call me a socialist, but...

...chances are, i am.

this week in church history we learned about two very important people in the area of church history who were not theologians: charles darwin and karl marx.  i'm actually quite a fan of both, but for this week's purposes, karl marx is my man.  other important information: in the theology of martin luther king, jr., we have created colloquys (basically just means groups to present to the class on a specific topic) and the topic my group within the colloquy has is a comparison of mlk's theology to liberation theology.  needless to say, it's not really feasible to talk about liberation theology without talking about latin american liberation theology, which is arguably the the "original" liberation theology (though some people were in the process of developing different forms of liberation theology at the same time, though the different groups were mutually unaware of each other).  this has allowed me to dig back into my liberation theology books from undergrad, which has been great.

anyway, karl marx.  even before dr. hendel stated in class that karl marx greatly influenced liberation theology, i had been thinking about that as i read for my mlk class.  communism and socialism are very similar (and oftentimes used interchangeably), though marx would probably argue that socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.  i tend to locate myself in more of a socialism camp than a communist camp (probably due to the connection in my head between communism and the ussr) and many times i feel like jesus is there (perhaps because in gospels like mark jesus works within the system - healing, but still having people do the ritual things that need doing to be declared clean by the temple).  that's a bit off-topic, but i do think that karl marx provides an interesting lens to actually, openmindedly think about christianity and jesus.

karl marx's communist theory affirms the idea that human history curves to a place of justice.  this is very clearly articulated in mlk's famous quote, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (found in "where do we go from here?"), and liberation theology holds to the belief that not only does it bend towards justice, but that god is bending it towards justice.  as marx articulated the need for understanding societal change with respect to material and economic goods, so too does latin american liberation theology very clearly state that god makes an "option for the poor" (Introducing Liberation Theology, Boff & Boff, p. 44-45).  it is the socioeconomic poor who are the source of liberation theology and those who are not socioeconomically poor are called to struggle with those who are and to stand in solidarity with them.

while marx was very intelligent and had really good ideas (and i could go on about the similarities of liberation theology and marxist communism), the one thing that karl marx lacked is god.  for him, religion was simply the "opiate of the masses."  this has been true for far too long.  liberation theologies come in as they reclaim the church's role as a prophetic voice rather than a pacifying voice.  as god cries out, the church is called to cry out against injustice.  that is what the role of religion should be.  so, on second thought, perhaps karl marx was right about religion.  lately it seems to be the opiate of the masses, but when will it use its power to teach people how to behave (as marx put it) to teach people to act in a way that lines up with god's will for creation?  perhaps instead of demonizing communism, we should consider its critique of religion and what it might mean to get back to our roots, to follow jesus into the margins, and to do theology by doing liberation.

unions, divisions, and reappropriation

this week in church history, we discussed the declaration of prussian union by king friedrich wilhelm iii.  as the tercentenary of lutheran reformation - specifically of the 95 theses and the augsburg confession - king wilhelm was calvinist, but his people were lutherans, so to celebrate, he declared that the lutheran and reformed traditions were to share full communion in prussia.  the main lutheran doctrine is and was the doctrine of justification (we are justified by grace through our faith), which does not subscribe to predestination, whereas the reformed church teachings do and did prescribe to predestination.  for many this was a nonnegotiable distinction.  this meant either going to jail, which many of them did for a bit, or leaving. 

the anti-prussian union confessionalism resounded with me as i considered the past year and a half during which i had my first encounters with members of the reformed church.  while we meet under fairly unusual circumstances (serving as year-long young adult missionaries for our respective churches in the same program working with roma in central europe), we had some interesting discussions regarding our faith and beliefs.  in the various conversations, it was abundantly clear that we share much in common, yet there are important enough differences that we wouldn't switch to the other's denomination.  this was the case for the anti-prussian union after the declaration of the prussian union by king wilhelm.  

