Disqus - Latest Comments for BDRhodes

Re: A More Gracious Radicalism

BDRhodes — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:56:51 -0000

"the details of living radically" -- I'm with you on that one. I'd love to see practitioners who have some experience in all this begin talking more about lessons learned.

Re: Gospel Fun with Wordle!

BDRhodes — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:55 -0000

That was awesome. Wish I'd seen this earlier! :)

Re: A More Gracious Radicalism

BDRhodes — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:04:32 -0000

I think that's spot on -- that we too easily give faaaar too much credit to the empire. It's so easy for us to find our identity in what we're not (consumer, imperial, just-war, suburban, whatever), that we just wind up perpetuating the mythic might of the principalities n powers.

It's great to be against things, but how much better to be against them because we were FIRST FOR something. That helps me remain unimpressed with the lies and myths which propagate the defeated powers. 'Tis better to create than to crassly condemn.

Re: Who are the ‘Least of These’?

Andrew Perriman — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:38:11 -0000

Hi Brandon - I hope you don't mind me interjecting! Your comments are thought-provoking. I agree that there is an issue of marginalization when Jesus is interpreted in this fashion. This is partly because the focus tends to be on the Gospels. If we follow the story through to the experience of the early church and the prophetically anticipated vindication of both Jesus and the community of his followers (ie. the 'coming of the Son of man'), we reach a much more central and comprehensive Jesus who is Lord, first born of creation, etc.

If I have hyper-localized Jesus teachings it is partly just to get us to take the narrative framework and its relation to the historical experience of the early church seriously. But even within that framework there is a more diverse and expanded reflection on the significance of Jesus - John's Gospel, for example, though this can be overrated.

But the other point I would make is one that Daniel touches on. We can get so obsessed with Jesus (if I can put it that way) that we lose sight of the concrete existence of the people of God in the world, for the salvation and transformation of which Jesus died. It is this people, existing in real communities, under the lordship of Christ, which should be the locus for divine justice and compassion; and it is the historical experience of this people that grounds for us the connection with the Jesus of the Gospels. It seems to me that this is especially important to have in mind as we face the historical crisis of the collapse of Christendom.

Re: Who are the ‘Least of These’?

BDRhodes — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:01:16 -0000

Ahhh, wonderful.

Perriman, though I have carefully read two of his books ('Coming of...' and 'Re:Mission'), read his blog a lot, and prodded his theology face-to-face, continues to be a delightfully challenging conversation partner in understanding Jesus. Often, it feels like Andrew has a very small (though he would say robustly Jewish and biblical) Jesus -- something which would naturally rub many of us "way of Jesus" Anabaptist-minded folk quite sourly.

Bluntly: to me, it often feels like Andrew marginalizes Jesus and hyper-localizes Jesus' historical teachings. How have you, Daniel, made the jump from Perriman to the quasi-Anabaptist Jesus-centeredness of this web 'zine? I still ask this about myself. :)

Perhaps for me, the answer is reverting to the Jesus-centeredness of Bishop Tom, whom you also cite; and whom furthermore is able to read both TOWARD neo-preterist conclusions within the horizons of Jesus' historical locale, ... and yet also FOR enduring applications of Jesus' teachings beyond those horizons.

Re: Who are the ‘Least of These’?

BDRhodes — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:18:02 -0000

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been waiting, whether I knew it or not, for such a thoughtful explanation of this passage. You snap it into the bigger short-term eschatological crisis faced by the early Palestinian church brilliantly and beautifully.

I wonder, though, if it is hermeneutically possible to use this passage as a way to also understand God's intentions for life within the church, or for understanding God's wider concern and impossibly obscure preference for hanging out with (nay, solidly identifying with!) the 'least of these.' I wonder if, as the Orthodox teach us about ikons, we can look through this passage into that wider reality. I don't mean to let that be a gateway to exegetical sloppiness, but I do think we can see a big part of the heart of God in this than our neo-preterism might otherwise foster.

Merry Christmas to you, too. :)

Re: Bush and the Case of the Flying Footwear

BDRhodes — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:37:29 -0000

Or try persistently to get an American soldier, mercenary, or politician to speak at the funeral of their dead child, if they're Iraqi. Or invite them over for dinner.

Lordy, I dunno if I could manage it. I guess that's where the whole "Holy Spirit" and "new creation" thing come in. :)

Re: Bush and the Case of the Flying Footwear

BDRhodes — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:51:01 -0000

Yes, but as Desmond Tutu says,

"There, but for the grace of God, goes I."

Re: Early Christian Voices on War and Peace

BDRhodes — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:51:02 -0000

Wow, thanks for that! I've been itchin' to have such a resource. :)

Re: Is Christian Scholarship accountable to the Poor?

dan — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:29:49 -0000

Hot damn, I just noticed that I got your initials wrong! So sorry!

Re: Is Christian Scholarship accountable to the Poor?

dan — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:28:34 -0000

BCRhodes,

Thanks for taking the time to both read this article and share some of your thoughts. A few things in response:

(1) It is not my intention to "equat[e] the poor categorically with Christ". Rather, I am saying that Christ equates himself categorically with the poor, and we need to respect that. This is an important nuance to keep in mind... and I think it does lead to the conclusion that the poor are included within Christ's body.

(2) My conclusion in this regard is not solely based upon Mt 25 (any reader of the bible should be cautious of basing any belief upon one or two verses [let those involved in the discussion on homosexuality be so warned!]). However, I do feel that the biblical story does lead us to this, perhaps tentative, conclusion. Thus, I will say this about Mt 25: even if Jesus is solely referring in this passage to the poor who are 'within the body of Christ', or 'WITHIN the church', the observation that all of the poor are (or should be) included within that body mitigates the supposed limitations raised by this objection. To be clear, I'm not engaging in a circular argument here -- I really do think that the whole life and ministry of Jesus, as well as the biblical witness regarding regarding God's solidarity with the poor, affirm this conclusion.

(3) On a (perhaps) more tangential note, you allow that "[t]here may be some sort of sacramental reality, too, in caring for the non-confessing poor" but I would want to correct this (if I may be so bold!) and say that, if that sacramental reality is present (and I believe that it is) then it is found when we open ourselves to being cared for by the non-confessing poor! Such sacramentality is found when we humble ourselves before the presence of Christ found in (the confessing and non-confessing) poor and submit ourselves to them -- not just when we stoop down to care for them (or whatever).

Grace and peace.

Re: Is Christian Scholarship accountable to the Poor?

BDRhodes — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:47:56 -0000

Dan, that was an incredible article. As a seminary grad, I too have felt the conviction of writing papers on cruciformity, only to find myself so infrequently embodying it. As Scot McKnight says, whatever theology we have, it must be one which 'works,' which doesn't just click the pieces of the puzzle together well enough, but indeed click them together in a way that brings animation and movement to the whole.

Your sacramentalizing of the poor is an interesting suggestion. However, I don't know that the biblical story merits equating the poor categorically with Christ, or with his body the church. The Matthew 25 passage does point to the sacramental reality of caring for the Least of These, but it does so within the body of Christ. There may be some sort of sacramental reality, too, in caring for the non-confessing poor. But I suggest that it's a different kind of sacramental presence, perhaps one of those "thin places" wherein we sense the presence of New Creation, of heaven-and-earth coming near. And, just as we'd expect, things like your "poor-as-light-and-truth" connection do indeed happen there. But I find that kind of "thin places" sacramentalism in places of natural beauty or momentous history, and in study and fellowship and prayer. We can add Justice and caring for the "least of these" to this list without insisting all at once that therefore they are Jesus' body, too.

Again, Jesus is talking about the poor WITHIN the church; just as King David's sin-righteousness struggle is reflected in national life (a sort of "Israel in Microcosm" within Israel), so also King Jesus is equated (the 'microcosm' schtick fits here, too) with us the church. So caring for one another, seeking unity and equality and justice within the life of the body -- that is a more properly "Jesus-embodied" sense of the sacramentalism we find in the Poor.

Thanks again for this article. :)

Re: 2012

BDRhodes — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:08:40 -0000

Your "get serious about community" hits the bullseye. People who have made it through hard times, through collapses of societies like Russia, all say that belonging to a firm local network of relationships is foundational survival in exceedingly gloomy times. To say nothing of somehow even emotionally and spiritually THRIVING in said times.

Many of us have, not least myself, have probably been occasionally accused of being kinda Chicken Little about this stuff (www.oiltruth.com) in the past, and indeed now it's been sobering to see it all coming so fast and so soon and so hard. Thank you for starting this conversation here.

What of the heaving population dislocations that this is all going to cause? Of the millions of unemployed moving out of Michigan, of the debt-addled folks in Cali heading to greener pastures elsewhere, of a water-hungry Arizona seeing its population relocate to stabler states. What this will do to the church's ability to accomodate major immigrations to their towns and neighborhoods should prove interesting. For all the voices calling for the discipline of Hospitality, this may soon be your moment. :)

I was away ranching and farming in New Zealand for September and October, when so much of this was happening; when I got back to the 'States, a coworker with whom I have talked about this Peak-Oil-OMG catastrof*ck eco-apocalypticism stuff with said, "Brandon, why did you come back?"

I didn't have to pause to find my answer. "There are people here that I love." That, in the face of all this hardship, is what drives me to stay the storm, to weather the long emergency that it feels like this fast-dissolving empire is dive-bombing into.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

bren0110 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:39:39 -0000

While it's possible that one of his points may be that we've got to be patient with each other in a pluralistic society, I was pointing out that in the public sphere, there is no allowance for an act of faith such as the one in which Abraham is engaged. I think Barack Obama is addressing that as well. I'm not trying to condemn the man, I'm simply using a part of his speech to show how following Christ may require peculiar things of us. Those peculiar things cannot be shared in a pluralistic society unless they conform (as Barack Obama says in the passage you quote above), to "common laws or basic reason." Certainly, we can seek to understand the "otherness" of those who don't follow Christ.

Re: The Taming of God (Obama’s Religion, pt 2)

BDRhodes — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:50:13 -0000

Come on now, be fair. The next thing Mr. Obama says in that speech is: "We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason."

While I have many of my own frustrations with Mr. Obama's rhetoric, I don't think we get to et this be one of them. His point is, we've got to be patient with one another in a pluralistic society, and that is true whether it's democratic or not. Pluralism -- any degree of any difference in a given setting, really -- compels patience and an imagination to understand where another person is coming from. We don't have to agree with that, we don't even have to respect it. But we've got to at least look at Abraham and, not hearing the voice wonder, "I wonder what experiences are leading him to that." And often (usually?) we'll still wind up intervening in the situation. That's what happens in society; if we see some dangerous thing happening, we do something about it.

Now, Mr. Obama's suggestion that DH&S should resolve it is fair game for debate. But this example seems, to first blush for me anyway, a splendid way of demonstrating this need for patience and listening in public discourse in ANY pluralistic society, democratic or not.

Indeed, in many ways pluralism seems like a good thing, a way for us to learn how to engage the genuinely-Other sincerely and in love. If God is a diversity-in-unity, or a plurality-in-unity, or something like that which these phrases are just clumsy signposts toward, then that means "How-We-Deal-With-Otherness" is going to be a huge part of our task as his Image-bearers. We, too, are to be "Those-Who-Deal-with-Otherness" because the Trinity is like that too. Sure the analogy presses against some apparent barriers in that in a pluralistic society we're dealing with entire ideological and worldview-level differences, whereas the Trinity is, well,... trace it out, you see what I mean. (nothing challenges language like the Trinity).

