That Quote I Read in Class Today

The glory of provocative quotes is that they stick in your mind. And maybe because I read it, it has stayed with me for the rest of the day. Here is the quote:

• “A psychotherapy which suggested that the knowledge that we gain of ourselves in the psychotherapeutic relationship is itself what makes us whole human beings would perhaps be a genuine Gnosticism in a contemporary form. It would have substituted self-knowledge for God’s redemptive initiative in Christ.” (Bergquist in Heresies and How to Avoid Them, 111-112)

Here is what I think... I think that the evangelical or even just the Western Church in general has gnostic tendencies especially in the latter half of the 20th century (as we were all growing up in the church--or in the culture at large). This has resulted in a church culture that undervalues the psychological health (and even, at times, the physical health) of its members to such a degree that to appear 'spiritual' is to trump any kind of psychological maturity. Another way to say this is that psychological health--and along with that relational health, etc.--has often been thought to be a 'spiritual' weakness or even disease. Spirituality has often been separated from relation maturity, relational honesty and relational accountability, thus make our discipleship models very gnostic.

If you pray this prayer, you sins will be forgiven and forgotten (rather than forgiven and then redeemed through maturity). If you just memorize these verses, you will become spiritually mature (rather than dealing with the crap as you memorize those verses).

What I am trying to say is that it can happen that the material reality of our lives can be undermined and separated from our 'spiritual lives' as if the whole of our everyday existence is not a part of our spiritual life. That, in my estimation, is gnostic.

All in all, we need a balanced model. And that is why you are in this class and at this school. What is your model of the spiritual life and how does it incorporate psychological and relational health?

Peace,

Chelle

Pub Quiz on December 1st

I sent out an email earlier today, but I wanted to put up this announcement in several places. Hopefully you will all get this message.

I have changed the reading for the pub quiz. More specifically, I have cut three chapters from from the required reading. The quiz will cover: the prologue and chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 12.

Happy Thanksgiving!
-Chelle

A Poem about Mary

MARY OF NAZARETH

by Patrica Clemens Repikoff

I am mystery,

rebel,

mother,

refugee,

a voice crying out compassion

in the face of cruelty,

human misery.

I am Mary of Nazareth,

I sing my reckless trust,

my ache,

confusion.

Mine are the dirges any mother sings

whose child is cut

down too young.

I sing

of dashed dreams

that turned to diamonds.

I was young and hopeful,

the future danced in my eyes!

I always had a wild streak

(some said

I was a rebel),

My head uncovered,

my hair flying,

I ran

through the streets

with friends.

My voice carried

loudest

they said.

I did not always

heed the Law,

or my parents,

or anyone else.

I sometimes spoke

out.

I asked the why of things.

I was silenced.,

but never

for long,

because

a restlessness ran through me.

It seemed I wanted more from life

than most.

The longing wouldn’t go away.

They hoped that Joseph would

tame my restless spirit

with domestic dreams, a family future

I accepted,

but secretly,

I tucked away

my restlessness

in the corner of my heart

far from

the eyes of anyone.

Yet, God spied my hidden treasure, and smiling,

asked if I’d dare bring

that MORE in me to life,

new life,

for all like me

who dream for more than Law.

I swallowed hard, but

I

said

YES!

I surrendered to birth

a bigger dream

than hearts could capture then.

I said YES

to birthing MYSTERY

midst the darkness.

My YES blasted walls

of Law and custom.

It brought talk,

sniping,

pointing fingers,

stones,

as I walked

pregnant with MYSTERY,

God’s dream.

I remember…

that dark night,

NO’S

slamming in my face,

locked doors,

far from family,

my body bursting

I gave birth

to MYSTERY shining

on a bed of straw

midst blood and tears,

beggar’s breath,

shepherd’s sighs.

Yes, I remember…

hot sand, night chills,

running, foreign lands,

fleeing, strange streets,

fugitives, Herod’s cold cruelty.

But, I do remember warmer days,

watching my boy grow.

I saw myself in him.

I wondered who he might become.

I loved his fire,

his integrity, his joy.

And as he grew, I saw

his YES,

His YES to God and

no one else!

I was afraid.

Mother love could not last longer.

He was a young man

with the future in his eyes, and

compassion in his arms!

I let him go.

I let him go into his YES,

into streets,

salons,

and synagogues,

open arms of prostitutes and beggars, and

Into the slippery hands of hypocrites!

I am a martyr’s mother.

I let him go into his YES.

I let him go into God’s arms.

GOD’S ARMS BECAME A CROSS!

And my YES

hung limp

on the tree—

a last

lifeless

leaf.

I cried all martyrs’ mothers’ tears.

I wailed the death of dreams and hoping.

I moaned my flesh and blood

martyr-child snatched

too young

from the nest!

WHERE ARE YOU NOW GOD?

WHO ARE YOU

TO LET GO OF

YOUR PEARL

SO EASILY?

