conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

"What is the importance of Iraq sustaining democracy?"

but maybe the more important question is why we are not trying to democratize other Arab states, principally Saudi Arabia, which is a monarchy. Does it have anything to do with the fact that SA has integrated into global capitalism (which means they don't have to become a democracy), but since Iraq has not integrated we must democratize them? (and the same might be said for latin america)

What comes first capitalism or democracy? or what is the goal of democracy in global capitalism?

"Christianize"??? If "we" do, I'm leaving for Canada posthaste. The U.S. is not a Christian nation, and is not in the business of spreading any religion anywhere.

I agree with you Megan, but there are several million Baptists (and Misouri Synod Lutherans...others?) would would disagree with you. But you know this.

I just hear the whispering on the winds in conservative evangelical Baptist circles that Christianity must be spread in Iraq. I think this would be a horrific thing to do to Iraq at this point. It is arrogant to suggest that Christ is not there and that the church is not present.

But I am afraid it might...and W being in office makes that attitude even more plausable.

Well, if the Synods and Conventions want to go after it, I have much less trouble with that -- though I think they have some serious homework to do before they can responsibly make that decision.

But when the first federal dollar is spent on such an effort, I suddenly have a HUGE PROBLEM.

This is why I worry about the government giving money to support church based not-for-profits. I assume that there is some stipulation that missionary (in the classical sense) activities will not be included in the list of things the government can support. But then again, who knows. Everything has turned upseide down of late.

Acknowledgement: Christianity has been and is present in Iraq.
Acknowledgement: Iraqi Christians are a distinct minority.

Query: What in the world would be wrong with bringing the Gospel to non-Christian Iraqi's?

We can of course legitimately dispute the role of government in such proselytization. We can also insist that present and future missionary efforts recognize and cooperate with the Iraqi Christian bodies already there.

But to wring our hands over the advancement of the Gospel in Iraq?

Color me plussed.

well, nothing is wrong with it Cliff as long as it is not a thinly veiled attempt at making Iraqis "American."

I may be reactive here, but the SBC version of mission is to make everyone an American since this is God's New Jerusalem.

Color me reactionary.

It all depends on who the "we" is.

As I said above, if "we" denotes the U.S. as a nation, then evangelism is most definitely outside the scope of what the U.S. government is empowered by its constituents to do.

If "we" denotes American Christians, not acting as a governmental force and not funded by the government, then it may still be misguided but it's not the ethical problem (in my view) that the other represents.

Reactive Tripp, my brother:

I think it fair to say that most SBC Christians do not want to make Iraqis Americans, so much as they want to make them Christian.

I know some SBC Christians (to start with: my aunt, uncle, and my dad), and they don't fit your profile. And going back to the other SBC Christians I know don't fit that either.

Seems like we have a self-loathing closeted SBC Christian on our hands! ;-)

Yeah...I know.

I also know that the SBC sent missionaries to Chicago to attempt to convert Jews, Muslims, Hindus and, yes, Catholics. So, somewhere between the two is the truth.

Have you read The Poisonwood Bible? It is interesting.

Sort of. I listend to it on tape on one road trip with Anna (BS--"Before Sofie").

But the SBC folks weren't trying to make their putative proselytes "Americans." That's all I was trying to say.

Are SBC missionaries often misguided in trying to "convert" Catholics and Orthodox? Heck yeah! That's a whole 'nother thing, though.

I am up to my cerebral eyeballs in this liturgical enculturation/inculturation thing and am hypersensitive to how Western culture has been part and parcel of missionary work...like music, architecture etc.

Yes, this a complicated thing. But Empirialism (sp) has its attraction and America is certainly within that spectrum of late...and I am fearful that the SBC, and even my own ABC, is falling prey to that conflation.

This is also cool...

http://www.thefellowship.info/News/040304sightings.icm

Tripp:

But this assumes that there is some sort of acultural thing called non-embodied Christianity. Anytime the Gospel is preached it is enculturated. I would suggest that while we would need be careful of asserting that a particular enculturation of the Gospel is the Gospel, by the same token, one cannot but have an enculturated Gospel. To assume otherwise is pure Enlightenment fiction.

In fact, I would go further and suggest that one should quite explicitly and consciously seek to own one's enculturated Gospel. Which implies that said Gospel is going to also be enculturated into the receiving group. One cannot but end up mixing cultures in that scenario. But at the same time, the longer the Gospel is lived in a particular culture, the greater is the opportunity for that Gospel to both be enculturated and to transform that culture.

I will go even further and suggest that for Christians to have swallowed the Enlightenment fiction that there is a culture-less Gospel has paved the way for the separation of the church from U. S. culture and led, in fact, to the secularization of much of U. S. church life.

Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Yes, incarnational theology demands a cultural expression of faith. Certainly so. But does this mean that I should be singing only gregorian chant or music published by Maranatha! simply because these are the musical traditions of those who brought me into the church? By no means. To demand that the convert take "Christian names" like William or Robert and not the names of their culture is scandalous. This has certainly been the crime of the State Church of England. This is cultural railroading.

It is as if you were told at your (possibly) upcomming chrismation to change your name to Basil because Clifton is not Orthodox enough.

This is but one of many example of how culture can consume Christianity. This is a complaint many have of the American situation. Can you distinguish the church from a country club? You should be able to. But it is oft difficult. Why? Because "country club" culture has connsumed Christianity.

Christianity is more than redefined first century Hellenized Judaism. Yes. But it has not found its fruition in 21st century Americanism.

Tripp:

I think we agree on you main points, though would give different reasons for it. I suggest that the reason Christianity has not found its embodiment in 21st cent. U. S. is due to the attempt at a "universalized" Christianity shorn of its incarnation in U. S. culture. In light of that, the Gospel must first be counter-cultural in its embodiment, so that it can, as it is intended to, transform a consumerist essentially pagan culture into a Christian one.

Re: naming. You misunderstand the tradition, I think. I will indeed be encouraged to take on the name of a saint--essentially a patron whose intercessions I will ask daily--and, in fact, I already have them: Benedict Seraphim. But this is not a cancellation of my own person, identity, or, indeed, my own name. Some Orthodox converts do choose to be called by their chrismation name; in fact, a fellow grad student, formerly at Loyola, insisted on being called, as it turns out, Basil. But this is not uniform. Indeed, cradle Orthodox are often given saints names as their baptismal and legal name, so that their identity and person are marked from birth (and before) onward by the saint who is their patron.

The taking of saints' names is very much an enculturation of the Gospel, especially as a nation "grows" her own saints, their names--frequently biblical ones, or saints' names from antiquity, and therefore in some sense "super-national"--then becoming a nation's own set of holy names.

This is why, as an aside, there are so many who long for the canonization of Fr. Seraphim Rose. Though his name is, in its nearest incarnation, a Russian one (Seraphim of Sarov), through Fr. Rose, the name becomes American.

Regarding music tones. The great thing about my wannabe adopted faith (Orthodoxy) is that a) it has a canonical eight musical tones (with endless variations), but b) those tones get incarnated/adapted in a particular culture. Russian tones are not quite the same as Byzantine (Greek) ones nor the same as Antiochian (Syrian) ones. Yet the enculturation is not so drastically different that it is unrecognizable. It's the same Gospel in different dress.

You misunderstand me.

In Africa, for example, coverts were told to leave behind their pagan name and take a good Christian name like "William" or "Robert." They were told that their entire culture was ucivilized and heathen, so let's rename you. So, for example, the Anglican Church in Ghana worships in 16th cetury English, uses hymns from the period, dress from the period. You are not being asked to leave your pagan ways, change your name, dress and leave your entire culture behind.

If you are, I'll take the DVD collection. ;-)

So, there is a huge difference. Adopting a siant's name is not what I am talking about.

Charles Holdbrooke wrote an interesting master's thesis on inculturation in Ghana that you might enjoy. I have a "bootleg" copy if you are interested.

Tripp:

"You are not being asked to leave your pagan ways, change your name, dress and leave your entire culture behind."

Really? You may want to talk to Fr. Patrick about that. (Okay, I'll give you the name stuff.)

Looks like I keep my DVDs.

Tripp:

P.S.

I think it safe to say, you are talking about one sort of evangelism, and I, another. Take a look at the history of Orthodox missions, and I think you'll see that the abuses you name were far less evident. (Which is not to say they were nonexistent.)

Tripp:

P.P.S.

Of course, we would have to come to grips with two things a) a definition of "abuse" and b) an acknowledgement that some cultural ways are pagan and are to be exorcised (female circumcision, say?).

There are differig forms of evangelism, which is my point.

and there are pracitices in all cultures that are non-Christian. We is a bunch of sinneres after all.

You sure about the DVD's?

DVD surety?

Oh, yes. Most certainly.

Shall I break it down for you?