Theology and Last Year’s Language


I was at O’Hare airport in Chicago waiting for a return flight to Brussels. A young fellow sitting near me asked if I had ever been to Brussels. I told him that I knew Brussels quite well because I lived in Leuven, which is 15 miles from Brussels. He told me he worked for a multinational and was going to relocate to Brussels. I wished him well and told him that over the years I had known a lot of US expats who worked for multinationals.

He asked what I did, and I told him I was an historical theologian. He stared at me, chuckled and said, “So you are one of those guys who plays word games with official church teachings.” I replied, in a friendly way, that historical theologians don’t play games with church teachings but try to understand what those teachings meant in the past and what they do or do not mean for us today.” He didn’t react, and, at that point, we were asked to get in line for boarding our plane. He headed for his first-class line and waved goodbye.

Church teachings do change – or ought to change – because our knowledge and our understanding of languages, cultures, and human life develops and changes. For example, Adam and Eve were once understood as historic people. Today we realize that the Adam and Eve story in the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures is not an historical account but a symbolic and cultural creation. It serves as a mythological explanation for the origins of humanity and the presence of sin and suffering in the world. The same thing can be said about the Genesis story of Noah and the myth of the global flood.

People in every age need to examine how they observe and speak about religious beliefs and experiences. That has been my point from my very first post on Another Voice, fourteen years ago. I was inspired by lines from T.S. Elliot’s poem “Little Gidding” – “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice.”

Today, we live in a world of tremendous and rapidly developing change. Understandings and realities are changing, whether people are comfortable or not about the new realities. Some people, fearful about change, are working hard to reassert their old, often prejudicial perspectives, creating an increasingly polarized society. Certainly, in the United States, we see a level of socio-cultural polarization that is higher than at the time of the nineteenth century Civil War.

We need a new stress on deep reflection and a new of level of serious conversation.

I have no desire to play word games with church leaders but the conversation we should be having with church leaders and politicians today is this: To what degree do the life and message of Jesus of Nazareth reverberate in your minds and hearts? To what degree does the Gospel guide one’s decision making: celebrating “loving your neighbor as yourself” to the extent that people genuinely care for others, support, and yes even forgive one another. This conversation undercuts racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and all human phobias.

Genuine Christianity promotes a healthy and healing ministry that sustains the individual and collective lives of people who genuinely try follow the way of Jesus.

If the life and message of Jesus do not animate and guide their lives, people who proudly wear the “Christian” label, whether conservative or progressive, are meaningless propagandists and phonies. 

Historical theology is anchored in Christian living and examines the experience of faith: the human relationship with God – described under various names such as “Creator,” “Ground of Being,” “the Sacred,” “the Divine.”

Theological understandings – statements of belief — can end up as official teachings (doctrines) when institutional leadership judges them useful guidelines for Christian life and belief. But it is important to remember that all doctrinal statements are time-bound, because language and understandings are time-bound. All doctrinal statements therefore are provisional until a better expression comes along.

 

Some guidelines for theological reflections:

  •  Look less at the church as an institution and see it more as a community of faith-filled believers. What is happening within your own community of faith? What are the life-issues that really concern your family and friends? What does it mean for you to experience God today? Where do you find your support? How can you motivate and help the women and men in your community to truly minister to each other? What is keeping us from experimenting with new forms of parish life? Perhaps a parish should be a collection of many smaller communities of faith?
  • Look deeper than the shortage of RCC male priests today and the questions about women deacons and women priests. Let’s look at the meaning of ministry itself. Let’s look at and examine the very idea of ordained ministry, as a ministry by trustworthy ministers. Jesus did not ordain anyone. Christian communities selected their own trust-worthy leaders for prayerful rituals and service.
  • Years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, ordination was intrduced as a kind of quality control – to assure communities that the men and women who were their leaders were trustworthy and faith-filled leaders. Let’s scratch our heads about new forms of ministry and break out of the old patterns and paradigms. Why not have qualified graduate students — whether male, female, or nonbinary– with recognized faith and ministerial qualifications, helping out in liturgy and service in university parishes? If ordination is desired, could it not be for for two or three years? Does it have to be life-long? Why not ordain people for small or large group parish ministry? A parish could have several smaller “neighborhood churches.” Perhaps a parish could have many part-time ordained ministers who also have “regular” jobs? We can be creative.
  • Healthy Christianity is rooted in being a healthy follower of the Way of Jesus. So, what does it really mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ today? This raises questions of knowledge and belief. What do we really know about the historical Jesus? He was not white, for sure. More likely dark brown. What about all of those very white, blue-eyed, and rather androgynous images of Jesus that really distort who he was and what he was all about? Was his biological father the Holy Spirit or the man we call Joseph? Isn’t the “virgin birth” more about saying Jesus was a very special and unique person than analyzing the biology of his conception? What if Jesus was gay or a married fellow? Would that make a difference for you? I have long thought that Jesus had a very close relationship with Mary the Magdalene. Would that destroy his meaning for Christian believers? Why? Was Jesus God? Early Hebrew Christians, including St. Paul, spoke with nuance about this. They understood Jesus as the revelation of God’s graciousness and love. And they understood that Incarnation involves all of us. As Jesus says in Luke 10:16, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Our humanity is anchored in divinity, whether people realize it or not.
  • We need to change our conversation and move beyond the old worn-out and repetitive discussions.Changing the conversation means moving from lots of talk to making lots of real changes. And change rarely comes from the top. In my RCC tradition, for example, change usually starts at the grassroots level. People see the need and make the change. The old pattern is proven historically: (1) change is made; (2) change is condemned by church leadership; (3) change endures; (4) leadership allows the change as a limited “experiment;” (5) change becomes more widespread; (6) and finally church leadership allows it as “part of our tradition.”

