gdp's Comments

¿Cómo Say What? : Post-Pentecostals: New Vistas for a Diasporic People?

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:46:02 +0000

Jon, I'm not sure. For me, the Academy has been helpful in articulating re-formed views of God. Also, pentecostalism is a culture force now. Given the growing numbers worldwide, scholars had to study pentecostals and take us seriously. All the time people talk about young adults leaving the church. Does it really have to do with music or using video clips in a sermon? I think not. My hunch is that the church has failed to communicate in beliefs and practices. The AG takes great pride in that its doctrine hasn't changed in almost 100 years. But which of those 16 "Fundamental Truths" makes sense now?

¿Cómo Say What? : Post-Pentecostals: New Vistas for a Diasporic People?

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:30:59 +0000

Some post-pentecostals may well reject tongues, like some charismatics do. I'm working on a major (25-30 page) paper, which sees pentecostal theology as cultural-linguistic, as opposed to what can be termed propositionalist or cognitivist. That is, truth exists in community, not in propositions, but through shared culture and language. By starting with community, we should have a way to remain faithful in community while critiquing community beliefs and behaviors. That said, the community decides what parts of the messages of the Bible it deems important. For example, women can serve in any office of the Assemblies of God--even up to the General Sup--so we don't apply the passages which some people interpret as forbidding women in ministry. That interpretative move reflects, not just a "biblical truth," but a way our churches live in faithfulness to all its members and to God.

¿Cómo Say What? : Post-Pentecostals: New Vistas for a Diasporic People?

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:09:12 +0000

I'm not sure we should "rebuild" the walls. But I'm down for a good, long reading of the Law.

¿Cómo Say What? : Christian Vocation

Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:52:00 +0000

A couple of points: 1) as for God's purpose, individual salvation (John 3.16) is only a part of that. God, through Jesus, is reconciling ALL things to Godself. 2) Heaven and hell aren't consistently depicted in the Scriptures. There are several ideas presented throughout the Old and New Testaments. But the very act of creation requires imagining something that is not. 3) As for the main point, the story of Abram, why in the world would the God invite Abram to look at the stars? I would suggest you reread this narrative with a critical lens. Also, read "Prophetic Imagination" by Brueggemann. In fact, based on your replies, it seems that would be a good place for you to reformulate, not only what it means to believe, but, what belief means. Here's a quote from Brueggemann:

"In the ancient world of the Old Testament, prophetic imagination exposed the folly of state aggrandizement (in Israel and elsewhere), religious absolutism (in the claims of Jerusalem), and brutality against the neighbor (effected through the normal workings of the economy). It conjured a better world that extended mercy and justice to the weak and marginalized. In our contemporary world, prophetic imagination can do no less. Its task—neither conservative nor liberal—is to expose and critique the false ideologies of consumer militarism and to propose a better world of neighborly justice and mercy. As in the ancient world, so now in our contemporary world, such practice--rooted in old texts and memories—requires courage, freedom, and daring, nothing less than the work of voicing and enacting the world anew…according to the holiness of God."

gathering in light : Reenforcing Totalitarian Power Through Masculine Language

Tue, 25 May 2010 01:22:27 +0000

I'm reminded of "The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash, when he sings, "The father hen will call his chickens home." We too easily tend to dismiss and reframe the feminine side of God.

¿Cómo Say What? : Pentecost and Babel: The Power of Tongues

Mon, 17 May 2010 23:22:24 +0000

I do agree that treatment of the poor is a theme in Luke's writing (don't forget the story of the rich man and Lazarus), but Luke also sets up this tension between the "king of the Jews" (Lk 23.3) and the kings of this world. Luke 1 opens with Herod, ch 2 starts with Augustus, ch 3 brings in Tiberius and Herod Antipas. I don't think Luke names these guys just so we know WHEN these events took place, but he's saying the true son of God is launching his kingdom under these jokers' noses. Jesus responds to a Roman threat in 13.1-3 and to a threat by Herod in 13.31-3. When Herod and Pilate buddy up in 23.12, we get this sense that Jesus' kingdom has come into full confrontation with the joined powers of the world. Beyond that, Acts 1-12 tells how the Jewish authorities and even Herod himself tries to stop Jesus' followers. Acts 12.20-24 records Herod Agrippa playing like he's a god, but the true God strikes Herod with worms! All the while the word of God increases and spreads. By the time Paul gets to Thessalonica (17.7), he defies "Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus." But I agree with you, I'm not sure how this plays out. I suspect the church's relationship to empire involves some combination of distrust and engagement and reaping some of the benefits with our fingers crossed.

¿Cómo Say What? : Pentecost and Babel: The Power of Tongues

Mon, 17 May 2010 18:28:40 +0000

I actually oscillate between those positions, though usually I find myself very anti-imperial. On the one hand I'm drawn to the work of Walter Wink, who would make the more subtle argument. On the other hand, I'm more than a little Hauerwasian, which leads me to say literally and figuratively, "To hell with 'em all." Though I wouldn't say Pentecost is the final judgment on empire, I suspect it often subverts imperial language. So, since yesterday was Ascension Sunday, the phrase "come again" is a play-on-words of Caesar's deifi-/glorification after death (Acts 1.11 which rings of Daniel 7). Has there ever been an empire that doesn't oppress? Can you benefit from the oppressor without perpetrating their oppression? I'm not sure how powers can be redeemed while still holding on to power.