while it is important to recognize the differences and to acknowledge the key factors that make us lutheran (or reformed, catholic, etc.), it is also important to remember our commonalities.  this comes through in the elca's full communion with the episcopalians.  our essentials are consistent and our non-essentials are free to be as diverse as they may be.  one unique thing is the historic episcopate.  because lutherans don't care much about the historic episcopate (that the bishops have hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by...peter) and the historic episcopate is an essential for episcopalians, lutherans let the practice and belief of the historic episcopate be part of our practice.  in this way, we honor our full communion with the episcopalians, holding to what we take as the essentials and being willing to compromise on things we don't consider essential.  when it all comes down to it, that's how ecumenism works anyway.  honoring our neighbor's faith while holding true to our own (sometimes a delicate balancing act).

another type of lutheran confessionalism, which we discussed was from the erlangen school.  adolph von harless believed that we should be aware of what we confess as a church, but that that heritage cannot simply be passed from one generation to the next.  we, as lutherans, as christians, as inheritors of wisdom must engage with our individual and communal contexts in order to engage with our confessions and our doctrines and theologies.  afterall, it has been said that "a religion that doesn't change ceases to remain the same."  this connects with repristination theology in that it tried to recover lutheranism.  it tried to get "back to its roots."  the problem with this was that the reformation and luther's changes were viewed and interpreted through the lens of the age of orthodoxy (previously mentioned here).  this meant that the role of scripture (the idea of sola scriptura) were understood as stringent biblicism. 

the key to each of these types of confessionalism is firstly to be aware of them.  as we seek out what our theology is and how we want to be confessional, we need to continue to engage with our local and global contexts as well as with our ancestors of the faith, but we need to see both in light of each other.  when we look to our heritage, we need to remember from where we look.  for example, when i look at luther's statements about jews, i need to remember that i am looking at then in light of the holocaust and the nation of israel, among other things.  we also need to engage our current situations in light of our faith tradition.  how christians have engaged the world should inform us as we seek to engage the world as well (whether it's informing us on what to do or what not to do is also something to keep in mind).  we cannot simply reappropriate our ideas of the roots of our faith, we must thoughtfully engage with them from where we are today.

john and charles: 2 of 19 (though only 10 survived infancy) who created a movement

as we discussed methodism today in class, i couldn't help but think of my college roommate, who happens to be a united methodist.  she has been visiting me this week for her spring break and i shared with her some of what we had been discussing in class.  she pointed out that before and during her years at college, her congregation was going through a period of immense turmoil.  as with many congregations, great turmoil usually impacts the church's budget.  the intriguing part was that the very methodist congregation knew the value of giving and so the congregation continued to collect money in offerings.  the difference came in with respect to where the collection went.  since people were unwilling to support the pastors, they refused to give money that would support the pastors.  instead, they designated their offerings to missions.  While the church stopped paying its apportionments (the required amounts paid to the conference, or what we lutherans refer to as a synod), and almost went without water and electricity, it never stopped funding missions, and funding them strongly.

this is a lesson we could all learn.  my home congregation is currently having money troubles because of its own turmoil, but imagine what a difference it would make if people still gave and recognized the importance of social justice and work in the world.  my congregation hasn't ever been stellar at benevolence, but if the money that's recently been taken away from our congregational budget went directly to benevolence or mission, our identity as a congregation would become very different.  it is a very different way of living out our vocation and mission as a church: giving money out into the world, even when we are unwilling to give it within the church.  this is not only a part of supporting the missions of the church, but it is a way to honor giving as a spiritual practice for individuals and to recognize that it is of great importance to people on a personal level as well as being a way of sharing love in the world.

this could go for the elca as a whole as well.  what if people who were upset with the elca churchwide decision to hold all ordained and rostered leaders to a high standard while allowing them to also live a life of love and commitment with a spouse or partner didn't just leave the church?  since they are clearly still welcome and their opinions and views are clearly still welcomed in a church that tries valiantly to embrace contradictions, what if they didn't take away their synod benevolence and the money they generally set aside to global mission?  what if they continued to support the church, but maybe designated their funds to missions areas?  would the church have to find a new identity?  would the church not only find a new way of understanding its center as christ, but also of understanding why we as individuals and congregations give?

not all of john wesley's ideas resonate both with me and with current methodists.  for example, while wesley and i agree quite a bit regarding the eucharist, current methodists tend to favor a more occasional practice.  also, wesley and i tend to hold very different views regarding tea and alcohol consumption.  we all do, however, seem to agree with the emphasis he placed on working for good in the world.  the love we receive from god cannot be contained simply within ourselves.  the only way to fully experience the love god has for us is to respond to it in love towards others. 


on a related note, i also learned that much of the success of the methodist movement can be credited to charles wesley, who was not only a prolific hymn writer (many of the hymns in our "lutheran" hymnal are, as my college roommate pointed out, written by charles wesley) but also was apparently much more sociable and friendly, especially in one-on-one interpersonal settings.  being the guy that people "actually wanted to hang out with" seems to have gotten him and the methodist movement as a whole quite a bit further than simply being the preacher who considers the whole world to be his parish.

ortho-dox and the change of faith

in class last week and the week before, we talked about "orthodoxy" (orthodoxy, according to its greek roots means correct teaching, which for many church goers means doctrine) and specifically the lutheran age of orthodoxy, which lasted from about 1570 until about 1740.  during this time, scholars wanted to preserve, explain and elaborate, and systematize theological teachings.  the goal of systematization was to define what it meant to be lutheran: what were the essentials and the non-essentials.  up until this time, faith and religion had not been based as much in rational explanation, but during the age of orthodoxy, those doing systematic theology began to rely heavily on philosophical arguments to back themselves up.  they went to great lengths to articulate precisely what was necessary for the church and what was not.

johann gerhardt was a proponent of the idea that scripture is the source for theology.  this is not a bad thing, in fact it's a good idea, but it becomes problematic in how it has played out in christianity since then.  since scripture is the source of theology, for gerhardt, it was made "normative, authoritative, and trustworthy" (from my class notes).  this is not anything new, but with it came the idea that since it's the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  the logic is that since the holy spirit inspired the biblical writers, the words they wrote must be infallible, since god inspired them.  the concept of the bible being dictated to humans by the holy spirit or the holy spirit moving the hand of the human writing is actually not a view held since the beginning of christianity.  it was during this age of orthodoxy that it really took hold.  that's in the late 1500s!!  still, that is what gerhardt used to get to the idea that if doctrine comes from scripture, and if scripture is infallible, then doctrine must be infallible, too.

this is a viewpoint that is very evident in fundamentalist christianity today.  people argue that since the bible is the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  they seem to change the definition of inspired from "imbued with the spirit to do something" to "dictated word for word by god or another heavenly being."  that is a big difference.  my call to ministry is inspired by god, but god did not sit down with me face to face and clearly state: "emily, i want you to be an ordained pastor in the evangelical lutheran church in america."  it was something i had to discern and make sense of in my own way, which means it has my own personality in it, much like those who wrote and edited the various books of the bible.

once we get to scripture, however, we still have to figure out how to interpret it.  this is where theology and doctrine coming from scripture (and therefore also infallible) is problematic.  much of history has been written and recorded by men.  not only that, but by fairly well-educated, probably middle or upper class men, who probably have quite a bit of power in their society.  so, when they do theology, they come at it from their unique perspective.  however, when we state that there is only one interpretation of scripture, we lose the impact their experience has had on their theology.

the core problem, however, is deeper than doctrine or the inerrancy of scripture.  since theology in the age of orthodoxy became so focused on having inerrant doctrine to go with inerrant scripture, what it meant to have faith changed as well.  faith became less about trusting god (as martin luther stated) and more about believing the right thing.  again we recognize this in christianity to the extent that people are required to believe certain things about jesus and about god, rather than to trust god with the mysteries and the questions.  it goes something like this: "if i believe the right thing in the right way, then i will have faith and i will be saved."  note, if you will, the conspicuous absence of god in that sentence.

in making faith about specific beliefs about rather than trust in, god loses god's place in our faith.  faith becomes individualistic and self-centered instead of centered in a god who loves and connects all people.  so, while lutherans during the age of orthodoxy did bless us with many, many volumes of systematic theology, which few people will ever read in their entirety, they also set the ball rolling on a slippery slope, which has people believing that rather than believing in.