Bonhoeffer, Facebook, and Cheap Grace

Faith Like a Child

A few weeks back, I found myself in the basement of my wife’s church before the Easter vigil. I wandered into a classroom, and on the walls were some images that intrigued me. They were clearly drawn by children, but I cannot speculate as to the nature of the project. There were about 15 total, and I photographed two of the best to share with you. Without further delay, here they are, accompanied by some commentary (click images to enlarge):

Image 1: A fascinating combination of theology and science! In case you can’t make out the captions, let me assist. The rocket ship is God, and the fuel tank and “extra” rockets are “other religions.” The robotic arm of the rocket is Jesus, and the satellite it grasps is none other than the Catholic Church. Now, the captions also stipulate that the rockets on the ship (In addition to the “extra” rockets? I’m not sure.) are the Holy Spirit. The astronauts, of course, are believers. In this case, there is only one astronaut: Spongebob Squarepants. Curious, mad, brilliant. Some questions, of course, arise. First, if Spongebob is a believer, then why is he floating around outside of both the rocket ship and the satellite, both of which would be proper locations for a person of faith (assuming that the satellite is actually a space station). Second, if the rockets are both other religions and the Holy Spirit, then what is the fire? Third, don’t satellites generally detach from the arms that launch them? Or, does this image depict the drawing in of the satellite to God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 2: A theological interpretation of America’s favorite sport. Like the image of the rocket, there are captions. The scene is set in “Catholic Church Stadium.” The Christians are in the home dugout pitted against “other,” situated in the away dugout. Jesus is, quite obviously, the pitcher, and the Holy Spirit is the catcher. Spongebob makes another appearance here, as an outfielder. As was the case with the last image, in this one he is also a believer. More questions, of course. First, what precisely is Jesus throwing to the Holy Spirit? Second, who’s on third? Seriously, I can’t tell. Third, who’s up to bat first?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case you’re wondering, these were not the only two images in which Spongebob made an appearance, although my fascination with him would certainly imply as much. He was actually in almost all of them, strangely.

Parental Criticism

Since the text on which I’m dissertating (Protogospel of James) involves children of all sorts (Mary, Jesus, John the Baptist), as well as their parents (Joachim, Anna, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah), I find it necessary to devise a new sort of exegetical method that I have decided to term “Parental Criticism.” It is brazenly non-historical, and is rather based on my own experience as father of a four month old. Here is an example:

Chapter six of the Protogospel of James (henceforth PJ) narrates the events following the birth of Mary. Mary’s mother Anna places her on the ground when she is six months old to see if she is able to stand (PJ 6:2). Mary surprises her mother when she walks seven steps. Anna snatches her up and vows that her feet will never again touch the ground until they bring her to live in the temple (this will happen in the following chapter). Anna creates a sanctuary in her bedroom for Mary, where she allows her to eat no unclean food and to only be entertained by virgins (PJ 6:4-5).

This story of course conveys the fact that Anna was a practitioner of what is commonly called “attachment parenting (AP),” the slogan of which is, loosely translated, “keep ‘em close.” Rather than teach her daughter to avoid the things of the world that defile, Anna decides to shelter her from them. Mary spends the first three years of her life in her mother’s bedroom. The root of AP seems to have been the inkling that one’s child is in fact the most significant child to have ever been born. The ironic thing is, of course, that in Mary’s case, this was true (it remains true until the birth of Jesus).

This account is of course striking given what follows her third birthday, namely, her parents allow someone else to raise her. Now, the tension is resolved slightly because those chosen to raise the three-year-old Mary are none other than the priests in the Jerusalem Temple, which becomes in PJ a sort of permanent day care for the Blessed Virgin. In contrast to the makeshift sanctuary in her mother’s bedroom, Mary now lives in the holy of holies, the “real” sanctuary. She is no longer fed undefiled food by her mother, but is rather fed from the hand of an angel.

One more aspect of the story has yet to be mentioned: Joachim’s role as the father of Mary. When Mary turns two, Joachim goes to Anna and says that it is time to bring Mary to the temple in fulfillment of their vow to God (PJ 7:1). Anna “suggests” that they should wait until she is three. Joachim complies without resistance to Anna’s amendment. Joachim, as the ideal father in this instance, does what he is told. His initial suggestion is well-reasoned and good, but because it is different from that of his wife, he realizes that it is wrong.

Amen

Studying Theology – Varying Perspectives

There have been a lot of illustrations popping up lately related to various careers – “how my friends see me…how my wife sees me…how my family sees me…how I see myself…etc.” You know what I mean, right? Well, the other day I saw one that had something to do with studying theology, but it left me dissatisfied. I’m too lazy to photoshop these images together, but here is my take on studying theology.

What my family thinks I do:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What my wife thinks I do:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the undergrads think I do:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I think I do (that’s me in the bottom right):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers.

Andrew of Crete and the Immaculate Conception

The focus of my research, the Protevangelium of James, is often cited as the earliest expression of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. As a consequence of my research, I have been reading many Patristic homilies on Mary, some of which speak of her birth and childhood.

