Drink Upstream

Giving Thanks for Truth in Humor

My bloggy silence has kept many thoughts unformed beneath the surface. It is time for a soft reboot of Drink Upstream, in the hope that the thoughts will emerge with shape and substance.

Thank you, Brian Dees, for this link.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

The Sleep of Reason

Something in my soul has always been disappointed with the political, religious, and popular arguments of our culture. In high school, college and seminary we always talked of the Age of Reason, and named the many shortcomings of reason, but never to disregard it; simply to open new vistas as to where the limits of reason lie.

I found Yinka Shonibare's recent art exhibit online today, and one painting struck me in particular. I thought it fitting to share as discussions about healthcare, the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice, and a possible renewal of arms reductions have all appeared in the public radar these days.

Take a look. Comment. Or don't.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (America)

Discovery of the Week: A Luther Quote

I'm reading a book called Flickering Pixels, by Shane Hipps.  It's largely an attempt at applying the media and culture theories of Marshall McLuhan to the Christian gospel.

The book isn't written from the perspective of an academic - but rather from the perspective of a former advertising executive for Porsche turned Mennonite preacher.  It uses no high-brow language, and the writing is often stumbling and the logic somewhat broken.

But, it's a great conversation starter.

This post wasn't supposed to be about that...more on it later...

In the opening chapters of the book, Hipps uses Martin Luther as an example of the kind of thinker who was shaped by the print media.  He writes about how the printed word allows our thinking to move into a different plane - it allows us to become almost hyper-rational (to the point that we can begin to neglect real-world experience in favor of logical discourse that can be, at worst, disconnected from reality.)

Here's a great quote from those opening chapters:

"You may be surprised to learn that Jesus went out of fashion in the print age.

In his translation of the New Testament, Martin Luther offered an evaluation of the New Testament.  In a section entitled, 'Which are the True and Noblest Books of the New Testament?' Luther writes, 'John's gospel is the one, fine, true and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them.  So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.'

Luther's reasoning was simple - anything in Scripture that tells the story of Jesus was of little value as compared to those writings that describe explicit doctrines about Jesus.  It should not surprise us that Luther, who was shaped by the printed word, would elevate these books.  John's gospel and the letters of Peter and Paul are made up of highly theological monologues or long conversations.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the other hand, are characterized by short stories and parables rooted in the thought patterns of an oral tradition [as opposed to a printed-word tradition.]  Luther observed that John, Peter, and Paul provide us with a theology of Christ, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke merely provide us with the life of Jesus."

Hipps then goes on to talk about how other, more recent, technologies have begun to shift our conciousness away from "doctrines about" Jesus and back towards "stories of" Jesus.

Discuss.... :)

Exiles in Exile, or The Still-living Dead

The two volumes of Church history commonly called the Gospel According to (St.) Luke and the Acts of the Apostles seem to have no limit to the surprises found therein. Jesus appears to Peter, but we don't hear about it. Instead, the story has us walking to Emmaus with Cleopas and some unnamed disciple. Random stories that don't advance the plot carry with them a Sacramental theology. And then there is an aspect to one story that I have been chewing on for almost a year now.

There are two great traitors in the story of Christianity. One is very famous: Judas. His betrayal sets the benchmark for nearly every other betrayal in history. Dante has him in the mouth of Satan, next to Brutus and Cassius (also traitor-murderers), slowly being chewed upon by the Prince of Darkness. The other is less popular: Ananais, who has a brief appearance in Acts as one who withholds some of his money from the idyllic community that is the Jerusalem church. Upon accusal, he dies, and so does Sapphira, his wife.

Here is where you may be disputing my point. Judas is the great betrayer, or so the history of Christianity tends towards, while Ananais is a mere blip on the radar. And that's fine. But death is not a sentence meted out often in the Gospels. Something about "the one without sin cast[ing] the first stone." But these two crimes both warranted death. Judas receives his death by, ostensibly, tripping and "falling headlong" so that his blood waters the field he bought with his reward. Ananais seems to have some sort of heart attack when the truth comes out. Both deaths seem to walk the line of the will of God, as Luke portrays them.

However, in a Bible Study last year, we were reading Acts 9, the story of Saul's conversion into Paul, where the adversary of the church becomes its surest champion. A wonderful story, that is the topic of many a sermon. But there is a twist in the text. When Paul arrives in Damascus, blind and befuddled, a disciple called Ananias goes to see him at the house of a man called Judas. Two infamous names in close proximity in a story of a baptismal rite.

