Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Walter Brueggemann - 19 Theses
I heard this a while back. After reading Brian McLaren's new book I think it is even more clear. You can download the full talk and Q&A via Mp3. In particular, I like how he talks about the difference between certitude (belief/doctrine) and fidelity (faith) in the Q&A session. Thanks to Paul Soupiset for posting this transcription and the audio.
1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you took all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.
11 comments:
Funny, I was listening to this a week or so ago and was thinking "... I should type those out.." and boom, already done. Thanks a bunch Paul!
I love Brueggemann... Thanks for posting this.
:-)
Mike,
I'm over 50, so forgive me if I sound old fashioned. Each generation seeks a relationship with God that is unique to their own zeitgeist. This amounts to a re-phrasing of the original, sometimes with unintended additions or deletions.
The superimposition of technology, militarism, consumerism, liberalism and/or conservatism over the sub text of Christ seems to me to be extraneous.
The disengagement from one script to another has heretofore been called a "born-again" experience.
The ambivalence between scripts has previously been called a "battle between the flesh and the spirit."
I think it is a mistake to say that "The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church." It seems to me that the tradition of the church is what has hampered the alternative script.
"The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script" seems so because we are naturally at odds with God and his ways (Isaiah 55:8)
I'm sorry if I sound cynical. I realize that every generation must find its own way. These theses seem to complicate and politicize an otherwise very simple Gospel message.
Hope some dialogue can follow....
Peace, Kim
Kim,
You are not that much older than me and you are probably much younger than Dr. Brueggemann.
"The superimposition of technology, militarism, consumerism, liberalism and/or conservatism over the sub text of Christ seems to me to be extraneous."
I think you may have the process here backwards. What Brueggemann is doing is taking away the "superimposition" (to borrow your word) that has occurred in traditional doctrine by going back to the original meaning of the texts. What he is doing is recognizing that the word "Christ" is without any doubt a POLITICAL word. You can't say the word Christ without entering a political conversation.
What would it mean for a first or second century Jew to say Jesus was the Christ (messiah, king of the Jews)? It would mean Caesar is NOT king of the Jews. I can't imagine a more political statement was ever spoken in the history of the world.
What has happend in modern fundamentalist Christianity is that they forgot what Christ meant to the authors of these stories and they imposed on top of them a layer of personal piety and individual salvation that was never a central part of the original message. The result is a self-centered message about after-life instead of a radical political message about a new King coming to bring God's will on earth.
Mike,
Thanks for your gracious response. I hoped you wouldn't take offense and it doesn't sound like you did. I don't know if you want to carry on this conversation here or if you may be tired of answering thick-headed questions like mine. I am aware of the emergent church. I can say that I resonate with a lot of what the emergent church has to say. I realize that what is called the "emergent (or emerging) church" may not be consistent across the board.
What would be fair to say that the emergent church believes about the sanctity, holiness and inerrancy of the Bible?
You mention that personal piety and individual salvation were "never a central part of the original message" and that the result is a "self-centered message about after-life." What is the emergent church's alternative message and is it at odds with personal piety, individual salvation and the message about after-life or simply a parallel message?
Let me know if it makes more sense to take these questions off-line of your blog.
Peace, Kim
Kim,
I'm glad to respond to your questions but I can't answer for the "emerging church". I'm not sure why you would ask me to respond for an entire group of people, most of which I've never met. Maybe that is because you might be part of a group that has a few leaders answer for the entire group and you are use to that sort of thing. Since there are thousands of people who identify with “emergent”, there will be thousands of views. It isn't a denomination or even a school of theology. It is a group of people from many denominations and theological backgrounds all talking to each other about their similarities and differences.
Personally, I see the bible as a human product inspired by centuries of encounters with God. I think all attempts to assign God's authorship to a book are a mistake (that goes for the Quran, book of Mormon, etc). Inerrancy doctrine turns the bible into a joke or some kind of fantasy that forces modern people to try and adopt an ancient worldview complete with talking snakes, miracles, and demonic possession. All of those stories are extremely valuable if we can look past their mythical nature and see the symbolic meanings.
The "alternative message" I suggest is the message of Jesus. His message was an alternative view of life that rejects the forces of empire (greed, vanity, materialism, war, violence, oppression) and promotes the values of God (compassion, humility, grace, peace, and justice). Christianity has often been at odds with Jesus’ view. During the crusades, during its support of slavery in America, and even now it continues to support war instead of peace in many places around the world. In my experience, Christianity has been skewed toward personal piety and securing a good status in after-life in order to keep people from rocking the boat in the real world. It has become the opiate of the masses instead of a motivation for revolt against evil. I think it could be a parallel message but it doesn’t appear that it works that way very often. Most people who buy into the supernatural message appear to ignore the real political message. Often they can’t even see it because the superstitions cloud the picture. But I don’t think it has to be that way and I think their are people in the "emerging church" that still hold an ancient superstition based view of the world but are also able to dig into the bible in more depth to see its important political/social message.
I think you do a better job in answering for emergent than you give yourself credit for. I think you can find common threads weaving through those who identify with the emerging church.
Certainly you'd have to acknowledge that you (and others in emergent) are proposing a break in the "tradition" of divine authorship and inerrency of Scripture. You know you'd lose a lot of people right there. And it will be difficult to dialogue about Jesus and His message if we don't agree to use Scripture as a basis for our discussion. But, for the sake of discussion, we can leave that alone for now.
I agree with you that "Christianity" has throughout its history found itself at odds with Jesus' message. That's why I prefer to refer to myself as a "Believer" and rarely as a "Christian."
I wonder if "personal piety" was reflected in one's life as compassion, humility, grace and peace towards others would you be OK with personal piety?
Notice, I left out "justice" because it's a very subjective thing. I don't believe that God's definition would match ours.
How does the "revolt against evil," seeing the Bible's "important political/social message" and rejecting "the forces of empire" manifest themselves in your life in the REAL world?
I personally have been encouraging myself and others towards a "spiritual awakening" that would, in fact, be evidenced by a changed attitude, thinking, action and words in the REAL world. Would that qualify as in-line with the message of Jesus in your estimation?
Peace, Kim
Kim,
1. I can only answer for myself. There are some very "Evangelical" people in the conversation who would disagree with me but they are still part of the "group".
2. Breaking in the "tradition" of divine authorship and inerrency of Scripture is not new. Actually, inerrancy is a recent doctrine. What is your reference point for understanding the bible? Have you ever studied or read any other prespectives on biblical authorship? Have you ever read anything about the history of those texts? I'm just curious. It would help to understand where you are coming from.
3. I agree it would be difficult to dialogue about Jesus and his message if we don't agree to use scripture as the basis for discussion. That is why I DO use scripture as the basis for discussion. In many cases it is the only document of reference for some aspects of unpacking Jesus's message. I'm sure why fundamentalists think getting rid of divine authorship or inerrancy would mean throwing away the bible. Do you throw away every book that isn't divinely authored?
4. You can define personal piety however you want. It is just a word. I think you know what I mean. Piety is important, but it isn't he gospel. ONCE AGAIN, you've used a harmful and divisive dialugue technique of twisting my words into something that you feel more confortable opposing. I have no probelm with opposing views, but be sure you are opposing MY WORDS not a strawman you create to make your argument easier.
5. I agree that God's view of justice is differnet than ours. Humans would see justice as getting what you deserve. Doctrines like "substitutionary atonement" are based on this flawed human logic which means God demands payment for sin and he cannot forgive without payment. God's justice is much different and it means that EVERYONE gets EVERYTHING God could possibly give. It is our job to make God's justice a reality which means we have to overcome human justice when it seeks to dish out blessings based on "what people deserve".
6. Jesus' political/social message manifests by transforming my life into his image instead of my previous fundamentalist view which transformed the gospel into something that fit my life. It changes the way I work, it changes the people I hire, it is changing my political objectives and alligences (I use to be a Republican and then a Libertarian and now I see both as selfish), it changes the kind of house I live in, it changes the goals and methods of my business ventures, it changes where I shop, it changes where I donate money, it changes where I invest for retirement, it changes how I treat my wife, it changed our decision to have a child (instead, we are adopting a child from a 3rd world country). The better question would be "what doesn't change?"
The world would say my life would be easier to accept the traditional view of Evangelical theology. I could do what I want as long as I adhere to correct beliefs. I could buy a huge house, live in debt, drive a fancy car, stiff my employees, and make lots of little white babies to carry on my genes. The Bible WHICH IS MY CENTRAL REFERENCE FOR HOW TO LIVE makes it clear that we have 2 choices, the way of Empire or the way of Christ. I have a lot to learn and much to fix in my life, but I'm trying to change and do everything I can to chose the way of Christ. It seems pretty clear to me how to figure that out. All you have to do is make every decision based on how it helps others instead of how it helps yourself. Of course I would never have seen that if I thought the gospel was about getting as many people as possible to believe the right things about the existence of God and the historical truth of Jesus' miraculous feats.
Mike,
I'm kind of mortified about how you must be perceiving my questions by the way you are responding.
Please know you are dealing with someone who is open, inquiring and truly seeking to understand. Not someone who is out to shoot you or your ideas down. Yes, we may ultimately disagree. Who knows? But, right now I'm just trying to understand.
Honestly, the last thing I'm looking to do is twist your words. I'm not looking at this as some kind of debate or argument.
I thought personal piety, in the purest sense, has always been a noble pursuit and your perspective is new to me. I was honestly looking for places where we could find common ground when I asked if other godly characteristics like compassion, humility, grace and peace could be considered pious.
I've got to go now. I'll be back. But, for now, I'm just hoping for your forgiveness as it seems clear I've offended you.
Peace, Kim
No offense taken Kim. You didn't say anything wrong at all. This is all in good spirits and I'm glad you took the tiime to dialogue. If you sensed any tension in my response it was a mistake and due to my poor writing skills. I thought I was being pretty gracious to answer all those questions in a detail.
I'm just not sure why you seem to think I have a problem with personal piety. Did I say it was bad? I am critical of the exaltation of piety in the place of justice. That seems clear as I reread the thread. We probably just have a bit of internet static going on between us. This is not a great medium as it tends to magnify differences.
Mike,
I really did mean I'd be back. Thanks for your gracious responses. I didn't mean to duck some of your earlier questions. I think my readings and understanding of the origins of Scripture would be typical evangelical/fundamentalist stuff. If you could suggest some reading on that subject, I'd be grateful.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your take on personal piety. When you said:
"they imposed on top of them a layer of personal piety and individual salvation that was never a central part of the original message. The result is a self-centered message about after-life instead of a radical political message about a new King coming to bring God's will on earth."
that seemed to me to denigrate personal piety and individual salvation. But, you're right, you could have simply been contrasting them against "justice."
I appreciate your description of how your life is different because of your taking to heart the message of Jesus.
Thanks for visiting my blog. I'm going to answer your question there as it will give us a chance to further dialogue about these important matters.
Peace, Kim
Post a Comment