¿Cómo Say What? : Christian Vocation

Mon, 17 May 2010 17:50:18 +0000

A.L., I suspect you can't imagine such things because your emphasis is different from much of the Bible. We aren't called to imagine heaven and hell. In fact, Jesus doesn't call us just to believe; he calls us to live. From the opening of the Bible, God has imagined and called the cosmos into being. God is still imagining and calling forth a reality that's the future of all creation. And like the story of Abram, God invites us to look up at the stars and imagine together. This is an act of grace and hope which sustains us in a world torn with war and disease and death. Christians "call those things that be not as though they were." In short, we not only imagine but also live true to God's vision for the world.

¿Cómo Say What? : Bearing Truth

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:02:45 +0000

I said this in the comments on the other post, but it's worth repeating: The last person who should decide who/what is "in" and who/what is "out" is an older, white, "Christian," man from North America.

¿Cómo Say What? : A Crazy Line in the Sand

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:19:54 +0000

Right, and that's one of my biggest problems with all of this. The last person who should decide who is "in" and who is "out" is an older, white, man from North America. That crawls all over me!

¿Cómo Say What? : Bearing Truth

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:12:42 +0000

Despite the many, many questions, your conclusion is too simple. Even at our best, we find ourselves conflicted and torn, faithless and betrayers. God is faithful to us even when our hearts and actions betray God. In that sense, faithfulness to the Story works both ways.

¿Cómo Say What? : A Crazy Line in the Sand

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:11:19 +0000

I confess I only know Dr Wood from a distance and from a few personal emails. And I also suspect there may be other forces involved. But the idea that there are homogenous beliefs in the AG on drinking or divorce/remarriage or homosexuality is laughable. To limit cooperation with other Christian groups which also have a diversity of beliefs seems contrived.

¿Cómo Say What? : tip-o-my-hat: AG women

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:24:43 +0000

Thanks, I hope you're being sarcastic :)

¿Cómo Say What? : A Crazy Line in the Sand

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:18:23 +0000

You\\\'re right, Qumran may have been better. Although the AG has a history of mass suicide...intellectual suicide

¿Cómo Say What? : The Presumptive Podcast: Episode 4.1

Thu, 8 Apr 2010 00:36:16 +0000

HA, this was my April Fool's joke! You know how many times you have to copy and paste to get 20 minutes worth of kitten cries?

¿Cómo Say What? : Practical Atheists and Health Care Reform

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:25:46 +0000

Thanks!

¿Cómo Say What? : The Socially Constructed Gospel

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:37:06 +0000

You're right, and it is an affront to many folks who believe in Absolute Truth. What I'm arguing for here isn't relativism, but, as you rightly say, contextualization.

BenLemery.com : My View: Tithing Is No Longer Relevant, Giving Is

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:39:20 +0000

The real question is: what is biblically mandated? Something can be biblical without being Christian (e.g. polygamy, stoning, inheritable clergy, etc). What's Christian is more than what's in the Bible. It's both historical and contextual. In some contexts tithing in support of paid clergy, in others maybe not.

¿Cómo Say What? : Christian? The Ontology of Movies, Mints, and Bible-guns.

Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:08:24 +0000

I'll add this, too. Here's what I think Pentecostals can bring to the table but what we too often miss. Speaking in "tongues" has to be a fluid thing, since language and meaning are always evolving. Of course, to evolve something must have a starting point, a root. BUT, the shared language of Christians and Jews is a slave narrative, a Diaspora people who, too often, find ourselves as the "powers." We have to constantly check to make sure that our "tongues" are spoken in the margins. And that's the evolution. That's why I struggle when people talk about the "traditional definition of marriage" or "we must have church on the Lord's day" or whatever. Fundamentally, the language of those folks has ceased to evolve, ceased to be constructive, ceased to be...Christian.

¿Cómo Say What? : Christian? The Ontology of Movies, Mints, and Bible-guns.

Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:46:07 +0000

Maybe a couple of things, most of which get you in trouble. Like what Jesus did with "Sabbath," a word that had become mostly a tool of oppression. Jesus and his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath; Jesus healed on the Sabbath. When confronted by the good folks who defined "Sabbath," he provided an alternative vision of what Sabbath meant, a definition rooted in the in-breaking rule of God (an eschatological vision) AND based on the struggles of the oppressed (the hungry and the sick). I don't know that there's some pattern we can follow (patterns seem too constrictive), but I'd say challenging power structures involves something(s) of the following: disassembling words/phrases, reassembling those words/phrases [with God's future in sight (eschatologically) but grounded in the stories of the oppressed], and pissing the powers off. The stories of the oppressed make us realists. And it's the part that pisses people off.