In my post BCMS Paper - First Impression I basically said I didn't find the section of the paper titled "Mission Begins with the Trinity" as compelling as I would hope. Now I'll start to say some things about why I think that is.
Referring to God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit seems familiar to me. Calling God Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer seems good to me.
Still, I find the concept of the Trinity rather obtuse. Not the concept of each of the persons of the Trinity, but the concept of the Trinity itself, as well as the concept of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. I don't think the concept of the Trinity has ever struck home to me in a way that makes it as elevated and central as this document and the church in general makes it. I have the suspicion there are a lot of people in and around the church in the same boat. As I recall, Patrick Keifert wrote about this state of affairs among many in the church in WE ARE HERE NOW: A New Missional Era.
For one who doesn't relate strongly to the concept of the Trinity, pegging and orienting mission to the Trinity isn't as compelling as might be hoped.
So among the next questions: why don't I/we relate more to the concept of the Trinity? Should we? Why or why not?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The BCMS Paper- Joining the Conversation
The Bishop's Commission on Mission Strategy, Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota has written a paper called "What Are We Here For? A Theological Position Paper on Mission."
The paper makes clear that it's intended to generate conversation. I hope to join the conversation here.
In trying to respond to the paper, I feel like a line from the paper, "Mission Impossible!? Where Do We Begin?" There's a lot there, a lot to think about, a lot that might be said and asked. In keeping with yesterday's post, I'll try to just bite off bits at a time.
The paper makes clear that it's intended to generate conversation. I hope to join the conversation here.
In trying to respond to the paper, I feel like a line from the paper, "Mission Impossible!? Where Do We Begin?" There's a lot there, a lot to think about, a lot that might be said and asked. In keeping with yesterday's post, I'll try to just bite off bits at a time.
BCMS Paper - First Impression
There is so much that I like in this paper, that I hate to begin on a problematic note. However, an issue that raises concern for me comes up early in the paper, so I will talk about it early in my responses. I hope you can bear with me.
I also hope those who have obviously labored with experience, education and knowledge beyond my own; and no doubt labored with conviction and love to create a careful, meaningful and useful expression of these points, will not find me impudent or otherwise offensive. I guess honest responses are important, to me and to the results of the paper, so with intimidation & worry I'll forge ahead, submitting my perspectives for what they may be worth.
The section titled "Mission Begins with the Trinity" gave me the feeling of being head theology that isn't making a good connection to heart theology. Ideally they are one and the same, but that's not what I've perceived in reading this section.
For me, too much of the section reads like a dry, heady recitation of inherited Christian dogma. To put it another way, the preface of the paper mentions that theology involves faith seeking understanding. This section kind of seems like an understanding trying to generate faith.
I want to be clear at this point that I don't mean what I'm saying in today's post to be a comment about the specific meanings of the content. I'm not trying to say I think it's true or not or anything like that. I'm talking in general about how I feel it comes off. I'll get to my theories about why (including, but not limited to, some thoughts about the content) in future posts.
All theology is of course constructed. What I think we hope to end up with in constructing theological statements are statements that do a compelling job of reflecting what we think in our heads and believe in our hearts to be true. If we achieve that goal there is a resonance, a passion, a click. I don't find enough of that resonance or passion when I read this section. The writers may have had it. I can't comment on that. But it doesn't do it for me.
Mission seems to imply and require passion. So, if too many people respond to this section as I did, I'm afraid it won't be as effective or useful as it's desired to be.
I keep thinking that to be sure I'm being fair maybe I should read it again. (I think I've read it twice so far, and wrote most of this not long after the 2nd reading, since which some time has passed.) I probably will read it again at some point and see if I still feel this way. But I don't think its a good sign for me to have to read it again in the hope that I'll find it less dry and more compelling. It may be just me. But if it's not, I'm not sure enough people will give it that many chances. Even if they do, first impressions can be powerful and we would hope for them to be positive and compelling in this case.
Well, so much for a short post. But at least I'm posting. (Remember I said yesterday I write long things that I don't post? There's more where this came from. But I will try to keep them short if I can. Sometimes I guess it takes a bit of writing to work oneself out onto a limb...eek...I hope it doesn't crash with me on it.)
I also hope those who have obviously labored with experience, education and knowledge beyond my own; and no doubt labored with conviction and love to create a careful, meaningful and useful expression of these points, will not find me impudent or otherwise offensive. I guess honest responses are important, to me and to the results of the paper, so with intimidation & worry I'll forge ahead, submitting my perspectives for what they may be worth.
The section titled "Mission Begins with the Trinity" gave me the feeling of being head theology that isn't making a good connection to heart theology. Ideally they are one and the same, but that's not what I've perceived in reading this section.
For me, too much of the section reads like a dry, heady recitation of inherited Christian dogma. To put it another way, the preface of the paper mentions that theology involves faith seeking understanding. This section kind of seems like an understanding trying to generate faith.
I want to be clear at this point that I don't mean what I'm saying in today's post to be a comment about the specific meanings of the content. I'm not trying to say I think it's true or not or anything like that. I'm talking in general about how I feel it comes off. I'll get to my theories about why (including, but not limited to, some thoughts about the content) in future posts.
All theology is of course constructed. What I think we hope to end up with in constructing theological statements are statements that do a compelling job of reflecting what we think in our heads and believe in our hearts to be true. If we achieve that goal there is a resonance, a passion, a click. I don't find enough of that resonance or passion when I read this section. The writers may have had it. I can't comment on that. But it doesn't do it for me.
Mission seems to imply and require passion. So, if too many people respond to this section as I did, I'm afraid it won't be as effective or useful as it's desired to be.
I keep thinking that to be sure I'm being fair maybe I should read it again. (I think I've read it twice so far, and wrote most of this not long after the 2nd reading, since which some time has passed.) I probably will read it again at some point and see if I still feel this way. But I don't think its a good sign for me to have to read it again in the hope that I'll find it less dry and more compelling. It may be just me. But if it's not, I'm not sure enough people will give it that many chances. Even if they do, first impressions can be powerful and we would hope for them to be positive and compelling in this case.
Well, so much for a short post. But at least I'm posting. (Remember I said yesterday I write long things that I don't post? There's more where this came from. But I will try to keep them short if I can. Sometimes I guess it takes a bit of writing to work oneself out onto a limb...eek...I hope it doesn't crash with me on it.)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Short, Sweet? & Frequent
I write lengthy things I never post. I'm afraid no one will read them & I'm afraid of what they might think if they do.
I'm overwhelmed by the volume of issues & questions that I want to process, get feedback about, contribute to the general dialog....
So, I'm going to try to post more frequent, shorter things. I'm going to try to resist my compulsions for detail and perfectionism.
That said, enough said.
More tomorrow.
I'm overwhelmed by the volume of issues & questions that I want to process, get feedback about, contribute to the general dialog....
So, I'm going to try to post more frequent, shorter things. I'm going to try to resist my compulsions for detail and perfectionism.
That said, enough said.
More tomorrow.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Bells
You know the bells that ring at the consecration of the bread and the wine during Eucharist?
Today at the consecration of the bread I heard a bell ring. Not the little hand held set that go ding-a-ling-a-ling. A big steeple bell. I thought maybe it was a neighbor church that coincidentally rang their bell at that time.
Then it happened again at the consecration of the wine.
Wonderful! I think this was our bell. I think it was rung on purpose!
How appropriate that the sound marking the consecration of the bread & the wine as the body & blood of Christ is not contained in the walls of our building, but rings out to the world around.
Now as the sound of the bell went forth, let us go forth into the world, rejoicing in the power of the Spirit.... bringing along within us to all those we meet the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ.
Today at the consecration of the bread I heard a bell ring. Not the little hand held set that go ding-a-ling-a-ling. A big steeple bell. I thought maybe it was a neighbor church that coincidentally rang their bell at that time.
Then it happened again at the consecration of the wine.
Wonderful! I think this was our bell. I think it was rung on purpose!
How appropriate that the sound marking the consecration of the bread & the wine as the body & blood of Christ is not contained in the walls of our building, but rings out to the world around.
Now as the sound of the bell went forth, let us go forth into the world, rejoicing in the power of the Spirit.... bringing along within us to all those we meet the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Easter at May Day
I love the annual Heart of the Beast May Day Parade.
It certainly isn't explicity or specifically Christian. It draws on mythologies of various belief systems and cultures. But if you wish to frame it that way, you can find a lot of Easter in it.
It's richer than I'll try to describe in this blog, but here's the key example as I see it. The story and themes portrayed by the parade usually flow along the lines of that which is good and full of life suffering or dying because of being overcome by evil. One of the portrayls of this is often the Tree of Life being carried through the parade in a horizontal position, draped with black cloth. It looks to me like a cross or a coffin. In the later part of the parade and especially later in the ceremony at Powderhorn Park, we experience resurrection as life triumphs and the Tree of Life is raised up again, alive, with the coming of the sun.
You might say the event succeeds at doing what we're trying to do at church. It connects universal themes to our day to day life in the context of a diverse community that celebrates the triumph of life over death and is re-energized to go forward embracing life and resisting evil, with the support of the community and the Power(s) that be.
Perhaps next year we can join in the workshops that create wonderful imaginative costumes to wear while marching in the parade and/or we can represent Gethsemane in the join in section at the end of the parade.
It certainly isn't explicity or specifically Christian. It draws on mythologies of various belief systems and cultures. But if you wish to frame it that way, you can find a lot of Easter in it.
It's richer than I'll try to describe in this blog, but here's the key example as I see it. The story and themes portrayed by the parade usually flow along the lines of that which is good and full of life suffering or dying because of being overcome by evil. One of the portrayls of this is often the Tree of Life being carried through the parade in a horizontal position, draped with black cloth. It looks to me like a cross or a coffin. In the later part of the parade and especially later in the ceremony at Powderhorn Park, we experience resurrection as life triumphs and the Tree of Life is raised up again, alive, with the coming of the sun.
You might say the event succeeds at doing what we're trying to do at church. It connects universal themes to our day to day life in the context of a diverse community that celebrates the triumph of life over death and is re-energized to go forward embracing life and resisting evil, with the support of the community and the Power(s) that be.
Perhaps next year we can join in the workshops that create wonderful imaginative costumes to wear while marching in the parade and/or we can represent Gethsemane in the join in section at the end of the parade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)