Monday, September 26, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Shiner comes to Akron
I have never felt the distance between myself and my friends so acutely as now. I have no one to drink a Shiner with (as my wife is not a beer person). That's right, a Shiner Bock in Ohio. During college the farthest north that Shiner was distributed was Tennessee. $6.50 for six. I have no Texan friends here to appreciate this moment, and no Lutheran friends with whom to tip a few. Lament!
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
My crucifix sits right below this 'icon' of Jesus on the sea of Galilee. Why didn't mystery-room-redecorator take down this picture?
Why do American Evangelicals have a problem with the crucifix but absolutely no problem with other images of Christ? I would assume that the answer has to do with a general Theology of Glory. I would guess that they themselves would say that it would lead to an over-fixation on the actual suffering of Christ and it distracts from the reality of the Resurrection. I think there is an overarching dislike of anything that is not "positive and uplifting", which the Cross certainly is not. I think the Reformed answer (regulative priciple)of no images is at least consistant, especially when the concern is idolatry. From my days at a Reformed college, I still carry with me a bit of an iconoclast wariness of images (plus I've read chapter two in J.I. Packer's Knowing God once too many times).
I especially dislike the "official" jesus. You know, the one in which the dominant color is brown. I probably dislike it most because I so strongly identify it with some extremly legalistic folks from my past. Besides, it just doesn't strike me as good art. (Disclaimer: Art critic is not my vocation.)
I will grant that Mormon Jesus is worse however.
I almost prefer Buddy Christ.
In our chapel here, we have a kneeler and icons of Jesus from many different nationalities and cultures many of which were painted by one Br. Robert Lentz, ofm. These really prick up my iconoclast sense. His work includes Quetzalcoatl Christ, listen to the desciption:
In the sacred history of Meso-America, a Christ-like figure dominates the spiritual horizon. His name is Quetzalcoatl, which means the Plumed Serpent. Quetzalcoatl is one of the most ancient concepts of God in this region. He reconciles in himself heaven and earth. He is the creator of humankind and the giver of agriculture and the fine arts.
In the tenth century, a Toltec priest named Quetzalcoatl acquired a large following in the Valley of Mexico. He opposed both human sacrifice and warfare, promoting instead the arts and self-discipline as a means for coming closer to God. This made him many enemies among the ruling classes. They brought about his downfall, but he confounded them by rising from the dead, after being consumed in a sacred fire. His heart became the morning star, and he himself became young once again. He promised to return one day to his people.
The stories of Quetzalcoatl and Christ are so similar that it is easy to see one in the other. In this icon, both Quetzalcoatl and Christ are depicted in the same guise. It is a resurrection icon, with their heart ascending from the flames of death and rebirth. Around the edge, in gold leaf, is an ancient Aztec depiction of the Plumed Serpent. Red and black are the colors the Aztecs associated with the morning star.
Quetzalcoatl and Christ bring us the same timeless message: God is closer to us than we are to ourselves. In both their lives, our human condition has been joined inseparably to the divine. Each proclaims to us a simple gospel of compassion, and invites us to dance with God in the divine fire burning in each of our hearts.
Ummm, No. Christ brings us a timeless message that God is close? How about Jesus is God who has come in the flesh to make atonement for our sins?!?
Now, we don't have that one up in our chapel. We do have one called the Good Sheppard which portrays Jesus as far more semetic than most, which I think is actually cool. Lentz also has one called Apache Christ, which he was certainly not. I understand the desire to help people feel close to Jesus in terms of each person's own culture, but this seems hugely Docetic or Gnostic to me (correct my labels if you please) to pluck Jesus out of the historical frame of reference that he himself chose for his incarnation "in the fullness of time" and translate him into another culture in which there is no context to explain what he did (ie. no Old Testament).
Perhaps I am splitting hairs. What really got my dander up was the book that goes with his picutes and explains them. It is called Christ in the Margins and it includes icons of "Holy People" including: Einstein, Black Elk, Cesar Chavez, J.R.R. Tolkien (complete with Halo and Pipe), Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mychal Judge, J. S. Bach and Harvey Milk.
Shouldn't some sort of belief in Christ be prerequisite for Holy person status? Should we have this book in our chapel despite the fact that God may have used each through their vocation to love and serve his people?
Go to"Trinity Stores" and click on the Our Artists link on the side to view Br. Lentz's collection for thyself.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Journal Abstract of the Day
History of Psychiatry, July 2004, 155-175
Routine distribution of alcoholic beverages to mental hospital patients would be a fanciful prospect today, yet in the formative decades of lunatic asylums, beer was standard issue. A staple item in the supposedly healthy Victorian asylum diet, beer also served as inducement for patient labour. Around the mid-1880s, this commodity was abolished throughout Britain's mental institutions. This paper explores the factors that combined to condemn the beer barrel to asylum history, and, in particular, how this small comfort for inmates fell foul of the medicalization of the asylum and of the professional project of psychiatry.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Statement of Faith
The seminary has Anabaptist and Pietist roots. Their confession reads like an attempt to write a creed. I put together the following "statement" and am looking for feedback and suggestions (please):
I am an orthodox Christian. I confess to the historic creeds of the Christian faith, namely the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds.
I am a catholic Christian. I believe that Christ’s bride the Church is composed of all people of all nations, tongues and times who confess Christ and are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triunity was born of Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, lived a sinless life, fulfilled the Law of God, and died in our place to forgive our sins and to give to his chosen Bride his own righteousness. I believe that we are freely given this forgiveness by the merit of Christ alone, by the Grace of God alone, through faith alone and without any merit or work by the sinner, as we are all dead in sin prior to the action of God to redeem us.
I am a Lutheran Christian and a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I believe that the Book of Concord of 1580 is a faithful summary of the faith once delivered to the saints. I subscribe to the Book of Concord because it is a faithful witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hold the Holy Scriptures alone to be the final authority of all matters of Christian faith and practice.
I believe that the Cambridge Declaration is a useful document to call protestant Christian denominations back to their scriptural, confessional and creedal moorings.
What did I miss? Anything you would change?