Today, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I decided it may be fitting to share one. This is from an eighth-century homily, the Canon on the Nativity, by St. Andrew of Crete (translated by Luigi Gambero in Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 394):

Let all creation dance; let David dance as well, for from his line and his seed arose the branch that will bear the Flower, the Lord and Redeemer of all…

Anna was sterile and barren, but not childless in God’s eyes. For from all eternity, she was predestined to be the mother of the chaste Virgin, from whom the Creator was to come forth in the form of a servant.

Unsullied Lamb, who alone, from your womb, gave Christ the wool of our nature, we all celebrate your birth from Anna with songs.

Constitutional Law and Theological Exegesis

This morning when I was raking leaves (a task unrelated to that which I am now writing), I recalled a conversation I had with a friend this past summer. He is a lawyer, and he was asking me about my research on the topic of theological exegesis (I was at the time enveloped in my preparation for qualifying exams, and he was curious as to what could possibly be so interesting). My understanding of theological exegesis, I explained to him, is as follows:

Theological exegesis attempts to affirm the notion that the biblical texts, as Christian Scripture, have enduring value that may at times transcend the intention of the original authors. Moreover, I told him that theological exegesis is not opposed to the reading of the biblical texts in light of developments that arise after them (the Nicene Creed, e.g.), and that such reading does not necessarily hinder the task of interpretation, but may in fact clarify it (this is of course not a direct quote…I have removed the “ums” and upgraded my vocabulary).

He said, “That’s interesting…it sounds a lot like constitutional law debates.” My response: “Say what?” He explained to me that there are in fact several “schools” of thought related to the interpretation of the United States Constitution, and there is an ongoing debate regarding location of meaning and the task of interpretation.

On the one hand, there are those who will say that the Constitution has a meaning, that which was intended by the founding fathers. This “school” of constitutional law, called “Originalism,” holds that discernment of the original meaning of the constitution is the task of constitutional law. One may rightly place Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in this “camp.” Originalists will not claim that every precept of the Constitution needs to be followed exactly…there is a certain flexibility insofar as later generations may pass laws to override that which was said earlier. The 13th amendment, for example, in outlawing slavery, would supersede that which was said in Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution, that ”no Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

On the other hand, there are those who will say that the Constitution has an original meaning, but that its significance is precisely in its ability to transcend generations and speak to contemporary situations. In this vein, called “Living Constitution,” discernment of the original meaning is important, but equally important is interpretation of the document alongside developments that have transpired since its institution. Al Gore, for example, once said that “there are liberties found in the Constitution such as the right to privacy that spring from the document itself, even though the Founders didn’t write specific words saying this, this, and this…” The late William Rehnquist once wrote, in contrast, that contemporary leaning toward the idea of living constitution is “genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society.”

In short, the debate concerns whether or not the meaning in the Constitution is static or dynamic: may the “meaning” of this document be something different from what the original authors intended? At its root, the debate centers around the location of meaning and the task of interpretation. Is meaning to be found in text alone, or is meaning to be found within the tradition, which includes the text alongside other factors?

I find the debate interesting given the climate surrounding theological exegesis…I just returned yesterday from the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, where I was reminded yet again that the conversation is far from over. Regarding the biblical texts, there are, broadly speaking, two schools that parallel to a certain degree those present in constitutional law debates. On the one hand, the “Originalists” will say that the biblical texts have a meaning and that this meaning is located in the text or, better yet, in the mind of the original author. On the other hand, proponents of a “living” text will not deny that there is an “original” meaning, either in the text or in the mind of the author, but they will claim that meaning may in fact transcend this original meaning and that the text may rightly be considered (and may in fact only be rightly understood) in light of its effective history.

Two caveats:

1) I’m fairly certain that anyone with a legal background will take issue with the way I’ve framed things here, and I would welcome clarification from anyone with more knowledge on the topic (please do leave comments).

2) The analogy drawn here between constitutional law and theological exegesis is imperfect, as I would claim that the biblical texts are of a different vintage than the Constitution. I include this caveat to appease some who may fear that I am making the Constitution out to be somehow corresponding to Christian Scripture…that said, I suppose the analogy could through some gasoline on discussions pertaining to American Civil Religion (Dr. Michael Gorman has a wonderful ongoing series on the topic).

Enchiridion Biblicum Online

For those interested, I was just made aware that the Enchiridion Biblicum, comprised entirely of Catholic documents pertaining to the study of Scripture, is available online, in English, for free. This is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in theological exegesis, especially in a Catholic context. Not sure how long it’s been up, but it’s new to me!

Find it here.

USCCB on the Boehner Bill

A couple of days ago, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a letter voicing their concerns with some of the goings-on in Washington right now. You can access the letter in its entirety by clicking here. The letter is short and worth reading in full, but here is a brief excerpt:

As Catholic bishops, we lead a community that brings both moral principles and everyday experience to this discussion. We defend the unborn, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, educate the young, welcome refugees, and care for the sick, both at home and abroad. As teachers, we offer several moral criteria to help guide difficult budgetary decisions:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long- term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.

I wonder how John Boehner, himself a Roman Catholic, would respond to this?

Review: Catholic Social Thought – The Documentary Heritage

For anyone interested, I just completed a review of David O’Brien and Thomas Shannon’s Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage, a cheap and enormous yet accessible “must-have” for anyone interested in social ethics.

Click here to read the review.

Peanuts, Biblical Studies and Systematic Theology

A brief commentary on the separation of the theological disciplines: