experience and biblical revelation

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Confesors,

 

Perhaps the challenge, in part is to allow experience to be infused to the extent we are given access and to the extent to which through an ever dimly mirror we can give some articulation to it, by the Holy Spirit.  John 14:26 puts the Spirit and the Word into close (and irrevocable) proximity as part of the ongoing challenge, I believe to walk between the temptations of biblicalism (while loving and diligently studying and praying with the Bible) and expressive individualism, and more broadly speaking, perhaps prevailing identity.  There are times, it seems to me when the challenge of faith requires strong dogmatic (I am using the term here broadly, and perhaps partially metaphorically as in Barth's Dogmatics) embrace regardless of the cultural context and apologetic challenges, which we cannot in any literal sense avoid in any event in that dogmatics becomes a type of contextualization and apologetic witness.  There are other times, it seems to me that we (and I'll let the "we" stand here for large or small) are called to pay closer heed to the context and apologetic challenges.  Perhaps ideally there should be balance between these.  Perhaps also, in a dynamic sense the "balance" is worked out in a more dialectical fashion in the struggle (the pilgrimage) to work out our faith in fear and trembling within the midst of the many places where we live. 

 

From the perspective of religious culture, one might draw a reasonable conclusion that the various liberationist motifs of the 60s and beyond was a reaction against perhaps a taken for granted civil religion at the very least highly influential in mainline circles in the mid 20th century and at least in some respects a return to a more authentic faith stance, with, as some of us believe, with many costly strings attached.  In that respect the liberationists may have been fighting against the ideology of a consensus view of US history and culture emblematically set in the era of Eisenhower and the critique against any ideological appropriation of a biblio-centered faith as still a voice that needs to be heard.   

 

One might draw another reasonable conclusion that the liberationist motif has its own excesses to which the confessing Christ movement in the various mainline denominations is a healthy critique against an emphasis on immanentism to the event that it diminishes the emphasis on the transcendence of God.  A question I would like to raise here is the extent to which the Confessing Christ movement here in the UCC is a kairotic moment that can be explained in part as God's dynamic movement in the stream of this particular time in our culture, and correspondingly, perhaps, what excesses may be expressed in this (what I view as very viable and personally important movement) to which, in part the liberationist movement may have a Word that perhaps need to be and as part of the immanent that any self-reflective and critically-grounded reform movement needs to hear.  I'm not referring here to any specific discussion threads, but offer this as an overall and highly open comment that would benefit greatly by feedback from others.

 

George Demetrion

 

 

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Correction of a couple typos and the following brief note: 

 

Mid 20th century civil religion had both a fundamentalist thread (the American way of life as virtually synonymous with Christianity) and a mainline thread which downplayed doctrine and theological distinctions focusing instead on a broadly diffused culture expressive of mainline culture.  In my brief discussion of civil religion below, I uncritically fused the two. Both discerning evangelicals and neo-orthodoxy as articulated especially by Reinhold Niebuhr  sought to move against any such civil religion (the American way of life, however variously expressed by mid-century Protestant culture) even as Niebuhr, rightly, I believed at least in the 40s and 50s  was linked with the consensus history promoted by Arthur Slessinger (sp), Hans Morgenthau, Louis Hartz and others.  In any event, civil as manifested in its varying ideological stripes was, at least in part, a largely uncritical merger of culture and religion which resulted in reactions (and reactions against reactions) of various sorts that were both ideologically motivated and motivated as well by a "purer" (if there is such a thing) quest for a more authentic AND relevant Christianity, however large the gap betwen the reach and the grasp has remained.

 

GD

______________________________________________________________________

 

Confessors,

 

Perhaps the challenge, in part is to allow experience to be infused to the extent we are given access, and to the extent to which through an ever dimly mirror we can give some articulation to it, by the Holy Spirit  John 14:26 puts the Spirit and the Word into close (and irrevocable) proximity as part of the ongoing challenge, I believe to walk between the temptations of biblicalism (while loving and diligently studying and praying with the Bible) and expressive individualism, and more broadly speaking, perhaps prevailing identity.  There are times, it seems to me when the challenge of faith requires strong dogmatic (I am using the term here broadly, and perhaps partially metaphorically as in Barth's Dogmatics) embrace regardless of the cultural context and apologetic challenges, which we cannot in any literal sense avoid in any event in that dogmatics becomes a type of contextualization and apologetic witness.  There are other times, it seems to me that we (and I'll let the "we" stand here for large or small) are called to pay closer heed to the context and apologetic challenges.  Perhaps ideally there should be balance between these.  Perhaps also, in a dynamic sense the "balance" is worked out in a more dialectical fashion in the struggle (the pilgrimage) to work out our faith in fear and trembling within the midst of the many places where we live. 