 

Creative and critical reflection is not a dangerous activity, and it can be a source of life, because it brings a new focus, a new conversation, a new change, and new life. Moving beyond last year’s language.

 

 

A Meditative Reflection: Remembering Two Prophetic Bishops


On April 4th, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a Detroit, Michigan Catholic bishop, passed from this life. He was 94. Gumbleton became a national religious figure in the 1960s when he was urged by activist priests to oppose the United States’ role in the Vietnam War.

Tom, as friends knew him, was a founding leader of Pax Christi USA and a prophetic leader in the US Catholic peace movement. I first met him when I was a high school student at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Seminary, where he had been a student. We met periodically over the years.

As Robert Mickens, Editor at La Croix International, wrote on April 06, 2024: “Tom Gumbleton was a friend and defender of the poor, the imprisoned, and the sexually abused, as well as those discriminated against because of their skin color, sexual orientation or female gender.”

Detroit’s strongly conservative Cardinal Edmund Szoka (Archbishop of Detroit from 1981 to 1990) and his conservative successors marginalized Gumbleton to the point that he eventually became the pastor of a parish of Detroit’s poorest and most run-down urban neighborhoods. He was still living there in a nearby apartment up to the day he died.

Tom Gumbleton’s death reminded me of the other Michigan Catholic bishop who was also a graduate of Sacred Heart Seminary and a very good friend: Kenneth Untener. On March 27, 2004, Ken, who was Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died of leukemia. In many ways he was my hero as well as my good friend. His death on March 27th at age 66 also coincided with my 61st birthday.

When Ken first came to Saginaw in 1980, he introduced himself to the people of Saginaw in the city hall. “Hello, I’m Ken and I’m going to be your waiter.” He loved to tell the following story: One day he was walking down the street toward a church with his genuine $12 shepherd’s staff in hand. “Look, Mom,” cried an 8-year-old girl, “there goes a shepherd,” and indeed Ken was exactly that.

Ken was “one of the few bishops for all those alienated women in the church and for liberal Catholics,” wrote Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese, then editor of America magazine, at the time of Ken’s death. “These people could look at him and say, ‘Yes, there is someone in the hierarchy who is sensitive to our views and is willing to speak out.’ In that kind of prophetic role you won’t get your way most of the time, but you know five or 10 years from now, what people call outlandish may be accepted as normal. He was a point man, and it seems the point man always gets hit first.”

A year before his priesthood ordination in 1963 Ken broke his right leg playing handball. Because he had a genetically deformed ankle, doctors removed the entire leg below the knee. Ken never regretted the amputation. “A deformed leg,” Ken later said “was socially awkward. A wooden leg is not. … You can kid about it. But the experience of my leg was most valuable to me. I think I know something of what it’s like to be the only woman in a room of men or the only black among whites. I know what it’s like to be noticed. I’ve been made sensitive to that.” Nor did the loss of his leg impair his dedication to golf and hockey, games he indulged in with a lively competitiveness throughout his career.

I conclude this meditative reflection with a prayer that continues to inspire and motivate me.

“Prophets of a Future Not Our Own,” was written by Ken Untener in 1979. It was originally written by Ken not as a prayer but as part of a homily to be given by Cardinal John Dearden in 1979, at the annual Mass for deceased priests in the Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan.

It helps now and then to step back
and take the long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is even beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime
only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise
that is God’s work.
Nothing we do is complete,
which is another way of saying
that the Kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection;
no pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the Church’s mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds
that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations
that will need further development.
We provide yeast
that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything,
and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
and do it very well.
It may be incomplete,
but it is a beginning,
a step along the way,
an opportunity for the Lord’s grace to enter
and do the rest.
We may never see the end results,
but that is the difference
between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders,
ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future that is not our own.

