Week 10: Reflections on Joel’s Blog

In his blog on the piece by Mbuwayesango, Joel, brings up a point that I feel needs further discussion, that of the confusion surrounding the adoption of native terminology (some of which is rooted in native religion) by christians in attempts to articulate their faith within a culture. I agree with Joel that the problem is not inherent in the word itself, nor in the adoption of the word by Christians in hopes to relevant articulate the gospel. The problem is instead attempting to wade through the trappings of the culture that have been applied to particular terminology. This fear should not keep us as Christians from using language and terminology that is already familiar to particular peoples to articulate our faith, which I might, we believe is already rooted dormantly in their culture. The goals of reclamation, whether it be of language or otherwise, should always be the “kingdom work” of churches and christians, no matter the culture we find ourselves in. The difficulties arise in our attempts to abandon the deeply rooted ideas that we must “take God” particular places, and instead we merely have to affirm God’s presence already existing within a particular community. It is this goal and drive that should motivate us as Christians to reclaim not only language, but other cultural practices that were once lost in the secular/spiritual split, and to again reaffirm them in light of God’s already existent presence. This belief forces us to abandon our insecurities and apologetic abilities, and instead frees us to go within cultures ignorant of the concept of God and reclaim peoples and activities that are already extremely familiar with God’s kingdom practices without being fully aware that they are. This is not only liberating for others, it also becomes liberating for us who are trying to remember every step of the “Roman road”.

Week 10: Wednesday

In today’s class Ryan spent time wrapping up several of the loose ends and discussions that we have had during the class this quarter. The most enjoyable aspect of today’s class was a discussion that I have been having with several people for quite sometime, and that is the idea of “presence evangelism” and this is the idea that when we present the gospel, coupled with other works of service, “gifts”, or “charity”, is it still truly the gospel, because what we are in fact presenting is the acceptance of an idea motivated out of reciprocation or commerce. Instead when we present the gift of presence, the gift of “charity”, without the caveat of gospel presentation and acceptance, then in actuality what we are presenting is a quite subversive ideal that will, in its counter-cultural nature, spark conversation and the presentation of gospel, but this presentation resembles more of a conversation, rather than a cold-call during family dinner. It is only with a free gift that we can adequately present the gospel, because we ourselves received this gospel freely.

Week 10: “Exodus-Toward-Egypt” -Fernandez (Sugirtharajah)

In her piece on the connections that exist between the biblical story of Jacob and his family’s exodus toward Egypt, with the Filipino exodus to America, Fernandez, brings up some very interesting points about the necessity of this exodus, as well as what it does to the psyche of the individuals who must engage in it. The most intriguing aspect of her discussion was in seeing Egypt (America) as the only alternative to eventual starvation and destruction, this comparison also fit quit well in how the families of Filipino-Americans view their American sons and daughters in comparison with how Jacob’s family viewed his position in Egypt, as “sold-laborers”. I enjoyed this piece for several reasons, but mainly because it takes a different approach to exodus, rather than the commonly discussed Exodus from Egypt, Fernandez focused on the aspects of society that make it necessary for a marginal people to enter Egypt in the first place. I think this piece challenges how we as Americans view and posit the “American dream”, and what we in the Church are proposing for those that find themselves on the outside of this dream, as we uphold it in sermons and books as a sign of God’s grace. Are we merely as the Church and as Americans encouraging a marginal people to enter Egypt once again to become the slaves and servants in our egoic imperialistic system that demands for a class underneath ourselves? and How can we as the Church combat this Egypt, both the Egypt of Emigration and Immigration?

Week 10: “Cutchery Tamil versus Pure Tamil” -Israel (Sugirtharajah)

In his piece on the controversy surrounding the revision of Protestant Tamil canon from one particular missionary translation to another, Israel, shows the necessity of a non-Western Protestant community’s need for a deeply rooted and historicized text to validate its place among native historical religions. The most interesting aspect of this discussion was Israel’s commentary on the inability of older Protestant Tamils to accept a recently altered text based primarily out of there cast position, as well as their desires to combat deeply historical native religion. This debate is one still held today, and one that Christians past and present have attempted to debate. The common debate and apologetic used among Western Christians is that the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures points to and affirms the existence and importance of Jesus. This recognition is very important for Christians today as well as the past, because this historicity serves as affirmation for the validity of our faith, which is similar to the debate of Tamil Protestantism and their desire for a “true” historically Tamil text.

Week 10: Monday

In today’s class Wes gave us a good definition of the questions surrounding the relevancy struggle within Christian communities, and how this desire has sometimes led us to forego several key tenets of ancient Christian tradition mainly because they are ancient. The struggle with relevancy today is how the Church has become marginalized currently in this postmodern paradigm, and that it continues to combat this marginalization with “relevant” worship, bible study, etc. but the Church must begin to realize that it can no longer re-claim its position of power and authority in society, but must instead return to the incarnational or missional engagements of Jesus. These engagments are not based on the church’s ability to again become cultural center, but are instead to point to something greater than the establishment, the kingdom itself. This discussion is something extremely difficult for the Church to engage with because it must first admit its inability to be the “kingdom police” and must instead be involved in the critiquing and affirming of aspects and areas of society that point to the existence and movements of God already in society. The Church, to become truly “relevant” it must first admit that the kingdom lies not only within its walls, but outside them as well.

