
I have studied in a few institutions were some (notable) NT and OT profs have claimed that you can’t understand certain biblical passages without a working knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. Now in a sense this is true as English translations have already performed much of that work for us. However, I never sat very easily with the sort of mechanistic approach that some of these profs seemed to work from. I can remember one prof at a chapel expound on a ‘difficult’ text with a sort of swagger, as though he himself had cut the key that would finally unlock its meaning.
If a confessional community approaches the Bible as a text that will help witness to a living relationship with God and a subsequent manner of living then I am not too concerned that we need a high priesthood to distribute ‘technically correct’ readings.
In saying all this though I do feel it is tremendously advantageous for a preaching pastor to have a good handle on biblical languages. Preaching on Jonah last Sunday two of my main moves depended on drawing attention to what was going on in the Hebrew text. Jonah is a highly literary if not poetic piece. This places greater strain on the translator but I think we need to swing back away from a sense of ‘dynamic equivalence’ which does not account for a poetic literalism. The passage below is from the NIV. The words in italic and bold type are the same Hebrew noun while the underlined words represent the same Hebrew verb.
ch 3 7 Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
ch 4 1 But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry.
Maybe its just me but it seems when the same word is being used in relation to all three subjects in such a dense passage it may be helpful to draw some attention to it. The movement of the Nineveh away from her evil and God away from his destruction which then comes to settle in Jonah’s displeasure seems theologically significant. Again I am not saying a careful reflective person could not gather this theological nuance from a translation but there seems to be another path that does not assume an elite distribution of exegetical truth but rather a theological-aesthetic that seeks to unfold and celebrate the layers of the text.
For the past number of summers I have helped to organize some Friday night events for my church. We have abandoned the traditional model of ‘summer bible school’ were kids come during the day and learn verses, sing and do crafts. Instead we have hoped to create a more inter-generational experience gathering around a campfire for a less more formal time while still trying to be engaging across the ages.
Some time ago, before a little bundle of joy set everything in life back about a year, I was given a review copy of Logos Bible Software’s Scholar’s Library. Logos uses the Libronix Digital Library engine which navigates what seems to be an almost endless list of resources that can be purchased and added to this base platform.
I have delayed this review not only because of external life circumstances but also because I never felt like I could do it justice. The pre-loaded resources I received always seemed to suffer from a lack of coherence. 330 volumes were included and among these volumes were Aramaic targums, Akkadian letters, youth ministry resources, and devotional materials. I have not ventured out into many of these resources because the vast majority of them are either uninteresting or irrelevant for my purposes. The vast majority of the resources that are not directly related to ancient languages should be considered dated at best. That being said exploring the Logos website I can find numerous resources that I would like purchase (at a greatly reduced cost compared to print versions). However, the included volumes seemed far too disparate in nature to be of broad use to myself.
I have used the resource primarily as a tool to study biblical languages. Even here the range strikes me as unmanageably broad. At its simplest there is a ‘go’ feature in which you can enter a biblical citation or topic and the software will search relevant resources. I never use this feature as it brings too many things to bear that I am not interested in. At the other end I have not figured out how to navigate the complex searches that are possible in the biblical text. I found that I actually return to Grammcord to perform some basic searches that I have not yet figured out in Logos. Granted I have not spent substantial time in the tutorial but I did not need tutorials for Grammcord which I was able to comprehend more intuitively. This is not necessarily a criticism of the software’s ability only of its disparate nature that may leave many scratching their heads in the middle of the two basic search functions with one of the modes coming off as too simple and the other too complex. Again, I relate this to my own position as neither a specialist nor a layperson when it comes to biblical studies.
With these criticisms aside almost daily now I use the software for reading biblical passages in their original languages. I am able to open a save a workspace that includes the Greek NT, the Hebrew OT, and the Septuagint alongside various English translations, lexicons, and theological dictionaries. Of the 330 volumes included in this particular library these will likely be the only ones I ever open. In addition to these basic functions the enduring value of this software will be the immense resources that can be purchased and integrated.
I would definitely not discourage anyone from buying this software only that they consider purchasing one with less volumes freeing up some of that money to pick and choose some additional products to add-on which is where I see the real value.
In a recent article in Canadian Mennonite (14.12) Phil Wagler extends Bonhoeffer’s challenge of cheap grace towards a broader notion of cheap church. Cheap church is essentially a commodified consumable. The church cannot make demands on us because we have purchased the church, it is our possession to be manipulated and molded as it suits our preferences. This is opposed to what Wagler calls the church that we ‘give away’. Here we enter voluntarily into sacrifice and acknowledge that scars often result. We essentially follow in the steps of Jesus.