So, while it's immensely doubtful that Obama had this "otherness" trinitarian thing behind his quip, I do think the general point holds: we Christians have GOT to learn how to engage one another in public discourse better and more thoughtfully. Just before your quotes he was talking about people who are anti-abortion but vote pro-abortion-rights, and immediately afterwards gives the example of those who oppose gay marriage, but also oppose amending the Constitution to that end. The humorous glance off of the Abe-Isaac story was just one way of explaining what's going on in these situations.

Re: Pontifex Maximus (Obama’s Religion, pt 1)

joel — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:42:46 -0000

Why wait for school boards, transportation commitees, city hall, or any other bureaucrat before something is done. If you see something that needs addressing in a Christ-like manner, just do it. I say, "screw the government." Just simply ignore it. To place any hope in it is idolatry.

Re: Pontifex Maximus (Obama’s Religion, pt 1)

BDRhodes — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:31:16 -0000

D'oh! :) Teach me to blog surf during my lunch break.

Well, I 'spose my ambling questions applies to you, too.

Re: Pontifex Maximus (Obama’s Religion, pt 1)

markvans — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:55:06 -0000

I didn't write this...but perhaps Chris (who wrote it) could respond before I weigh in on your question. :)

Re: Pontifex Maximus (Obama’s Religion, pt 1)

BDRhodes — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:58:02 -0000

Mark, I agree that democracy has become a religion in and of itself, an American Idol with few competitors. And at that level, I increasingly respect your "no-vote" practice. If democracy weren't so darn idolized in America, or if you were in a less democracy-worshipping country, would you then vote?

This definitely worthy of an entire post, but could you unpack what a "no-vote" theology of church engagement of the state might look like. I mean, is petition-signing okay? School-boards? Would you vote in school board meeting? Transportation planning meetings? City hall meetings? Meeting with legislators, mayors, city councilors, and bureaucrats to advocate on issues of justice? There are far more ways to be political than these sorts of things, for the church of God, and indeed these are the acts that would be on the periphery rather than the center of church political life, but still it's my own conviction that many of these activities are good and cool ways to seek the shalom of our cities (Jer 29) and speak out for those who can't speak for themselves (Pr 31:8).

I acknowledge that this is, like all ethics, far more nuanced than just a quick list of good and bad actions, so what's the steering vision behind whatever degree of engagement you endorse/practice?

Re: Pontifex Maximus (Obama’s Religion, pt 1)

BDRhodes — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:45:25 -0000

Well said, Thom. I wonder if that's why I sense such restlessness in my own church community about Bible Studies... "not another one, sheesh". I need to learn how to talk about theology in a way that becomes embodied, that incarnates. And maybe we should all start adding new pages to our theology books, sections like "agri-ology" between anthropology and ecclesiology, and "petrol-ology" after (or within) hamartiology.

You've got the wheels a'spinning in my head now. :)

Re: The Body, The Blood, The Border

Yedeed — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:36:06 -0000

Amen.

Re: The Body, The Blood, The Border

BDRhodes — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:01 -0000

Your line -- "It is interesting how people will go to Mexico for a "missions trip" but don't see the opportunity to "reach" the Mexican community here in the u.s." -- pierces into a very scary, very dark, very discomforting part of the American evangelical heart. What is our true motivation for house-building trips to Mexico? A way to cleanse our conscience? Are we just baptizing a group vacation in the name of the Lord? I've wanted to not believe my own cynicism about this. But the simple fact that churches can send their teenagers for a week to Mexico, but not even SEE the plight of the Latinos suffering from bigotry, gov't persecution, illegally low wages, abusive labor demands, and the temptations of gang culture?

May God open the eyes of the American church to see these things, and may he change our hearts as we see such pains, and may he cause us to act in humble love to "speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves." (Proverbs 31:8)

Re: Politics, religion and sex

BDRhodes — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:30:41 -0000

Wow, I'm gonna use that comparison. Great way to reframe it!

Re: Politics, religion and sex

SarahLynne — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:49:11 -0000

I'm really happy to see this topic covered on Jesus Manifesto, because I most of the evangelical Christians I know don't seem to think really seriously about it.