Week 10: “Canonization and Marginalization: Mary of Magdala -King (Sugirtharajah)

In her discussion on the marginalization of Mary of Magdala, King, brings up an interesting debate on the necessity of orthodoxy and canonization. In her piece King demands that a clearer picture of Mary Magdalane be given based upon the depiction of her in the non-canonical, often Gnostic, texts, notably The Gospel of Mary. King claims that these texts must be added to the discussion of Mary’s character and importance in the Gospel stories. She also goes to state that her identification by the church fathers as well as the canon (outside of the incorrect depiction of her as penatent prostitute) is closer to her original position, but was still canonized within a patriarchial view of women in ministry. I agree with King in the idea that the marginal picture presented of Mary was used to downplay women in ministry, but I believe a more true reading of this would also be to discredit what scholars such as King herself are attempting to do, rewrite canon. The reason that one cannot include non-canonical references to Mary as consistent mainly arise out of questions such as: historicity (many Gnostic texts were written much later than canonical texts), motivation (many Gnostic texts were written to support a specific picture or counter a specific claim made by canonical texts (therefore according to King’s logic these must be thrown out along with the canonical documents)). When scholars attempt, as so many have, to include Gnostic texts in the reconstruction of biblical figures one must first begin to analyze these non-canonical texts with the same skepticism used by these scholars to refute canonization. There were reasons behind canonizations, there were motivations, ideas, and beliefs, I trust these beliefs, mainly because I trust in the sovereignity behind these reasons.

Week 10: Castle Readings

I have completely exhausted the Castle source, so Ryan told me to put this up on the blog to let you know.

Week 10: “How Local Divine Powers were Suppressed” -Mbuwayesango (Sugirtharajah)

In her piece on the usurpation of the Shona peoples’ God Mwari, Mbuwayesango, brings up an interesting point about the blurring of lines between colonization and evangelism by missionaries during the “scramble for Africa”. Mbuwayesango comments that in Shona interpretations of the Bible the word Mwari, which was orignially a specific word for a Shona God, was hijacked by English interpreters seeking to incorporate and replace a previously understood God, with the Christian God. This is a thought-provoking point, but one that must be probed further beyond a mere agitation with Western evangelical revision. I believe the difficulty in transliterating the word for God in the Old Testament, into Greek, and ultimately into English is the real culprit in this situation. To merely attack English missionaries for something that had been taking place since the inception of the canon, as well as the Septuagint, one must first analyze the fact that the English word “God” was taken from a Greek understanding for God which was clearly different from the word the Hebrews used to denote their monotheistic deity. This has always happened in the art of translation, instead of reading an underlying theme of oppression into these translated texts, one could also see the art of attempting to use a word that exists outside of a language, explain this word to those that have never spoken it, using words that do not exist to them. When I read about missionaries attempting to incorporate a previously held understanding of God by a native people, it seems to me rather progressive, much more progressive, I would argue, than say a tract explaining “God” to people here in America, while completely avoiding all relative language to said people.

Week 9: Wednesday

In today’s class Ryan hammered out the details, myths, and criteria surrounding conversations about the Emerging/Emergent movement. This was interesting and helpful for us as we enter into this dialogue as future pastors, leaders, etc. and that we dialogue both intelligently and passionately, but also doing so with charity. If we begin to analyze the words and motivations for many of those within the Emergent Movement, we quickly discover a spirit of charity, charity in the appropriation and inclusion of both new and old ideas. One also discovers this lack of charity oftentimes in the critiques surrounding the Emergent movement, critiques lacking charity, and oftentimes intelligence. These vitrolic responses serve only to strengthen the resolve many opposed to the Church in general, and the traditional church specifically, due in large part to the lack of inclusion and charity in dialogue. This is why many refuse to discuss spirituality in our current contexts, because we as Christians don’t really desire to listen, and if so with motivation only to refute.

Week 9: Comment on Barry’s Blog

In his blog on a resistance reading of John 5 by Huie-Jolly, Barry, comments that if Jesus is “the way” and if the Bible is true, how do these things create outsiders, and if outsiders are created then isn’t that just God’s perrogative? I would agree that postcolonial biblical criticism many times asks the text to do much more than it probably should. Taking a field of study that began in the 1970s and using it to analyze a text from an Ancient Near Eastern gospel author, and critiquing that author for his/her inability to write with a 20th century framework is not only irresponsible from a scholarly perspective, its simply incorrect. Barry I think you have your heart in the right place when you are arguing for divine inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture, I also believe in those tenets, but when making a scholarly argument, or merely responding to biblical criticism, what we must keep in mind is the perspective of the one critiquing. To flippantly respond with “of course the Bible is divinely inspired” of course “God can create outsiders, do whatever he wants” of course “John is presenting an unquestioned argument about the divinity of Jesus”.
If we as Christians are hoping to be able to meet and debate Biblical criticism what we must first do is remove our emotions from the secular critique of scripture. I realize this is difficult, but when we use clear argument and dialogue, without compromising our faith, and when we respond in love to bitter questioning (instead of anger and defensivity) what we discover is that even if our answers are ultimately the same, the one who is criticizing hears them much differently. In reality, when we respond to biblical criticism defensively, and we appear to guard the secrets of our faith by marking certain areas as non-negotiable, what we are really saying to those who do not share our beliefs is, “If you question this, you may find out that what I believe isn’t true, so don’t question the bible to that degree…” but if we are strong enough in our faith to simply stand by our beliefs, in the face of evolution, biblical criticism, what have you, etc. We discover that our faith was never based upon a certain reading of scripture, but rather an authentic encounter with the resurrected Christ attested to in scripture…