Hello all,
I promise that I'm not taking over the blog, but I have Anglicanism on the brain, so I thought that I would share. I finished EOTCT (I liked the introduction of an acronym Rach) this morning, and I have to say that I'm still somewhat disappointed with it. I wanted us to read a book about Anglicanism that would be a clear introduction, but also interesting and relevant... and since this talked about evangelicals being drawn to Anglicanism, it seemed like just the thing. Perhaps because it is a meditation on a personal journey there's a lot in it that is specific to his experience that isn't exactly relevant to mine. I did like the later chapters a bit more, especially when he shared his experiences of a separated church, and that he values Anglicanism for being a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. I think that's the level on which Anglicanism should be discussed; yes the liturgical worship is different in important ways from contemporary evangelical services -- but some of this is just aesthetic. I attended the evangelical non-denominational 'mega church' in downtown Boston last month... and from the service I could have been in a mainline Lutheran church. It was sort of 1/2 liturgical, we used hymn books, did call and response etc. The Anglican liturgy is vital and important... but I wish that Webber had focused less on it being 'mysterious'. And Rach, your point about the overuse of impenetrable is right on...
I hope that this isn't a too negative assesment of the book. Perhaps it was meant as a gentle introduction to Anglicanism, but I suppose I want something more substantial at this point. I thought I would share with you all the books I'm checking out of the library this afternoon (I'm not actually suggesting anyone read this with me, but I want to do some reading in preparation for being confirmed, and I thought I would share). I realize that at this moment I'm very much on a road towards denominational identity change, so that is where my thoughts and emotions are... and I don't want to co-op the blog for that purpose. But I love sharing these thoughts with you guys, so I'll just keep going.
Some books I'm considering:
-Anglicanism: A very short introduction by Mark Chapman
-Anglican approaches to scripture by Rowan A. Greer
-Paul in Fresh Perspective by NT Wright
-Anglicanism: The Answer to Modernity by Duncan Dormor
Just some titles and thoughts. I hope that I'm not going Episcopal-crazy.... but I figure, if you want to learn about something, you might as well read about it.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
HELP!!!
To put my problem succinctly:
1. I'm seriously considering being confirmed in the Anglican church after Easter. I would do confirmation classes during Lent, and then the service is the Sunday after Easter.
2. Would like all of your thoughts.
3. I told Phoebe about this, and she expressed her concern that since the Episcopal church condones homosexuality that I would be associating myself with a denomination that openly supports a sin.
4. I told her I didn't think homosexuality was a sin. Discussion ensued. I just think about the WHOLE thing in a different framework than she does, and so she sees it as either accepting the Bible as being true, or deciding to ignore the Bible in order to accept homosexuality. I disagree with the way she is reading the Bible, and think that it is possible to read it a different way and still take it seriously.
5. So I am traveling down the liberal road with no good end in sight? Am I straying from the true church? These are my concerns.
AH!
1. I'm seriously considering being confirmed in the Anglican church after Easter. I would do confirmation classes during Lent, and then the service is the Sunday after Easter.
2. Would like all of your thoughts.
3. I told Phoebe about this, and she expressed her concern that since the Episcopal church condones homosexuality that I would be associating myself with a denomination that openly supports a sin.
4. I told her I didn't think homosexuality was a sin. Discussion ensued. I just think about the WHOLE thing in a different framework than she does, and so she sees it as either accepting the Bible as being true, or deciding to ignore the Bible in order to accept homosexuality. I disagree with the way she is reading the Bible, and think that it is possible to read it a different way and still take it seriously.
5. So I am traveling down the liberal road with no good end in sight? Am I straying from the true church? These are my concerns.
AH!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
keeping things interesting.
i have decided to get into blogging. so...in an effort to keep people's attention, i am posting this awesome picture. i know it isn't about the canterbury trail, but...isn't it funny?
Monday, November 10, 2008
at long last...
so, as lori would say, "better to come late to the party than not at all," right?
i have now officially read the first chapter of EOTCT, which, as it turns out, is only 8 pages. why didn't someone tell me that two months ago? and while i appreciated hearing about webber's journey, i can't say that i resonate too much with it. for me, "rationalistic christianity" was life changing. i grew up in an evangelical church that lacked substance and relied on emotion and fear to motivate people to "salvation." when i reached westmont and started to take classes in philosophy and theology that explored questions of faith from a reason-based perspective, it changed my outlook on christianity. in fact- unlike webber- i loved every moment of apologetics. and in that apologetics class (thank god for wennberg), we even read chesterton's mystery-filled "orthodoxy." perhaps i have westmont professors (and god) to thank for helping me reach a vision of god that fulfilled both my intellectual and emotional yearnings. i am thankful that my church home in santa barbara also seems to balance the mystery of faith with the rationale of it. as the search continues for a church in sacramento, i am even more thankful for that. who knows- maybe i'll end up on the canterbury trail myself...
other things i learned in chapter 1:
- it is not a good idea to use the word "impenetrable" more than once on a page. i don't care if you're talking about the jungle or the mystery of faith- find a different word.
- did anyone else think that after webber wept and wept in his office, then his research assistant joined him in weeping, and then his class wept with him, the whole wheaton student body just might weep with him too during chapel?!? come on webber! that story needed a climax. (okay, okay, i guess having a renewed vision of God constitutes a climax.)
- it is unfortunate at this point in history that webber chose to describe god as a "maverick," but how could he have known?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
third time's the charm, right?
okay, thanks to lori and myrna for starting us off right. apologies for not having done this sooner. i've enjoyed reading thus far, even if weber's experience of the evangelical church has been vastly different from mine, in places.
before i start with my reflections, i wanted to confess that i've found myself at times getting defensive and bothered, wanting to tell the author that his experiences in the church do not represent all experiences with evangelicalism across the board. i don't think he would say that he intended that, however, and i attribute my heightened sensitivity to having a family that has been part of the evangelical tradition for all my life. when weber reacts to enlightenment-style christianity and calls for faith to be rooted in something bigger than facts - that i understand. but sometimes his writing implies that all evangelicals bow down to the 'Western ideal of the explainable,' which has not been the bulk of my experience, and which i react defensively to because my parents have both been part of the evangelical tradition (in, i think, mostly honorable and thoughtful ways) for decades.
that said . . . i understand and embrace his rejection of the notion of 'biblical data' standing in for christian faith, and i desire along with weber a system of worship that 'sets our world in order . . . puts God in his proper place and puts us in right relationship to him and everything else.' i cringe sometimes when i think of the songs that we sang in high school and college and in chapel at westmont when we sang 'in christ alone' and everyone clapped and cheered when we got to the part about 'up from the grave he rose again.' there is this expectation in evanglical circles that you encounter God through emotion and feelings and stretching out your hands during worship or closing your eyes and putting your hand over your heart, these sanctimonious and outrightly pious movements that show our connectedness is greater than anyone else's. and though i haven't been in many classrooms where the professor has tried to argue scientifically for God's existence, i would certainly resent having that argument made in the first place.
again, the author's life in the evangelical church - full of altar calls and angry pastors and fact vs. mystery - is deeply different than mine has been. while i remember a handful of discussions around God directing evolution or scientific arguments supporting the resurrection, i was never told that i had to believe in a 6,000 year-old earth or that faith was based on scientific principles. but the increased place of mystery and connection to our forbears in the episcopal church has been one of my greatest sources of pleasure over the last years . . . i love the liturgy, repeating words that have affirmed the faith for centuries, practicing in word and deed the teachings of jesus in a rich and meaningful way. i loved that about trinity and love where that overlaps with evangelicalism in the ecumenical movement.
i have a hard time with, at least in the first few chapters, the way that weber pits the rational against the mysterious, the logical against the mystical, the arguable against the uniquely felt. it makes sense to me that God would have a place in all of those areas, and that not just one could stake a claim on him. of course we can believe in the existence of jesus, and read about the historical facts that support this and the accounts of the men and women who knew him. without these, we would not know much of him. and to know him, we have to accept the deepness of the mystery of a God who is triune, who sent his son to earth and his spirit to live in us and who awaits us and redeems us every day. it isn't either-or.
mmmm. theology and coffee and a sunday morning. lovely.
before i start with my reflections, i wanted to confess that i've found myself at times getting defensive and bothered, wanting to tell the author that his experiences in the church do not represent all experiences with evangelicalism across the board. i don't think he would say that he intended that, however, and i attribute my heightened sensitivity to having a family that has been part of the evangelical tradition for all my life. when weber reacts to enlightenment-style christianity and calls for faith to be rooted in something bigger than facts - that i understand. but sometimes his writing implies that all evangelicals bow down to the 'Western ideal of the explainable,' which has not been the bulk of my experience, and which i react defensively to because my parents have both been part of the evangelical tradition (in, i think, mostly honorable and thoughtful ways) for decades.
that said . . . i understand and embrace his rejection of the notion of 'biblical data' standing in for christian faith, and i desire along with weber a system of worship that 'sets our world in order . . . puts God in his proper place and puts us in right relationship to him and everything else.' i cringe sometimes when i think of the songs that we sang in high school and college and in chapel at westmont when we sang 'in christ alone' and everyone clapped and cheered when we got to the part about 'up from the grave he rose again.' there is this expectation in evanglical circles that you encounter God through emotion and feelings and stretching out your hands during worship or closing your eyes and putting your hand over your heart, these sanctimonious and outrightly pious movements that show our connectedness is greater than anyone else's. and though i haven't been in many classrooms where the professor has tried to argue scientifically for God's existence, i would certainly resent having that argument made in the first place.
again, the author's life in the evangelical church - full of altar calls and angry pastors and fact vs. mystery - is deeply different than mine has been. while i remember a handful of discussions around God directing evolution or scientific arguments supporting the resurrection, i was never told that i had to believe in a 6,000 year-old earth or that faith was based on scientific principles. but the increased place of mystery and connection to our forbears in the episcopal church has been one of my greatest sources of pleasure over the last years . . . i love the liturgy, repeating words that have affirmed the faith for centuries, practicing in word and deed the teachings of jesus in a rich and meaningful way. i loved that about trinity and love where that overlaps with evangelicalism in the ecumenical movement.
i have a hard time with, at least in the first few chapters, the way that weber pits the rational against the mysterious, the logical against the mystical, the arguable against the uniquely felt. it makes sense to me that God would have a place in all of those areas, and that not just one could stake a claim on him. of course we can believe in the existence of jesus, and read about the historical facts that support this and the accounts of the men and women who knew him. without these, we would not know much of him. and to know him, we have to accept the deepness of the mystery of a God who is triune, who sent his son to earth and his spirit to live in us and who awaits us and redeems us every day. it isn't either-or.
mmmm. theology and coffee and a sunday morning. lovely.
Friday, September 19, 2008
beginnings
Lori, thanks for getting us started!
I liked that you began by giving us a sense of where you are with this 'issue', especially since much of the book is a personal faith journey. I have to admit that so far (i.e. in the introduction and first chapter) I haven't entirely been able to relate to his particular issues with evangelicalism. I think this is simply because I have had little acquaintance with either the social dimensions of fundamentalism or the kind of reformed systematic theology he dislikes so much. My primary experience of evangelicalism has been at Westmont and (as I often insist to my Anglican chaplain) I think that Westmont does a fairly good job combining the intellectual and experiential sides of faith. I certainly have not been drawn to Anglicanism because I find evangelicalism overly rationale. In fact one of the reasons I like going to an Anglican church is because it doesn't 'make me want to shoot myself in the foot' as a historian or an academic. I suppose this is because my impression of Episcopal churches are that they tend to be more liberal, progressive, historically minded and 'intellectual'... but I think that Westmont succeeded on these points as well. I just don't think that the average evangelical church does.
I suppose I should confess that I am coming at this discussion having already decided (albeit not irrevocably) to belong to an Episcopal Church. And frankly, a large part of this decision has simply come from the fact that I am uncomfortable in contemporary worship settings. I like the ritual and repetition of liturgy; I love that reverence and not spontaneous emotionalism is the order of the day. But I recognize that this sort of setting does and has in the past, seems stifling to many... it's precisely the reason why the evangelical movement started in the first place. But I disagree with Webber's point that there is a greater willingness to accept mystery in the Anglican church and that sacraments are somehow an escape from over-rationalism. The body of theology surrounding sacraments (as far as I understand) is long and complicated; and it was actually in reaction to the overly rationale 'intellectual gymastics' of scholastic theologians (of which Anglicanism is the inheritor) that the Reformation called for a simple return to the Bible. Perhaps the medieval asthetic of the Episcopal church feels deep and mysterious simply because it is so different from evangelical services, but I think that we could easily argue that the spontaneity and emotion of evangelicalism would provide a sense of mystery for a convert in the other direction.
So really what I've related here is that I have not nearly so good reasons as Webber for going to an Episcopal church. Largely I do just because I like it better. And I'm hoping that this discussion will help me to formulate better reasons for my choice than simply my discomfort with the alternative!!
I liked that you began by giving us a sense of where you are with this 'issue', especially since much of the book is a personal faith journey. I have to admit that so far (i.e. in the introduction and first chapter) I haven't entirely been able to relate to his particular issues with evangelicalism. I think this is simply because I have had little acquaintance with either the social dimensions of fundamentalism or the kind of reformed systematic theology he dislikes so much. My primary experience of evangelicalism has been at Westmont and (as I often insist to my Anglican chaplain) I think that Westmont does a fairly good job combining the intellectual and experiential sides of faith. I certainly have not been drawn to Anglicanism because I find evangelicalism overly rationale. In fact one of the reasons I like going to an Anglican church is because it doesn't 'make me want to shoot myself in the foot' as a historian or an academic. I suppose this is because my impression of Episcopal churches are that they tend to be more liberal, progressive, historically minded and 'intellectual'... but I think that Westmont succeeded on these points as well. I just don't think that the average evangelical church does.
I suppose I should confess that I am coming at this discussion having already decided (albeit not irrevocably) to belong to an Episcopal Church. And frankly, a large part of this decision has simply come from the fact that I am uncomfortable in contemporary worship settings. I like the ritual and repetition of liturgy; I love that reverence and not spontaneous emotionalism is the order of the day. But I recognize that this sort of setting does and has in the past, seems stifling to many... it's precisely the reason why the evangelical movement started in the first place. But I disagree with Webber's point that there is a greater willingness to accept mystery in the Anglican church and that sacraments are somehow an escape from over-rationalism. The body of theology surrounding sacraments (as far as I understand) is long and complicated; and it was actually in reaction to the overly rationale 'intellectual gymastics' of scholastic theologians (of which Anglicanism is the inheritor) that the Reformation called for a simple return to the Bible. Perhaps the medieval asthetic of the Episcopal church feels deep and mysterious simply because it is so different from evangelical services, but I think that we could easily argue that the spontaneity and emotion of evangelicalism would provide a sense of mystery for a convert in the other direction.
So really what I've related here is that I have not nearly so good reasons as Webber for going to an Episcopal church. Largely I do just because I like it better. And I'm hoping that this discussion will help me to formulate better reasons for my choice than simply my discomfort with the alternative!!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Lets Begin
Okay, I thought I would start us off with this picture of us on that glorious weekend when we decided to read this book, and to spend time together with delicious beverages and quality literature in urgent care. Also, I am sure Laura wants to relive the memory through photographic evidence and I aim to please. For the record I can think of few people with whom I would rather spend a day in an urgent care waiting room.But on to the matter at hand: Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail by Robert E. Weber. Laura & Myrna - thanks for picking a book and getting the ball rolling.
So my initial thoughts:
1. I have grown up evangelical and in the last year have begun to again embrace this aspect of my personal faith. For years I have avoided the label due to connotations of fundamentalism, however as I have been immersed in grad school and all things non-Westmont, I've realized that it is becoming normal and even enjoyable to converse about Christ and my faith with people on the bus or in my cohort - No tracts, no formulas, just rich conversation that is interesting and personal.
2. Last year I started going to Calvary Episcopal in Santa Cruz. I love the liturgy, the focus on communion each week, the framework of the church calendar, the interesting socially conscious and active members of the church, and the church's accessibility to the local community. I could become an episcopal. In fact the current reading book stack next to my be contains the following titles that reflect my draw towards Anglican worship: The Book of Common Prayer, Welcome to the Church Year.
So, to sum my thoughts, I feel that I am on the cusp of two faith expressions. I resonate with Webber in his thirst for mystery and reverence for the sacraments. At the same time I have questions about how to integrate my evangelical roots into this form of expression. I look forward to reading and discussing these and other thoughts with you all in the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)