I find nothing really wrong with Wagler’s expression, however, I am beginning to wonder to what extent such ‘critiques’ will gain traction in the church. I cite Wagler’s article simply as a public expression that mirrors many of my own attempts at constructive critique. My concern is that this sort of critique may actually find itself in the service of the ‘cheap church’ Wagler hopes to dismantle. First, this critique seems to come from nowhere. Wagler’s commentary does not flow from nor aim at any particular expressions. Rather, it remains situated in slogan-like critiques and possibilities. He refers to the church “of the holy potluck, the holy project, the holy huddle.” Instead Wagler advocates for the church in which believers “collapse in the costly joy of dying to self and living alongside others who are not always easy to love.” This is a church we “give away” despite the “scars” that may accompany the process. This sort of articulation becomes problematic because they eventually come off as just another type of branding. We can read this and agree. I mean who would disagree? We can go on and stitch this brand on our existing clothing without getting vulnerably naked in the process of change.
Again, I need to emphasize my complicit guilt in what I am saying here. In addition I do not assume this critique holds for Wagler’s other writings. I am using this specific piece for a specific commentary. I think the time is over for pastors and Christians in general to offer cheap critique. There needs to emerge a type of disciplined observation in which our theology intersects and mingles with church life. This is not about being more practical and less theoretical. I have often felt that pastors are not theoretical enough, or at least I am not. Theory is a practice, it is just a matter of whether or not it is a well developed practice.
So do I disagree with Wagler’s assessment? Not really. Do I think Wagler’s assessment will challenge people to change and rigorously examine their faith? Not really. We may well have good theology and some good theological insights but unless 1) they flow from or aim at direct expression or 2) they are given in context of direct feedback and constructive interaction we may be better off letting some of those insights pass over in silence for the time being allowing them to germinate the soil of our particular context. We are fortunate that Canadian Mennonite has a history of being a space where interaction is possible so that mutual contributions can find their traction in communal accountability.
I recognize that this is an almost entirely negative response to what Wagler offered as a constructive piece. However, negativity is a crucial component to clarifying what is cheap and clearing space for what is of lasting and generating value. I offer this critique to that end.
I have encountered that period of life where I am becoming reacquainted with my dentist. Those neglected visits have caught up and upon my check-up I was given the option of having them do ‘all the work’ in one visit or I could spread it out over two of three visits. There was a time when I would want simply to get it over with and suffer through the discomfort in one visit. This time, however, it made sense to spread it out. I take this, in one sense, to be an act of maturity. When faced with discomfort or challenge there is a tendency towards collapsing the tension. We want resolution and so either we drive towards a synthesis or we reject one or several of the points sustaining the tension. Dental work is bad so get it all done with in one shot.
A recent example of this was my periodic encounter with the threat of disembodiment posed by the internet. I become convicted that I am losing real relational value by engaging on the internet. In this position I can come to the tempting desire of wanting to collapse the tension between what I see as beneficial (increased opportunities to engage in various issues) and what I see as harmful (the tendency towards abstract and ultimately fruitless relating). If I can reject the benefits (and withdraw my online presence) then I have resolved the tension but at what cost? Perhaps none. It may be that such a decision will only prove edifying for myself and others. But this would not be the result merely of that single decision it would rather assume that I would then venture into and navigate the tensions and paradoxes of other spaces as I can never inhabitant a collapsed tension (as I cannot inhabit a collapsed house) but only move in the spaces upheld by tension (and maybe even at times find rest in them).
We cannot collapse the tension of life as a blessing and a curse as much as I can get all my dental work ‘over with’. To the extent that I force the collapse of these tensions to that extent I foreclose the possibility of blessing. And here is another paradox. To encounter blessing is to live in curses. Christ’s body broken (cursed but broken for entry). Christ’s body resurrected (blessed whole). I am beginning to see my drive towards collapse intellectually and relationally and it is fruitless.
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in
– Leonard Cohen
This post will probably not quite be what the title suggests. I recently did a little snooping around with regards to Paul’s list of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians. I came across an understanding of speaking in tongues that I had not heard before. The two traditional readings are that the gift refers either to a type of ecstatic or angelic language that comes over people as the Spirit moves them or it is the Spirit enabling or gifting people for other languages so that the Gospel might be spread. The interpretation that I came across spoke of the groans that the Christian (and creation) experiences at times (Rom 8:26). These are responses to the world and to our lives that are too deep for words. While I may not completely buy that reading I suppose I could say that I had a recent bout of speaking in tongues. In the April 19 print edition of CM is a brief editorial by Will Braun titled “Seated among the unsettled.” Braun spoke of all the options and opportunities that are on the horizon for him and how exciting and unsettling that can be. I responded to this editorial with a deep almost inaudible groan. I have given notice to my church that I will resig as one of their pastors at the end of August. I still have nothing firmed up on the horizon … though incidentally like Braun we are looking to rural Manitoba (any notes from your reconnaissance?). In addition to this I have just come back from taking a parental leave after the birth of our first child. Needless to say I am unsettled. For the most part this has actually been an invigorating experience. I don’t think I am being too melodramatic to say that this has time has been a type of awakening for me. What I am now awake to though is my radical vulnerability in terms of the world. The more I turn towards the type of spiritual calling that I sense the more I see my uselessness in what the world is calling from me.