 

From the perspective of religious culture, one might draw a reasonable conclusion that the various liberationist motifs of the 60s and beyond was a reaction against perhaps a taken for granted civil religion at the very least highly influential in mainline circles in the mid 20th century and at least in some respects a return to a more authentic faith stance, with, as some of us believe, with many costly strings attached.  In that respect the liberationists may have been fighting against the ideology of a consensus view of US history and culture emblematically set in the era of Eisenhower and the critique against any ideological appropriation of a biblio-centered faith as still a voice that needs to be heard.   

 

One might draw another reasonable conclusion that the liberationist motif has its own excesses to which the confessing Christ movement in the various mainline denominations is a healthy critique against an emphasis on immanentism to the event that it diminishes the emphasis on the transcendence of God.  A question I would like to raise here is the extent to which the Confessing Christ movement here in the UCC is a kairotic moment that can be explained in part as God's dynamic movement in the stream of this particular time in our culture, and correspondingly, perhaps, what excesses may be expressed in this (what I view as very viable and personally important) movement to which, in part the liberationist movement may have a Word that perhaps need to be and as part of the immanent critique that any self-reflective and critically-grounded reform movement needs to hear.  I'm not referring here to any specific discussion threads, but offer this as an overall and highly open comment that would benefit greatly by feedback from others.

 

George Demetrion

 

 

[Gabriel Fackre]

George,

 

Good question.

 

If you look at the list of original “founders” of Confessing Christ (15 names on  a Sept. 1993 letter sent hither and yon inviting UCC folk to 3 initial meetings that drew 400 people, mostly pastors), you will see the only two UCC African-American Conference Ministers (with liberation/activist commitments) and others with a long social action history. The justice commitments continue in the national and regional leadership (viz., the 2004 Barmen anniversary statement, the resources cited in daily lection and prayer discipline edited by Fred Trost), and local forays  of CC people as in the current struggle for justice for the homeless on Cape Cod. But you are right that they have not been front and center (as in the liberation movements of the 60s and 70s). We have had notable failures also, as in the effort of some of the leadership to advocate for the working poor, to be a bolder voice on matters of war and peace, etc. My guess is that those drawn to Confessing Christ see those mandates as the UCC establishment’s self-description (“the just peace Church,” “the prophetic church,” et al), one sorely in need of the theological grounding that the Confessing Christ movement has put to the fore. And you are surely right that it needs to be ever-attentive to the Word and the need for admonition about these things.

 

                                          --Gabe  

 

 

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of gdeme...@msn.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:56 AM

 

…….A question I would like to raise here is the extent to which the Confessing Christ movement here in the UCC is a kairotic moment that can be explained in part as God's dynamic movement in the stream of this particular time in our culture, and correspondingly, perhaps, what excesses may be expressed in this (what I view as very viable and personally important movement) to which, in part the liberationist movement may have a Word that perhaps need to be and as part of the immanent that any self-reflective and critically-grounded reform movement needs to hear.  I'm not referring here to any specific discussion threads, but offer this as an overall and highly open comment that would benefit greatly by feedback from others.

 

George Demetrion

 

 

[Doxtalker]

Really interesting observations, George. Do you think to talk about
"confessing Christ" is per se talking about verticalness (or
verticality) and to talk about social issues, justice and peace, is to
talk about horizontalness? And does verticalness necessarily refer to
the transcendence of God and horizontalness to the immanence of God?

Larry

On Apr 12, 5:45 am, <gdemetr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Correction of a couple typos and the following brief note:
>
> Mid 20th century civil religion had both a fundamentalist thread (the American way of life as virtually synonymous with Christianity) and a mainline thread which downplayed doctrine and theological distinctions focusing instead on a broadly diffused culture expressive of mainline culture. In my brief discussion of civil religion below, I uncritically fused the two. Both discerning evangelicals and neo-orthodoxy as articulated especially by Reinhold Niebuhr sought to move against any such civil religion (the American way of life, however variously expressed by mid-century Protestant culture) even as Niebuhr, rightly, I believed at least in the 40s and 50s was linked with the consensus history promoted by Arthur Slessinger (sp), Hans Morgenthau, Louis Hartz and others. In any event, civil as manifested in its varying ideological stripes was, at least in part, a largely uncritical merger of culture and religion which resulted in reactions (and reactions against reactions) of various sorts that were both ideologically motivated and motivated as well by a "purer" (if there is such a thing) quest for a more authentic AND relevant Christianity, however large the gap betwen the reach and the grasp has remained.
>
> GD
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Confessors,
>

> Perhaps the challenge, in part is to allow experience to be infused to the extent we are given access, and to the extent to which through an ever dimly mirror we can give some articulation to it, by the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 puts the Spirit and the Word into close (and irrevocable) proximity as part of the ongoing challenge, I believe to walk between the temptations of biblicalism (while loving and diligently studying and praying with the Bible) and expressive individualism, and more broadly speaking, perhaps prevailing identity. There are times, it seems to me when the challenge of faith requires strong dogmatic (I am using the term here broadly, and perhaps partially metaphorically as in Barth's Dogmatics) embrace regardless of the cultural context and apologetic challenges, which we cannot in any literal sense avoid in any event in that dogmatics becomes a type of contextualization and apologetic witness. There are other times, it seems to me that we (and I'll let the "we" stand here for large or small) are called to pay closer heed to the context and apologetic challenges. Perhaps ideally there should be balance between these. Perhaps also, in a dynamic sense the "balance" is worked out in a more dialectical fashion in the struggle (the pilgrimage) to work out our faith in fear and trembling within the midst of the many places where we live.