I definitely agree that sex needs to be talked about way more frankly in the home. Brandon mentioned the "better to marry than burn" (with desire, I'm guessing, from 1 Cor 7), but I'm not sure I heard it mentioned much in my church. In fact, I have been thinking that the lack of mentioning that verses comes from the inability to be a bit more frank about sex among Christians. I've found sex to be talked about in a very modest and sacred way in my church. It's apart of a "holy union," an "act of worship," things like that, and then are encouraged not to engage in it because they will suddenly be ruined for their future spouse. I hate the term "saving yourself" as though I can't give myself to my future husband because of some sexual experience, as if I'm a present thats been up wrapped and damaged.

Now, I don't have a lot of experience, but my forays into sexual activity have lead me to believe that this is a bad way to talk about sex. It seems to me that mystifying and spiritualizing sex can make it harder to accept and understand what is happening when I do become involved in sexual activity, which then makes it even harder to understand how I want to act (or not act) during the experience, and also how I understand my feelings afterwards. Maybe I'm just a nerd, but I found reading studies on the attachment chemicals that are released in the brain during sex and kissing incredibly helpful in dealing with my feelings and understanding why I do or don't want to do something sexually.

Also, thinking about the passage in 1 Cor 7 with that perspective on sex is helpful. Most couples I know who marry young who hardly admit seriously that sex had a significant role in it. Being honest about that fact may actually prepare them for the problems they will be facing, and they may enter into marriage with a less idealized view.

Furthermore, I think what Brandon said about bringing up Christians in the way of reconciliation and patient other-mindedness could be huge. Living in community now challenges me in that daily, and I feel like I really am getting better at living with people, and learning to make reconciliation more important than my own "rights" or desires. Now I feel like an important thing is for me to be very careful in making sure my potential spouse is like-minded. I really don't think growing up in a family these days really disciples us this way. We have to intentional practice it together as Christians.

And finally, I also think making singleness a viable option would be helpful. That is a huge foundation for Paul's rec. on marriage and sex in 1 Cor 7 and I know that I would desire marriage less now if I had been brought up to believe that singleness was a desirable state, where I could still live in a family of Christians who I could rely on the love, encourage, and serve with me. If I knew I could take part in raising children in my adopted family, and if my whole life I had learned that single people really are valuable and normal in the Christian family.

but of course, I haven't ever been married, so I'm not sure how seriously I should even take myself...

Re: Politics, religion and sex

BDRhodes — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:50:25 -0000

Talk about a messy tangle of issues. Thank you for helping me start making better sense of it.

I've not been married, I come from an intact marriage, and I've never been too proximate to a divorce, so my thoughts here are limited to what I've seen about all this from a distance. Yet I've know of many marriages that have failed because they weren't equipped by the church to make it through interpersonal conflicts well, who seem to have failed because they were deceived by that old lie that healthy church and family life should be marked by the absence of conflict rather than the ability to emerge through it well together.

So here's my working theory about divorce within the church is this. While many failed marriages do arise out of hasty nuptials between those whose favorite verse is "it's better to marry than to burn," I also think it's a crisis of failed discipleship in the Way of Reconciliation and Patient Other-mindedness. Now, that's a lot to ask of or otherwise expect of randy 18-year-olds (let alone anyone at any age!). I don't know how the blazes I'd teach those basic "how to love well" skills to my kids, whenever that day comes. Clues to a solution may lie in raising them in multi-generational houses/communities, youth groups that teach reconciliation and "how to love well" skills (the fruit of the Spirit) as at least as foundational as the cheap clarions to youngsters reading their Bible and praying every day to grow grow grow, and going from churches having discipleship classes to having discipleship communities. In the intentional community I lived in during college, my pastor often said "these years will make all of us better husbands and wives when that day comes. Your future spouses will be thankful for this time." She couldn't have been more right.

I wonder if in addition to more frank conversations about sexuality, it should be fastened to a broader conversation about churches raising youth that won't just be good churchgoers, but Christlike spouses. That can be a defining mark of the health of any discipling community/program.