Ruminations about hermeneutics, theology, theory, politics, ecclesiastical life… and exercise.
David Weinberger is a sweetheart, and he couldn’t have offered a more generous compliment.
This does not, however, mean that I’m married to Halley. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, if I weren’t already married to someone with whom I’m rapturously happy, and about whom I’m busting to brag, but I won’t, lest I mortify her unendurably.
Here’s a short thought, provoked by this post at Jenny’s blog.
When the publication/distribution profiteers paint themselves as the defenders of artists’ rights, they always frame the issue on the royalties of the individual artist, which that artist presumably loses when audiences share books, recordings, and so on. As Doc always reminds us (based on his appreciation of George Lakoff), the framing makes the big difference here.
That frame excludes from our field of deliberation a number of ways that restrictive copyright mechanisms harm not only the interests of acquisitive audiences, but also those of all artists. Most obviously, it’s a good thing for people to be able freely to enjoy the work of artists; though almost all artists, authors, et al., relish income and would like more of it, virtually all whom I know yearn for attention and appreciation also — and we can show that many are willing to trade off potential income for attention.
But that’s only the beginning. Artists (and from now on, I’ll just say “artists” as a shorthand for all who have a producer’s interest in reproducible works) have an interest in the freedom to compose works without anxiety over whether they’ll be inhibited or even prosecuted for transgressing on another’s alleged copyright. Artists have an interest in audiences having the freedom casually to become interested in their work — a freedom that DRM restrictions stifle. Artists have an interest in public goodwill, the sort of positive feelings that highly-restrictive copyright regimens erode (how interested will I be in paintings if I have to pay fifty cents for a two-minute glimpse of “Nude Descending a Staircase”?
Especially since the circumstances of production and reproduction have changed in fundamental ways, we need to reconfigure the ways that the public rewards artists — and the ways that the public experiences and shares artists’ works. That’s not only for the sake of audiences, but even and especially for artists, too.
We’re thinking about a redesign of Seabury’s website based on Moveable Type, and the question arises of whether to allow our design to encompass any pages not generated through the MT engine. The rationale for static pages (in the sense of “designed to be static,” not just “generated once at a rebuild rather than constructed on demand”) would be a greater degree of flexibility with regard to layout and content, and perhaps an easier transition from pages built under our present design schema; the downside would be that the MT search function would not be able to search the “static” pages, and that we’d have two modes of preparing data, one of which constitutes a near-total wild card for the page writer.
The more I think about it, the righter Micah’s advice on the topic sounds: All MT, every page. But I still want to think it over, to make sure I’m not missing some important angle.
By the way, I was this close to changing my Disseminary blog over to WordPress, of which I’ve gotten a generally favorable impression from an experimental site — but at the last minute we got MT 3 working over the smoking rubble of the old installation, and I have to say that the new version provides a very helpful approach to handling unwelcome commercial comments. I haven’t settled all the way in yet, but I like the transition so far.
I don’t begrudge anyone whom Marqui is sponsoring the opportunity to get paid a few pence. If Mitch or the Lemur or someone started rhapsodizing about the virtues of the new sponsor, I’d size up the tenor of their comments in the contest of what I’ve known about them over the long haul, and decide whether in this case my long-term online friends were shooting straight or shilling — but it’s their prerogative to decide whether to take the money, and theirs to decide what (if anything) they want to say about Marqui (about whose services, as of this writing, I know absolutely nothing except that Marc is consulting with them).
Nothing’s intrinsically sullied by bloggers getting paid. None of us is simon-pure to start with, and good-hearted bloggers with integrity don’t turn into soulless flacks just by receiving a check. Some bloggers sold out ages ago for the price of popularity; some A-listers can’t be spun no matter how much money they’re offered. Some Omega-listers couldn’t be corrupted for any price, and some have no integrity to sell in the first place. Those of us who never act on mixed motives can throw the first stones.
In the meantime, let’s stand down for a moment to see what happens when the cash starts flowing.