The author who spoke about tongues as representing these deep yearnings also spoke about how speaking in tongues typically accompanied a newness, an inbreaking of God’s Spirit. I will take some hope in this. Not all my groans are of longing many of them are of concern and can even boarder on despair and I see that they are ultimately useless and so my prayer will be that they are coming from the language of another Kingdom and will some day find someone with a gift of interpreting these strange tongues.
This is the newly released ad by Nike. Tiger Woods’ first ad since the publicity of his affairs. Where does one even begin to comment on it? It is minimal. Black and white, no soundtrack, no action. A man who is arguably one of the most dynamic athletes ever, a man whose presence and career seem to defy limits is positioned in the center of the screen motionless except for his blinking eyelids. This minimalism acutely focuses the viewer on three things; Wood’s face, the Nike emblems, and the narrator’s voice. The voice is that of Woods’ father who died in 2006. Woods’ (and Nike) appear to be standing humble before the voice coming back from the grave. And is this voice calling Woods’ (and Nike) to account? No, he is more prone to be inquisitive. Ah yes the patient, gracious response of the father who loves his child (and Nike). Surely Woods’ father is the prodigal’s father running with no care of shame to embrace his wayward son (and Nike). But Woods’ (and Nike) are no prodigals. He has not climbed out of the gutter in the hopes of being fed pig scraps. He has not torn his garments in shame and remorse. Woods’ (and Nike) are making no homeward journey, no turning of repentance. They stand silent and still even more iconic than ever pillaging even more of their father’s inheritance stealing from his grave.
Woods’ and Nike stand together as one offering us nothing, absolutely nothing other than their image. Before Woods Nike was built on the slogan Just Do It. Well Woods just did it on and off the course. And now they stand together fused in black and white fooling us in the illusion that at least for a moment they have ceased from doing it and stand contemplative considering where they have been and where they are going. But they are actually revealing to us the greater truth of the brand. The brand is a symbol, an idea, an imagination. And so perhaps they stand together even closer to the truth acknowledging in silence that all they offer is nothing but the idea and the power that we are willing to give to them.
This is our game. This game is for world hockey supremacy. We’ve heard the slogans. Collectively we’ve displayed the pride, enjoyed the swagger in victory and felt the blows in defeat. Perhaps in the quiet moments of a bathroom stall during intermission or after this year’s world junior’s tournament we’ve even questioned whether there is something out of balance, some overcompensation happening but soon enough the puck drops, the beer is hoisted and we are again transported into the dream of world domination. I have not followed hockey for over ten years but the world juniors and the Olympics have drawn me deep into the corners of the hockey world. I followed with dread the trials of team Canada as they teetered and then stabilized and then charged and then almost collapsed as they headed into overtime in the gold medal match. And we all know the outcome. But in my own world I continued to travel deep into the opposition zone of the hockey world. A place I was once at home in but it now felt strange and suddenly I heard the whistle blow. Did I re-enter the hockey world off-side? The call comes from an unlikely Danish official, but this international play after all. Embossed on the back of his black and white stripes is SK. But I am not offside. It is a penalty called against team Canada. SK makes a strange hand gesture. I do not recognize the penalty call. He glides towards the penalty box and says Fortvivlelse. I wait for the announcer to get a translation and make the announcement. Then a voice comes over the speakers Team Canada has been called on … No, sorry correction Canada, the nation of Canada, has been called for Despair. They are asked to take a time-out to reflect on their relationship with hockey.
Despair? A little harsh don’t you think? Tough call. Up in the media both they dig up some more information on this official and they find that SK has a history of handing despair penalties. In fact they dig up one particularly controversial account in which SK was asked to defend his call. The document certainly dates the official which could raise even more eyebrows. The document was dated back to 1849. There was another nation who was given a time-out for despair. The media jumped on this document and feverishly corralled athletes from the Danish team to translate the document. In order to help Canada understand the call they replaced the name of the original country with the word Canada. Through a fortunate connection I have obtained a portion of this document.
Canada says, ‘We will be Hockey or we will be nothing.’ What happens if Canada does not become Hockey? Then they will be in despair. But they will not be in despair over the fact that they did not become Hockey rather they will be in despair because they could not rid themselves of their identity of not being Hockey. They hoped to become Hockey because they found themselves, their identity, intolerable. And so, they are in despair. But perhaps they will stand atop the podium and Canada will be declared Hockey to the whole world. Surely then they will not be despair. They will have rid themselves of themselves and become who they thought they should be. But what then have they done? They’ve succeeded. They’ve now rid themselves of their identity and become Hockey. And so they are lost, they are not themselves. They are in despair. And so I stand by my call. And the penalty is hardly a harsh one, though it could be the most harsh. I simply ask that Canada stand alone without hockey, at least for a time and see who they are. They are then free to play, to not play, to play well, to play poorly.
It seems that the IOC has found out that SK was never meant to officiate this game. He found his way into the tournament under a pseudonym. Something he has tried on numerous other occasions. And so security has come onto the ice to remove him. He makes no objections and gives no resistance. He seems content. He has made his call. Canada is called on despair. They either lose themselves or cannot stand themselves. A questionable call from a questionable official? Well, either way the time-out is almost over and Canada is free to get back in the game if they so choose.
Recent Comments