>
> From the perspective of religious culture, one might draw a reasonable conclusion that the various liberationist motifs of the 60s and beyond was a reaction against perhaps a taken for granted civil religion at the very least highly influential in mainline circles in the mid 20th century and at least in some respects a return to a more authentic faith stance, with, as some of us believe, with many costly strings attached. In that respect the liberationists may have been fighting against the ideology of a consensus view of US history and culture emblematically set in the era of Eisenhower and the critique against any ideological appropriation of a biblio-centered faith as still a voice that needs to be heard.
>

> One might draw another reasonable conclusion that the liberationist motif has its own excesses to which the confessing Christ movement in the various mainline denominations is a healthy critique against an emphasis on immanentism to the event that it diminishes the emphasis on the transcendence of God. A question I would like to raise here is the extent to which the Confessing Christ movement here in the UCC is a kairotic moment that can be explained in part as God's dynamic movement in the stream of this particular time in our culture, and correspondingly, perhaps, what excesses may be expressed in this (what I view as very viable and personally important) movement to which, in part the liberationist movement may have a Word that perhaps need to be and as part of the immanent critique that any self-reflective and critically-grounded reform movement needs to hear I'm not referring here to any specific discussion threads, but offer this as an overall and highly open comment that would benefit greatly by feedback from others.
>
> George Demetrion

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Thank you Larry.

 

Rather than polarizing verticality and horizontalness I would rather speak of tendencies, noting that both in their respective places have solid biblical rooting.  The goal, though trite to state it and as equally difficult to embody it is to keep the two together in unity while simultaneously holding them as well in dialectical tension.  Transcendence as symbolized by the First Commandment and supported by the first four would be the ultimate standard.  Immanence as symbolized by the Incarnation and supported by the last six commandments and so much else (e.g. Leviticus 25, Matthew 25, James, etc) is not only a very strong second, but unless substantially embedded in the committed life and the life of the church, by definition diminishes the former in the sense that holiness, justice and mercy cannot be separated from each other without doing profound violence to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

In terms of how this tension has been played out in the history of 20th century Protestantism verticality and horizontalness have been very much polarized in much of the iconography of both the American culture writ large and the religious imagination write small(er) in which very few of us, I venture, have remained unscathed. This is not to deny very many efforts at convergence, even though the great divide between fundamentalism and modernity has a very large hold on the entire shaping of 20th century American religious identity.  On the premises of this assumption I argue that any reformed-based revitalization to take place in mainline denominations will require some very imaginative exorcism of this enduring culture war between fundamentalism and modernism the many echoes of which continue to permeate our collective consciousness and unconscious.  Liturgical renewal movements and mediating theologies can help (I would add a great deal), but ultimately, I believe, only to the extent that there is some substantial mediation of this great divide.  Otherwise, as I believe, it will remain exceedingly difficult for mainline denominations to take the Bible with the seriousness it warrants to shift the gravity of the religious culture from a culture defining Scripture mode to a Scripture defining culture mode that is simultaneously modern and grounded in critical scholarship as well as by a solid pietistic emphasis.

 

Perhaps that shift is not in the cards at this time in any comprehensive way that perhaps many of us on this list and elsewhere desire very much  That is not, however, to  suggest that confessing Christ movements within the various mainline denominations will not continue to grow both in terms of influence and in terms of pietistic and theological depth.   Hopefully this becomes combined with an increasingly critically attuned awareness of the various tensions that permeate both the culture broadly speaking and the corresponding religious culture, which might be viewed both as a subset of culture and as a transcendent source at least in an imaginative sense as extending beyond culture even as for an incarnational faith there can be no transcendence of culture in any literal sense. Such an exercise of the religious  imagination is a manifestation of a core faith assumption that while historical identity is inescapable we do have a resource beyond radical historical absolutism (which I define as making an idol of history itself) in the midst of the dispensation in which we are situated as residing between the First and Second eschaton.  This partial escape from radical historical absolutism that would define history itself as the ultimate source of reality provides the substance of the things hoped for which stands for the very evidence of things not seen but attested to by a mighty cloud of witnesses.  The issue of the relationship between verticality and horizontalness is very much linked to these core issues of where we are in the midst of these deeper realities.

 

George Demetrion