I’ve been invited to help out at the opening service of Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler; it’s an honor to share the ministry of those three wonderful colleagues. The thought of their project reminded me that an age or two ago — back before the weblog meltdown — someone called my attention to the discussion of [emergent] church and academy on Jonny Baker’s site. It’s a terrific thread, poking at the sore issue of how we might better prepare people to lead congregations in the contemporary world (of which a subsidiary issue involves the merits of academic training for clergy).
We’ve been through this before, here and here. The issue, however, merits our revisiting at intervals. Before I go on, though, I should admit that I’m both ordained and a card-carrying academic. Anything I say that inclines toward supporting the institutions of church or academy may be overdetermined by my financial vocational interest in the survival of those establishments. Further, I don’t construe most of what follows as a rebuttal of jonnybaker or any of the participants in the discussion there; I’ve been impressed by their generosity and patience in dealing with the topic.
Bearing that in mind, then, I agree with jonnybaker’s commenters that there’s a deep problem besetting theological education and church leadership. Critics typically characterize the problem as an academically-isolated theological magisterium trying to indoctrinate would-be leaders with a practically-useless corpus of ecclesiastical trivia — as opposed to an ideal world in which students learn about how things actually happen, how people come to love Jesus, what kind of spiritual guidance one should offer postmodern might-believers, and so on. There’s enough truth to that characterization to make it durable, but it conceals several pertinent aspects of the problem.
First, I know relatively few theology professors who aren’t at least trying to inculcate their subject areas in ways that would inform pastoral practice. Contrariwise, almost everyone I know in the field struggles yearly to devise better ways to aid students in recognizing the applicability of theology (history, biblical studies, ethics) to the work of mission and ministry. That doesn’t mean any of us succeeds, but at least we’re trying.
Second, the familiar criticism tends to reinforce stereotyped caricatures of theological education more than to resolve the persistent problems that we encounter. Anyone can pick on underfunded, overworked academics for concentrating on the dimension of their work that brings them joy and satisfaction; everyone will benefit more if we eschew demagoguery in favor of imagining possible solutions to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Third, some of the critique depends on the premise that we have a decent idea of how to teach the desired pastoral skills during a period of academic training — a premise whose soundness seems to be worth examining. I learned almost all my “practical” craft on the job, and I like it that way, so I’m probably not well-situated to judge various approaches to learning for ministry. Still, I have seen relatively few academically-based courses for the practice of ministry that can demonstrate consistent effectiveness (I say this from the secure vantage point of Seabury, which makes its successful practical ministry program one of its distinctive benefits).
Fourth, and I will probably repeat this till I reach my deathbed, far too many people preparing for ministry know far too little about the church they’re preparing to lead. The church does not, on the whole, demand very much preparation at all compared to the responsibilities its leaders bear and the wisdom and understanding that congregations expect. This isn’t a matter of intellectual elitism; electricians and steel workers undergo extensive training before they reach the most fully-credentialled level of their line of work. If church leaders presume to take on involvement with the souls of trusting congregants, they can jolly well learn a thing or two of what the church has ascertained beneficial for souls (and baneful).
I doubt that formal academic training on the model of the secular academy provides the most propitious venue for theological education. Margaret and I home-school our children, and I’d just as soon home-school seminarians. Reluctant as I am to treat maladaptive cultural formations as simply given, I don’t see a way for churches to back away from institutionalized clergy training. (If someone wants to support an effective alternative, they should by all means let me know.) The urgent issue, then, concerns how academic institutions best instruct and prepare students for ministry in non-academic settings.
A number of suggestions present themselves, but let me just throw out some starters in an unordered list:
Part of the difficulty with such notions is the change they would require of everyone involved; it’s just easier to expect little of church leaders, reward mediocrity, allow faculties to pontificate without edifying, and watch as the whole enterprise spins its wheels without any cultural traction.
The thread at jonnybaker’s shows people who care deeply about theology and its implications, though, as they wrestle with imagining how people who share their love for truth and for God’s people can grow in faith and understanding as they also prepare themselves for the peculiar work of helping congregations draw nearer to God. Perhaps we need to imagine and support “emergence” in our theological education along with our congregations.
Whatever that looks like, I can’t bring myself to expect that it involves deliberately forgoing a rich acquaintance with the wisdom of millennia of theological reflection. We are not better servants of God and neighbor for pretending that the Word of God began with us. We can absolutely do better by way of readying ourselves for ministry, and extant institutions tend to mask the shortcomings they impose on us. How do we, then, recuperate from modern dysfunctional models of education for ministry, without trying to erect a complex strcture beginning at the fifth floor, without strong foundations or support members?
I’m sure as can be that I’ve allowed my preservationist impulse to draw me away from a better response — but this is a start anyway.
A flurry of sites have pointed to the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) – 20 Best Neighborhoods in North America, to which I looked hopefully, only to discover that my life has been characterized by a pretty consistent absence from “best neighborhoods” (I’m hoping there isn’t a cause-and-effect relationship at work here). I’ve been to the East Village (#2) in passing, and I think I’ve seen Camden (#4), but I’m mostly a stranger to PPS’s most admirable spots in North America. I can still get acquainted with Oak Park, though, and Josiah aspires to relocate to Northfield.
And let’s not even talk about the best neighborhoods in the world.
I’ve looked a number of time for versions of Nietzsche online; the other day I stumbled onto The Nietzsche Channel, which even included a translation of my long-time favorite On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense. Now I’ll know where to look.
With generous help from Chris Whipple, I managed to get this blog back online, permalinked and commentable. I uploaded the posts from the last few weeks late last night — I’d only intended to upload one or two, but once I got started it was hard to stop — and now I’m trying MarsEdit’s remote posting feature.
A certain amount of hand-coding is fun and refreshing; it reminds me of how completely I’d come to rely on MarsEdit for entering material in my blog. Now I just have to resuscitate my CSS chops (meager as they ever were) to spruce up the templates to a more Disseminary-looking format again, and we’re off to the races.
As I warned readers, my response to Stan Hauerwas’s prospective commentary on Matthew addresses not a full-fledged Matthew commantary, but on a passage from his forthcoming books of reflections on the Seven Last Words of Christ, to be entitled The Christ-Shattered Cross. It was a weird exercise, but I gather that it turned out well. Here’s what I said:
Continue reading “Matthean Response”
It’s hard to believe that we could spend a busy theological-conference weekend without wrapping it up with a visit from Jenna, but I guess that’s one way San Antonio differs from Atlanta. This year, of course, Jeneane wouldn’t have needed to step outside for a breath of, ahem, cigarette smoke. We did think of Jenna when we went up and down in the elevator, though.
We also thought of her, and of Jeneane and George, when we heard that Diva had died. Nothing affects us in quite the same way as an animal friend’s death; I remember that one of the first crises my new neighborhood talked through online was the death of Tom Shugart’s cat. We’ll remember Diva here (though we never met her), and we’ll be thinking of the Sessums. Take care, and bless you, and Diva.
Back safely. The pick-up lanes outside O’Hare were a zoo. More tomorrow.
I don’t anticipate catching many wifi waves today, so I’ll just say that we’re looking forward to a lovely breakfast with two of our great friends (we’ll send an electronic call-out, Amy), wander around the conference center, perhaps pick up some last-minute books, get together with Jennnifer, and return home to the loving embrace of our wonderful family and friends. And sleep.
Because Margaret and I had both paid our debts to academia, we took today relatively easy. We slept late (for a conference day), ate a leisurely breakfast, spent the morning book-shopping (mostly for Margaret, whose need for print resources is greater than mine), and socializing. I had a lunch meeting with the representatives of Baylor University Press, who have committed themselves to the commentary series of which my James commentary will now form a part. The roster of potential contributors impressed me greatly — some old cronies and some highly-regarded colleagues — and Baylor reports that the commentaries they’ve printed so far have been extremely popular. Moreover, most of the participants caught a glimpse of what a tremendous effect our work can have for a coming generation of Greek students; it occurred to me that one way I could enhance the second edition of my Greek grammar would be to align its use of terminology and examples with the commentary series.
After lunch, I sat in on a small consultation on Ph.D. studies and how programs could and should change. The consultation paid special attention to the problem (at serious risk of growing worse) of the under-representation of scholars from non-dominant cultural groups among tenured faculy and especially on the faculties of advanced-degree-granting institutions. From there, I connected with Margaret again, and we heard some papers on theological interpretations of the Song of Songs. Thence we went to dinner, and from here we’re going to see The Incredibles together. . . .
Kevin pointed me to a pertinent review of The da Vinci Code in the Telegraph. Great summary: “Brown’s book is not garbage, it is garbage on stilts, hyper-garbage that invokes garbage in self-authentication.”
When I arried at the book display, yesterday, Margaret tipped me off that one of my articles has been published in a collection of essays on theological education and rhetoric. My original title was, “What Has Vincennes To Do With Jerusalem?” but the editor required me to demote that to a subtitle, in favor of the more explicit “Rhetoric, Postmodernism and Theological Education.” No mind; I still like the article, and it’s satisfying that it’s out and circulating now.
Later on, I ran into Mark Goodacre, and we conversed about life, work, and the world online. Then, before my response to Stanley Hauerwas, I saw one of my academic exemplars, Robert Morgan (now retired from Oxford). He has generously encouraged me when we’ve met in the past, and today again he offered some very kind positive words about my work and his regard for it.
My response was well received. I’ll type it up and post it before long.
The annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (and the American Association of Religion) has gotten off without a hitch, at least for Margaret and me. I got to the 7:30 breakfast meeting on time, but only by the sheerest chance did I arrive at the correct hotel (there are two Marriotts side by side, and the one to which I thought I was going, was not in fact the one toward which I should have been headed. Providentially, I went unawares to the hotel I did not intend to go to — thereby ending up at the hotel to which I should have been headed.
Now Margaret is giving her paper, the lead-off paper in the Bible and Christian Theology group, and she is cooking. Go, Margaret! She makes a case that Hans Frei’s “plain-sense” legacy to the theological interpretation of Scripture tends to occlude both human accountability for interpretations and the Holy Spirit’s role of guiding and extending the interpretive imagination — an eclipse that Henri de Lubac’s sympathetic account of medieval “spiritual” exegesis can remedy. Lewis Ayres follows Margaret’s paper with a lively argument that de Lubac’s assessment of spiritual exegesis depends on his account of the soul and its purification. Ann Astell is third, discussing de Lubac’s affinity for the work of Teilhard de Chardin. Steve Chapman of Duke gave the final presentation of the panel, observing de Lubac’s opprobrious remarks on Judaism and the theological status of the New Testament. Trent Poplun gave a response to all the papers; I thought he rather missed the point of Margaret’s paper, but he recouped some favor by quoting her appreciatively in his wrap-up remarks.
Arrived safely, registered, online, napping. Dinner later, then resting up for a big day tomorrow.
Waking up early this morning, I finished packing and set out to the airport where I successfully found my beloved Margaret (I thought I knew how much I missed her before I saw her — how foolish of me!), and we made our way to the departure gate. There we re-enacted the annual ritual; of meeting a sizable proportion of the theologians in the area. When we were in Princeton, we’d see all the Greater Philadelphia area; when in Florida, a much smaller gathering of Tampa/St. Pete scholars. Located in Chicago, in one of the highest concetrations of theological academics outside Rome, I’d guess, one sees the familiar faces of faculty colleagues from other institutions, year after year. This time, about a quarter of the Seabury faculty (John Dreibelbis, Paula Barker, and me) is on our flight, along with various other North Side, Hyde Park, and Western Suburbs scholars.
My response is coming along fine; I mostly have to balance the background information that give the response intelligibility with the actual criticism. Margaret’s paper will, of course, rock.
My full day today included working on my response to the Hauerwas paper, various appointments and errands, writing letters of recommendation (about which I try to be scrupulously honest and careful, so they take me ages), and the disputatio between the Augustinians and the Pelagians in my Early Church History course. The judge (in the center) added to the memorable quality of the event by wearing a real judicial wig — a first, in my class.
I’ve been asked to comment on Andrew’s post and Jonnybaker’s reponse about Emergent Church and the Renaissance and Reformation. I owe my emergent friends — or, more precisely, my friends in the emergent movement — careful enough attention that I can’t write that out just now, but I’ll take a look, maybe on the airplane tomorrow, and see what I see. Thanks for asking!