WHAT KIND OF CRUEL GOD

ARE YOU

THAT SNUFFS OUT

YOUR OWN DREAM?

HE GAVE YOU EVERYTHING,

YOU GAVE HIM DEATH!

SCORPIONS!

SNAKES!

YOU GAVE US STONES, NOT BREAD!

But, I remember…

how there was new

breath

and wind

and blessing.

how God

breathed

into our empty.

Death couldn’t hide,

Death couldn’t hold our YES!

YES! there was breath

and bread

and blessing!

YES! An empty tomb! YES!

bread broken and blessed on a road! YES!

ARMS OPENED

AND HEARTS BURNING

WITHIN US! YES!

There is breath

and wind

and blessing! YES!

He lives!

among us!

I birthed a bigger dream

more than our hearts

could contain,

more truth than death’s arms could bear!

Dreams lie waiting hidden

in you hearts to be born again

carried to all who long like us for MORE.

My sisters, my brothers,

carry them, bear them.

Bring them to YES!

Bring them to birth

midst the darkness!

By Patricia Clemens Repikoff

From DASHED DREAMS AND DIAMOND

Guest Speaker in Class: Dr. Andy McCoy

This week in class we will have a guest speaker. His lecture will be the first of three lectures that he will give at the school this week on text.soul.culture.

Andy is a graduate of mhgs, with a MACP. He then went on to do a Ph.D. in Theology at the University of St. Andrews, where I did my post-graduate work. We overlapped a year in that little town on the shores of the North Sea. I look forward to hearing Andy this week. I hope you will enjoy his take on the integration of theology and psychology. He is the first of our alumni lectures series speakers. Very exciting!

Description of Lecture:

MHGS believes that Christian faith is a call to transforming worship of God amidst the interplay of text, soul and culture. But what does it truly mean to worship God in a suffering world and how does that affect the work of all who would be activists for the Gospel of Christ? This lecture series will offer theological reflection on each of the three MHGS themes in light of biblical lament as both a human response to suffering and a human response of worship. I will propose that lament shapes our relationship with God and others by bringing honest expression of pain into the context of our expectations about God's redemption of creation through Christ.

A Great Quote from LaCugna

Here is an important quote from Cathrine LaCugna's book, God For Us. (Did you know that she was a graduate of Seattle University?) I have mentioned this quote a number of times in class but I have never had it in front of me. I recently found it again, so here it is. In this passage, LaCugna is looking at the doctrine of the Trinity from an Eastern Orthodox position. She points out that Orthodox theologians emphasize that the Trinity is a communion of equals with no subordination, yet maintaining a relational structure. As she is highlighting the benefits of this understanding of equality in relationality, she simultaneously critiques the lack of ethical follow-up within the Orthodox tradition.

"Orthodox theolgoians seem entirely unaware of the ideological abuses of personhood with respect to women, or the poor, or other marginalized groups. There is no critique of heirarchical social or ecclesial structures. Much feminist literature has been devoted to exposing the oppressive 'doublespeak' contained in the reasoning that 'men and women are equal but different; God has endowed them with different places in the economy of redemption; every household needs a head and this role properly belongs to the man; this does not make the woman inferior.'"

And here is the key sentence:

"The strongest possible defense against sexism is indeed to argue ontologically, as feminist and liberation theologians have done, that the being of God is utterly antithetical to every kind of subordination and subservience." (God For Us, 287)

She continues by saying that eschatological hope and transformation are no excuse for allowing injustice to remain, because their theology calls for a different ordered structure for the church and society: that their trinitarian theology "calls for the transformation of persons and institutions in the present, precisely because unjust structures or practices obstruct grace and delay the reign of God." (288)

And here we see the heart of LaCugna's theological vision, that God's very being calls for justice, mercy and equality on every level of society, family and culture.

Unfortunately, LaCugna died of cancer at a fairly young age. We will never know the theology of her mature years, and for that we are theologically impoverished.

Peace,
Chelle

My New Book, Or Shameless Self Promotion

I have a book. Well, I am one of 5 authors. We are a diverse crowd: gender, race, theological passion, denomination, doctrine, etc. What unifies us is a love for the church and a love/hate relationship with the movement called E/evangelicalism.

Most of the authors met at the Lausanne Conference in Malaysia. (I'm the only one that didn't go...) On the way home from the conference a few of them asked the question, "Do I want to be an evangelical?" Out of this came a set of articles in The Other Journal dedicated to this question: Earth to Christians. Mark Russell, one of the original crowd, thought that this conversation would be a good book, so voila! here is the fruit of this original question.