And that's what it is. Saul/Paul's conversion is really a theology of baptism. He is blind. He fasts. The promise of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are presented to him. Healing hands are placed upon him. Sight returns. He is baptized. He eats. Is this not a spiritual dying and rising with Christ? I think the Paul presented in the epistles would have been proud of this telling of his story, though he doesn't ever allude to it.

I now have the heretical theory in my mind that this story is about redemption in the lives of more than one character. Paul is redeemed from his adversarial role. Ananais, who we have heard is dead but may have actually been exiled from the Jerusalem church, has the chance to hear God's call again. Judas, who also was reported dead, serves as host to the miraculous restoration. The church in Damascus could have been the church of followers of the Way who were thrown out because of their actions. They were dead to the Jerusalem church, but still alive to God.

I completely acknowledge that you should consider this take on the story as problematic. If Luke is speaking figuratively about the death of two disciples, then we may have trouble discerning when he is reliable. But think of it like this: Luke is gathering stories of the Christ and the Church and weaving them into a bigger narrative that makes sense to him and conveys his theology. In telling this story of the conversion of Saul, who will become the hero of the book, he could have changed the names of the characters, altered the forms, or given secondary names, such as often happens in the writings of the New Testament. But instead, the story of the conversion of the great Apostle to the Gentiles involves the names of two traitors to the Church. Maybe if Judas's friends Herod and Pilate had stopped by, then we could have had a complete collection of names of church enemies all involved in the church's forward movement.

Re-interpretations of Old Standards

The stream ran dry again. No blogging for over a month. Time for a few more drips and drops in the hopes that our authors will return to Drink Upstream. Here is my contribution:

There is always excitement on and off Broadway when an older production returns with new numbers, a new cast, or (greatest of all) an entirely new interpretation. Fiddler on the Roof had a triumphal re-entry into the musical world in 2004, complete with a couple new songs written by the original lyricists. Perennially, new interpretations of Shakespeare will crop up wherein brass and chorus accompany Richard III, Lear has no fool to lampoon him, or Julius Caesar wears a coat and tie to his own assassination. All it takes is the word "Revival" or "Reinterpretation", and the critics start their buzz.

The old Should Gays and Lesbians Be Ordained? is finishing up its run this year with a clear defeat for Overture 08-B (which would amend G-6.0106b), but it is worth noting that some presbyteries have taken matters of re-interpretation into their own hands and tried something new. From the "Minutes in Brief" of the Presbytery of Philadelphia comes this description of a new attempt to enliven the weary and awaken the benumbed.

The Rev. Mr. Daniel Clark presented The Bills and Overtures report recommending that the Presbytery concur with all Overtures [except 08-B to be voted later in the docket]. After explaining each recommendation, the Presbytery voted to concur with all overtures from the 218th General Assembly. The vote was done by written ballot.

The Presbytery began Worship after which the Presbytery recessed for lunch. After lunch the Presbytery reconvened in the gymnasium in small groups to discuss outcomes of the possible votes on Overture 08-B. Following this opportunity for reflection, the Presbytery gathered in the sanctuary, heard the recommendation of Bills and Overtures to concur with 08-B, and had an hour of discussion and debate specifically regarding 08-B. The Rev. Spencer led the Presbytery in prayer and then called for the vote by written ballot. The Presbytery voted [152 to 139] to concur with Overture 08-B on Ordination Standards.

Small groups? Discussion? An hour given simply to 08-B? The critics should be abuzz.

Now, I am aware that many presbyteries have tried similar methods. However, it is notable that for the Presbytery of Philadelphia this vote represents a change from that of 2001 (Overture 01-A, defeated nationally and in Philly). Discussion, debate, and face-to-face interaction--did these things change minds? Maybe not. Could members of that Presbytery be galvanized into their opinions? Possibly. But from these notes, fear seems to have taken a backseat for just a little while. Whether they had approved or disapproved in the final vote, the Presbytery of Philadelphia is looking for new ways to listen--to each other and to the Holy Spirit. Other presbyteries, take note. If the nation's first presbytery can seek a new variation on an older theme, we all can. And should.

Point of Order! The Musical

Valentines 2009 was a great day to take your lover to the theatre in the Presbytery of the Pines. At the quadrennial meeting, the traveling company of Should Gays and Lesbians Be Ordained?, the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s longest running on- and off-GA spectacular, was in town for a quick twelve minute matinee followed by a show of hands vote. This incarnation--a revival that, as always, had the cast squaring off similar to a production of West Side Story--proposed to amend the infamous Amendment B, "Fidelity and Chastity," to a softer "those who are called to ordained service... pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ."

Over the years, the production has lost most of its charm. Like Cats and A Chorus Line (Broadway hits with similar tenures) it has its devotees, but the debate's persistence, its rotating cast and its tendency to evoke only archetypal characters who eschew nuance has led to performances packed only with weary audiences. And yet, the underlying genius of the text, its almost self-aware adaptation and malleability, continues to fill the seats. This year, two relatively new numbers were the highlight of the show. The strong, sombre tone of "Didn't We Settle This Thirty Years Ago? Speaking Against the Motion" sung to follow the brash, young and new Large Steeple Pastor with his "We've Been Fighting About This as Long as I've Been Alive--and Presbyterian. Speaking For the Motion". Pastors both, the vocalists let their baritone timbre deepen the mood of the room, and yet, one could feel the pair chafing under the limits of their roles, the simple duality of a generational conflict.

Inaugural Benediction

Because I thought this prayer wonderful and the utmost paean to God, I wanted to post the Benediction prayed by Joseph Lowery at yesterday's Inauguration.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4SrWpZNd-yocKSO7_9FO51iLJowD95R4RTG0

"With your hands of power and your heart of love, help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nations shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid, when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream." Amen!!

Monday Morning Exegesis

Yesterday morning, Blair (pastor at Preston Hollow PC) preached a nice little sermon that centered on the following verses from the first chapter of Luke:

³⁴Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin? ³⁵The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born^*36And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. ³⁷For nothing will be impossible with God.’ will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

You all know this stuff....very Christmasy.  Blair really honed in on the "For nothing will be impossible with God" bit, a message that lots of folks need to hear. 

I was sitting there yesterday listening to the sermon, and I thought "I wonder what my Super-Bible* has to say about that 37th verse?"  I taught Sunday School yesterday, so I happened to have by SB with me, so I pulled it out, and it referred me back to Genesis 18:14

"¹⁴Is anything too wonderful for the Lord? At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son.’ "

The connection is clear, but I think there's something more interesting going on here.  Look at the two passages right next to one another:

Genesis 18:14:  Is anything too wonderful for the Lord?

Luke 1:37:  For nothing is impossible with God.

See the difference? 

It's really all about the prepositions.  The Genesis passage uses the preposition "for", meaning God can do whatever God wants to do, but Luke chooses a different word.  He uses "with"; somehow implying a joint venture, a companionship with God that is clearly not implied by the Genesis passage.  The difference is subtle, but I think really highlights the very special essence of the Christmas story.

Here in a couple of days many of us will be celebrating the bizzare mystery of a God of partnership and "with-ness" who came down here amongst us in as a little baby in a trough in the desert.  Pretty cool stuff don't ya think?

* Super-Bible is a term of endearment that our Wednesday night young adult Bible study has bestowed upon the Harper-Collins study Bible that has wonderful footnotes, cross-references, and even some fun maps.  It's aided in many a discussion....

An Abiding Sense of Wrongness

Here are some completely disconnected stories.

For the last few weeks, those of us on this blog have been involved in a conversation with a bunch of other Presbyterians.  That conversation centers around what I can only categorize as a deep and abiding sense of wrongness.  No matter where we fall in the discussion, we're involved in it because of a deep sense that the Church - and the world that the Church finds itself in - is just not right.

Whether we get that sense from falling attendance numbers, lower giving, loss of status, or the church's perceived inability to cause significant change in creation doesn't really matter - we get this deep and abiding sense that things just are not the way they're supposed to be.

Denominational Leadership in the PC(USA)

As I write this, Jared and I are in the middle of a discussion of denominational leadership in the PC(USA). And I want to invite others to join. Here's where we are:

Bill: I can't get behind the TSP thing, and it'll take a lot to convince me. I think of it as the same argument as Republicans kept throwing at Obama, "executive" experience proves leadership potential. I don't buy it.

Jared: When I think of excellent "executive" leadership in the church, I think of Rick Carus. He's a guy who can inspire, embolden, and empower people to get things done with a purpose. Rick is not Grace Presbytery's youth pastor - he is Grace Presbytery's Youth Executive. If you look at the list of ways that the programs he works on make the world more like God wants it to be, it's a huge list, with lots of impressive stuff on it.

Jared: And the list is much longer than anything Rick Carus himself could accomplish.

Jared: I am very willing to consider that TSP is not a good indicator of denominational leadership performance - you don't need to convince me. But we do need to figure out what might be.

Bill: What makes for good denominational leadership performance? How do we define that?

Jared: That would be controversial. I would say that a good denominational leader is one that can motivate, inspire, enable, and empower the church to make the world more like God wants it to be.

Choose your own adventure. If you want to help define denominational leadership, click Add Comment. If you want to continue the Beau Weston discussion, go to the previous entry. If you don't want to have anything to do with these church nerds, go read another blog.