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.

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!!

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.