 

A Post Easter Reflection on U.S. Christian Nationalism


(Another Voice is returning a week earlier than planned.)

On Tuesday of Holy week, former U.S. president Donald J. Trump said, on his social media outlet TRUTH SOCIAL, that the Bible is his favorite book. He then encouraged supporters to buy his special “God Bless the USA Bible” for $59.99. Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible” includes copies of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. It also includes country music singer Lee Greenwood’s song “God Bless the USA.” On Good Friday of Holy Week some of Trump’s faithful were saying – to DJT’s delight – that it is Donald Trump who is being crucified today.

The 45th U.S. president is now working very hard to transform the Republican Party into a kind of Church of Trump. Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, observed on X (formerly Twitter) that “Donald Trump is starting the week by comparing himself to Jesus. Whether he has a messiah complex or is just conning his supporters, he’s playing to a growing GOP faction that wants America to be a white Christian Nationalist state, with Donald Trump as a divine ruler.” I thought immediately about the strongly pro-Trump Christian nationalist movement, the Society for American Civic Renewal. It is known as  “SACR.” Some even consider it a sacred movement.

SACR is an exclusive, men-only fraternal order which aims to replace the United States government with an authoritarian extreme Christian nationalism and religious autocracy. Its founders sought inspiration in the apartheid-era South African white men-only group, the Afrikaner-Broederbond. SACR is open to new recruits, provided they meet a few criteria: the potential member must be male, a “trinitarian” Christian, a heterosexual, an “un-hyphenated American,” and can supportively – meeting their far-right criteria – answer questions about Trump, the Republican Party, and Christian Nationalism.

SACR was founded by Charles Haywood, U.S. businessman, far-right commentator, and chair of the New Tomorrow Political Action Committee, formerly called Unify Carmel. It is a conservative education pressure group in Carmel, Indiana.

The SACR website describes the organization, which even has a lodge in Moscow, as raising leaders to “counter and conquer” the “poison” of “those who rule today.” SACR uses a cross-like insignia, described on the website as symbolizing “sword and shield” and the rejection of “Modernist philosophies and heresies.” SACR membership is by invitation only, and excludes women, LGBTQ+ people, and Mormons.  It is closely associated with the Claremont Institute, a far-right conservative think tank based in Upland, California.

The institute has been a strong defender of Donald Trump, ever since Joseph Biden won the 2020 United States presidential election. And, as Michael Bender wrote in the New York Times this year on April 1st, “Mr. Trump’s political creed stands as one of the starkest examples of his effort to transform the Republican Party into a kind of Church of Trump.” And on the Saturday before Easter 2024, Trump shared an article on social media with the headline “The Crucifixion of Donald Trump.” Christian nationalism in DJT style.

A friend asked recently what is wrong with Christian nationalism. Certainly, between now and the next U.S. presidential election on Tuesday November 5, 2024, we will be reading and hearing a lot about it.

I am a U.S. citizen and a committed Christian but I strongly object to Christian nationalism. It is anchored in an anti-democratic notion that the United States is a nation by and for Christians alone; and it threatens the principle of the separation of church and state. Separation of church and state, I would emphasize, is good for the church and good for the state.

Christian nationalism leads to discrimination and violence, circumventing laws and regulations aimed at protecting a pluralistic democracy, with protections for all people.

There is nothing Christian about Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism is about power not belief.

Christian nationalism is hardly just a USA phenomenon. I have doubts that he is really a Christian, but another big contemporary Christian nationalist is Vladimir Putin. He has greatly increased the power of the Russian Orthodox Church and maintains close contact with Moscow’s Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. Kirill has blessed the war in Ukraine as a “holy war” and claims that God is on Russia’s side. Hundreds of Orthodox priests in Ukraine and elsewhere, however, have accused Patriarch Kirill of “heresy” for his warmongering. Nevertheless, on March 27, 2024, the World Russian People’s Council (WRPC), an organization chaired by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, published a new document that further aligns the Russian Orthodox Church with Vladimir Putin’s political regime.

And a final example of contemporary Christian nationalism is Victor Orbán, the autocratic leader of Hungary, who has urged Christian nationalists in Europe and the USA to “unite our forces.” Orbán met with Donald Trump in mid March 2024 at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Trump heaped praise on Viktor Orbán while hosting the Hungarian prime minister at Mar-a-Lago. “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic,” the former president told a crowd gathered at his Florida resort. Trump added that the European autocrat is “a noncontroversial figure because he said, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it, right? He’s the boss and … he’s a great leader, fantastic leader. In Europe and around the world, they respect him.”

Donald Trump’s comment reminded me of the observation by Desiderius Erasmus (c.1466 – 1536): “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

Jack

______

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian