Re: Christianity left (The Christian Century) & right (Christianity Today)

[Bct...@aol.com]

Dear Abbot Richard and Hugh,

 

I also have read Jenkins's book The Next Christendom, in addition to the other book I wrote to Hugh about yesterday.  I learned a considerable amount from both of these books, and I would encourage others to read them too.  I have another of Jenkins's books that I have not yet read, which was highly recommended to me by an Episcopal Priest in my Greek classes, who does a lot of work in Nigeria.  It's The New Faces of Christianity:  Reading the Bible in the Global South.  

 

Reading Jenkins's books is a good way to learn about members of the cloud of witnesses we might not know much about, as well as members of the body of Christ who are alive today for whom we can say the same.

 

Jane

 

________________________________________________________

 

 

In a message dated 8/30/2010 7:17:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhp...@gmail.com writes:

Brother Hugh:

I have read the Jenkins book and found it enlightening.  Peter introduced me to Jenkins a few years ago The Next Christendom, which Corpus Christi used as study book.  (Perhaps Peter has a copy of the one mentioned,)

+ Abbot Richard

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Hugh Graham <hughf....@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jane,

I was not aware of Philip Jenkins book, but will now have to look for it!

Perhaps we tend to be too literal in our understanding of 're-conquest' as a translation of 'reconquista' as it wasn't a purely military event but also a repopulation of depopulated areas and the relief of oppressed Christians who had been settled in those areas for hundreds of years.  Also the Muslim population would probably have been in most areas a small ruling elite rather than a large settled population. In that sense it is possible that there wasn't a statistically large population movement in terms other than the romance and propaganda.

Mmm... not riled yet, as one of my fellow countrymen said, "I have not yet begun to fight!" 

<G>

Hugh

On 29 August 2010 21:04, <Bct...@aol.com> wrote:

Hello, Hugh,

 

Great to hear from you, and thanks for the dialogue. 

 

First, I do sometimes push a bit in the opposite direction when I am in talking to Willis, sometimes just because it's challenging and fun to do that, but also quite often when we get on the topic of Islam and Muslims.  So yes, I probably was going a bit too far in another direction.

 

Second, it sounds like you may have read Philip Jenkins's book, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, African, and Asia - and How It Died.  (That title is quite long!)  Jenkins discusses many of the issues you discussed here about how non-Muslims, even Jews and Christians, who were supposed to receive better treatment, were treated.  And Jenkins, as you do, talks about the reasons why many Christians in Eastern churches ended up converting to Islam, and why so many of the large Eastern churches, especially those who had broken away from the churches who supported Chalcedon, ended up dying out.  Jenkins's book was recommended to me by my PhD advisor and professor, and we both liked it very much, although it was very sad.  We also wondered why no one had ever told us about this side of Christian (and Muslim) history before.  At the same time, we noted that Jenkins was building his story line based on a lot of secondary sources, not primary sources, and it's hard to challenge him, or to pin down whether his sources were legitimate or trust-worthy.   

 

Third, as to the Christian 're-conquest' of Spain, I will offer the counter-point that the Muslims had been in Spain for over 700 years, from their initial conquests in the early 700s, to 1492, the infamous year that saw the final Christian conquest of the Muslims in Spain, the expulsion of all the Jews, and Christopher Columbus's supposed 'discovery' of America.  I would offer for consideration that when a group has conquered parts of a country, and then has been there for over 700 years, the idea of 're-conquest' is questionable.  I am not trying to make light of this, but this is one example (among others) of groups that continue to fight for centuries and centuries --- not just for a few years or a few decades.  At some point, whether it's a re-conquest like this, or the Crusades, or taking over other territory your ancestors had in ancient times, the idea of going in and re-conquering is questionable. But, again, this is a gross over-simplification, and I know that Christian Europe had to limit the extent of Muslim control over Europe. 

 

Finally, I go to a seminary (Hartford Seminary) with a renowned program for  Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Dialogue, with many prominent Islamic scholars on the faculty.  So yes, I am indoctrinated, which is one reason my advisor and I read Jenkins's book, to get some healthy counter-points. At the same time, my mind and understanding have been opened in ways that others may not have the opportunity to experience. 

So, I am just offering these thoughts for further dialogue.  No one wants to be conquered or live as second class citizens.  On the other hand, it goes on all the time, and has for most of history, and it has gone on in the USA, even up until a few decades ago.  Think of all those Christians who thought it was okay to take over the lands of Native Americans, and okay to have slaves, and okay to deprive some people of civil rights.

 

So now have I riled you up!  Just taking a break from my dissertation research and writing. 

 

And I tried very hard for you, but could not find the title of that film.

 

Jane

 

_____________________________________________________

 

 

In a message dated 8/29/2010 2:58:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hughf....@gmail.com writes:

Dear Jane,

I have read both Willis' column and your reply and have issues with both!  Whilst I agree that what Willis' column does not tell the whole story, I also have serious historical issues with what you have said in reply to him, whilst I believe you are to an extent correct, your reply comes across to me as pushing too far in the other direction.

Spain under Muslim rule, 'Al Andalus', was not the tolerant multifaith society that some seem to want to portray it.  The Christian conquest of Spain was a re-conquest, they were taking back land that they had been driven from and often forced to leave by the Muslims, and both Christian and Muslim writers of the time do refer to Jewish communities that often acted like a fifth column for the Muslims in the initial conquest, which might explain some of the attitudes to Jews under later Christian rule.  The Jews themselves were not immune to massacres by the Muslims either as in 11th century Granada for example.

Also being a 'dhimmi', a 'second-class citizen' and being forced to pay the 'jizya' as were all Christians who were not slaves (and there were also Muslim slaves on the other side) was no easy way of life - you could be thrown out of your city/country, tortured or killed for any number of infringements of the laws relating to dhimmi status. And as for being forced to convert - economic oppression through taxation can be as effective (if not more so) than violence, is it better to convert than to watch one's family starve - it is one of the major reasons for the demise of the Christian communities of the Middle East in the past.

I'd certainly like to hear more about the film you saw, but I must admit it does sound somewhat biased in one particular direction to me from your description of it.

For me the see-saw is tipping wildly between you and Willis and I am having difficulty balancing..... :-)

Hugh

On 29 August 2010 11:45, <Bct...@aol.com> wrote:

Dear Willis,

 

I read your editorial, and I am sure you know that you and I don't see eye to eye about subjects related to Islam and Muslims. 

 

First, your historical paragraphs about Muslim Spain don't go far enough. Why don't you add the paragraphs about what the Christians did, both to the Jews and to the Muslims, after the Christians took control of Spain, ending the time of Muslim ascendancy?  It's one thing to be treated as a second class citizen, and quite another to be thrown out of one's country, or, if you remain, to be tortured or killed or subject to the Inquisition or forced to get baptized (to convert).

 

Second, as you partially acknowledge in your editorial, it was (and still is in some cases) customary for conquering groups to build their own religious centers (churches, mosques, etc.) on top of or instead of the religious centers of others. Quite often, one building or site would serve multiple faiths over the centuries, switching back and forth, depending on who was in charge. So, as you surely know but did not mention, when the Christians "reconquered" Muslim Spain, they converted the great Mosque at Cordoba into a cathedral dedicated to Mary. You can see a picture of the Mosque / Cathedral here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

And yes, when the Christians did this, they were restoring the site to being a "Christian" site, as it had been the site of a Christian church prior to the Muslims having conquered Spain, and building the great mosque, as you do mention in your editorial.

 

Third, the idea of using the name "Cordoba" or at least the history of Spain under Muslim ascendance is evidently one that is used in interfaith contexts today. Last fall, I attended an event at Hartford Seminary that was cosponsored by a few interfaith groups, and there were people of many faiths in attendance. We watched a documentary film about Spain under Muslim leadership and also about what happened after the Christians took over again. The film did not seem to have a particular bias, but it sure was grim.  We were all quite surprised by how grim it was, as we had thought that we would be watching an inspirational film.   Instead, we saw what happens when people of different faiths wage war against each other, and conquer, reconquer, and oppress each other. I can't tell you how chilling it was to see all those lines of "Christian" soldiers marching into Spain in all the Medieval armor they wore, and how awful it was to see the Jews and Muslims forced to leave Spain, in caravans and with all their children and belongings, as the Christians reconquered the towns and cities.

 

It was hard after watching the film to have inspirational intercultural and interreligious dialogue, but we did our best.  Maybe Imam Rauf is doing his best with a concept that is available to him.

 

With that said, the history on all sides is not good in many ways, and things are very challenging today. I am not trying to say that one side or the other is better or worse, and I am not trying to downplay the problems that exist.  I am just, in this posting, trying to add some balance to what you wrote in your editorial.  And, as you suggested, I am seeking to have some dialogue with you and others in this Open Forum.

 

Jane

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

In a message dated 8/28/2010 12:08:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, elli...@charter.net writes:

Good to hear from you, Jane.

 

I am too weak, since hospitalized for pneumonia, & my sight is in too steep decline (though I can still read with a magnifer), to lead in vigorous finger-talk.  But I can still participate, thank the Lord!

 

SUGGESTION:  i would like responses to my column ("Attach") on the southern-Manhattan Islamic center.

 

--
THE ORDER OF CORPUS CHRISTI
orderofcorpuschristi.org
+The Right Rev'd Richard H Price, OCC, Abbot

215.943.7110
rhp...@gmail.com
Skype: sacerdote35

 

[Willis E. Elliott]

Yes to Jenkin's oeuvre!

The best global sense of Christianity yesterday, today, & tomorrow.

 

Grace and peace--

Willisd

[Andy Lang]

A good, and I think balanced, story about Donald Bloesch's passing by Gregg Brekke in the UCC News portal at http://www.ucc.org/news/ucc-theologian-bwf.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UnitedChurchOfChrist+%28United+Church+of+Christ%29.

 

Mentions his role as an "architect" of BWF without any negative slant, pays tribute to his "Christian Foundations," quotes Gabe and CT, and (given the short space allowed) does a great job of pointing to Bloesch's role as bridge-builder, criticizing both open-ended liberalism and rigid orthodoxy.

 

I see Gabe's influence in this article, or at least the influence of Gabe's spirit. I had nothing to do with this. I think it's encouraging that there continue to be thoughtful and responsible voices in the UCC's communication ministry that explore all sides. I could not have done a better job.

 

And, by the way, both this article and the tribute paid to Bloesch in the UCC Calendar of Prayer do call into question the idea that the denominational leadership is closed to alternative voices.

 

Andy
 

Andy Lang
Cleveland, OH
216-926-6262
lang...@sbcglobal.net
http://langohio.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/andrew.lang

---

From: Willis E. Elliott <elli...@charter.net>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 5:13:20 PM

[Mike Williams]

Although he had already been retired for almost a decade by the time I
started seminary at the University of Dubuque Dr. Bloesch was still
very much a presence on campus. Many of my classmates had chosen
Dubuque largely for the opportunity to study under him. Unfortunately
his health prevented him from being able to teach during my time at
seminary so none of us were able to get that chance. We did, however,
get to spend a lot of time with his wife as she came and went from the
library helping Dr. Bloesch with his scholarship. She is always a joy
to be around.

What impressed me most about his reputation on campus was the fact
that even those who were in different places theologically and
politically always respected Dr. Bloesch's integrity, thoroughness,
and faithfulness to the Gospel. It was touching to see the number of
condolences and offers of support that I have seen extended to his
wife and family through the seminary support network. Please keep
them all in your prayers.

God bless,
Mike

[Willis E. Elliott]

Thanks, Andy.

 

Phonecall an hour ago from one of the original (1959) UCC national staff.  His comment on Bloesch was "Too defensive: no future for defensive theology."  My counter: "Is there a future for a Christianity not defensive enough?"

 

We never had Don on a Colloquy program, but at some Colloquy somebody played a recording during a break.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[George Demetrion]

Hi Willis,
 
Thanks for this posting.
 
I think this issue of "defensiveness" has to do in part with the extent to which one is emphasizing apologetics starting from the premised assumptions of the secular culture, compared to the extent to which one is emphasizing dogmatics in the road Barthian sense in accentuating the strange new world of the Bible as starting point.  Seems Don was pretty much inclined toward the later and from that perspective did some pretty solid work.
 
If an overarching objective is to create a critical and creative dialogue between these two dimensions of faith, which I think as a long-range church project it is, how that would play out remains to be seen.  is there a centrist vision that can speak meaningfully beyond the church as well as to the margins and the center within a church in which "dialogue" is a central value?  If we're not there at this time and I don't believe we are, then one of the critical issues to me is discerning something of the kairos for the middle class church even in the notation of somewhat different nuances as well as potential convergences between the evangelical and mainline communities.
 
 
is there a culture lag in certain mainline perspectives with some type of unconscious assumption (pace Harvey Cox in the Secular City) that serious dialogue other than on the culture's terms itself is actually feasible in this era of unaccustomed diaspora?
 
George

 

---

From: elli...@charter.net
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Donald Bloesch on ucc.org
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:38:38 -0500

[Willis E. Elliott]

Thanks, George.

 

The last sentence in my first paragraph is interrogative in form but indicative in force: Of course there's no "future for a Christianity not defensive enough."

1

The systematic-theology volumes Don sent me as published (I still have them) are soundly-solidly biblical.  Any Christianity not so has no future.   Deviant species die out.

2

In mental as in physical dueling, "polemics" is attack (taking the thrust-initiative) & "apologetics" is counter-attack as active defense.  Inaction  is the third possibility (which can be passive-aggressive, or just passive).

3

Don's oeuvre is so balanced that it's risky to say it's more polemic or (as his UCC opponents have been inclined to)  more apologetic (defensive tending toward fundamentlism).  I read him as slightly more polemic, as here: "Biblical personalism [Don's POV] is a world-transforming spirituality.  It does not draw us out of the world but challenges us to bring the world into submission to the Lord Jesus Christ.  Military metaphors abound in this kind of spirituality...." (p41, Spirituality Old & New: Recovering Authentic Spiritual Life [IVP Academic/07]).

3.1

This book, a late product of his retirement, could be titled "What I Have Been About" & subtitled "Whom I Have Been With & Whom Against."  The subtitle takes the final form of a Name Index (before the Subject Index & Scripture Index).

3.2

Nothing personal in Don's naming-names polemic: he's consistently civil, locating "them" on the map of his own mind (1) to clarify his own location & (2) to teach his readers about "them."  EXAMPLE (pp45-46): In one paragraph, he names 35 of "them" who "believe in a God who is closer to the Earth Mother than to the Sky Father."  By the use of the Name Index, a reader could explore all the angles of attack on any particular one of "them."  How aggressive-polemic can you get? l (But of course, balance: the "us" names are not fewer than the "them" names.)

4

A new reader of Don would be, in my opinion, well-advised to begin with this book - to meet a deeply pious, biblically expert, philosophically competent, fair-broad-minded well-seasoned Christian determined to access, for the glory of God, the whole Christian tradition.

5

In re-perusing the book for this email, I came upon underlinings I'm fighting off quoting here.  With exceptions:

5.1

P136: "The ruling norm for life and faith varies widely depending on one's metaphysical undergirding,  In the biblical view this norm is fidelity; in the mystical view it is tranquility; in the modern view it is utility....Our calling as Christians is...to give glory to God through sacrificial service to those in need."

5.2

P140 (his postmillenialism): "the kingdom of God works as a leaven that...will eventually embrace the whole of humankind."

5.3

P182: "Whereas I am inclined to give precedence to 'either/or' even while affirming 'both/and,' mystics are prone to sacrifice the former for the latter."

6

Gabe has one of the four blurbs on cover-p.4.  Perhaps he'll comment.

[Gabe]

Willis,

Best I can do at the moment is repeat the blurb.

"Here is a biblical and churchly 'spirituality' so needed today as an
alternative to New that crowd the mall bookstore shelves. Examining a
range of offerings for the cure of souls that includes classical
mysticism--its strengths and weaknesses--current gnosticisms in
Christian garb and their post-Christian equivalents. Bloesch makes a
powerful case for a Christocentric spiritual life of loving God and
serving the world."

--Gabe
....