I guess we all want to remain evangelical, in one way or another, because we spent the time writing this book. We even got together for a writing a few summers ago in order to all talk face to face about our chapters and our visions for the future of evangelicalism. It was a good time, though very tiring. We laughed a lot, cried a bit and, from time to time, fought passionately about our ideas. We, for the most part, agreed about the need for more conversation and flexibility within the tradition. We also agreed that the church needs a more robust understanding of God as Trinity and we need to live in the world in an attitude of humility and love of neighbor. What we disagreed about were the specifics of how this happens within the community of the people of God. But conversation is a very good place to start. Conversation about our passions, our difference and our commonalities (especially our love for God and God's love for us) is a vital key for creating community. If evangelicalism it going to not only survive but also thrive and flourish, then broader and more open conversation is needed to establish trust in the ranks. I tend to think that God is really the answer to all the questions but we are a diverse and creative people. Because of this, we are all called to take part in the formation of the church, the 'how' of this call on our lives to be the people of God.

The authors are Allen Yeh (he teaches at Biola), Michelle Sanchez (she is a pastor in Boston), Mark Russell (a missiologist, who writes and teaches about micro-finance in the two-thirds world and how business and missions can work together to help two-thirds world economies), our own Dwight Friesen (who teaches here at Mars Hill Graduate School) and me, Chelle.

What did I write about in my two chapters? Worship and the Holy Spirit. Ahhh, for a really robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit within our understanding of the workings of the church!

So, look out for Routes and Radishes: and other things to talk about at the evangelical crossroads, Zondervan, 2010.

I for one benefited from conversing with this small group of theologians and pastors. Who are you talking to about these issues?

Peace,
Chelle

Christopher Hitchens

Since we watched a video last week with Richard Dawkins, I thought (via Sonny M.) that you might be interested in hearing from the author of God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens. He has some interesting things to say.

• Christopher Hitchens interview with Charlie Rose

Let me know what you think!

-Chelle

PS Thanks Sonny for the link.

Citation Information and An Inspirational Quote

It has been brought to my attention that there is not adequate information given for two lectures in the 'suggested readings' folder. As some of you are using the Jensen lectures (by the way, his last name is Jenson, not Jensen...sorry about that. Not sure how that happened.), here is how you should cite the lectures:

• Matt Jenson, "Humanity" or "Sin", Unpublished lecture delivered at MHGS on October 18th, 2008.

If you liked his lectures, check out his book, The Gravity of Sin. There is a copy in the library.



Now, a little inspiration for all you writers, from Henri Nouwen's Theological Ideas in Education:

Most students...feel that they must first have something to say before they can put it down on paper. For them writing is little more than recording a preexistent thought. But...writing is a process in which we discover what lives in us. The writing itself reveals what is alive.

In another place he writes:

The deepest satisfaction of writing is precisely that it opens up new spaces within us of which we were not aware before we started to write. To write is to embark on a journey whose final destination we do not know....Writing is like giving away the few loaves and fishes one has, in trust that they will multiply in the giving. Once we dare to "give away" on paper the few thoughts that come to us, we start discovering how much is hidden underneath...and gradually come in touch with our own riches.

Hope your writing is going well! And may you indeed come in touch with your own riches!!

-Chelle

Due Dates

Just a reminder that Research Papers (and Creative Papers/Projects) are due on Monday November 29th by 4:30PM.

If you want to do a presentation of your creative project, you will need to come and talk with me. You may need to turn it in a week earlier...

Alvin Plantinga

While I was attending the University of St. Andrews, Alvin Plantinga came to deliver the Gifford lectures. The Gifford lectures are meant to explore issues around science, faith and natural theology.

In his lectures, Plantinga argued that evolution and Christianity are not necessarily contradictory. Instead, it is natural philosophy that is antithetical to the Christian narrative of creation. Natural philosophy, or evolutionary naturalism, holds that there is nothing 'supernatural' because there is only the material world, nothing else exists.

His central argument was about how naturalism's statement of evolution actually undermines itself. Evolution, in Plantinga's logic, is an 'epistemic defeater' for naturalism. Naturalism holds that our basic tendency as developing animals is geared toward survival ('feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing'). Our human faculties are part of this development. If we really are surviving animals rather than believing or truth seeking animals, then, he argues, that those same faculties cannot be relied upon for any kind of truth claim, including naturalism or evolution. To believe in the reliability of our faculties would be a 'metaphysical add-on' to the evolutionary naturalism position. On the other hand, if we are creatures created by God (in God's image), even if by an evolutionary process, we would have warrant to trust our faculties with regard to belief in God and other broader truth claims (even those of science).

Since I am not a philosopher of religion, I will not explain this further, if I have really explained Plantinga's arguments with any clarity at all! I just wanted you to know that people of faith are thinking about these things, even if we intellectual peons do not really understand it all...

Cosmologies and Creation

I want to take a moment to articulate a few various worldviews or cosmologies:

First we will look to Plato. Plato assumed three eternal categories. The first is ‘form’, or the ‘model’. This category is typically referred to as ‘the forms’ or the ‘ideas’. Plato’s second eternal category is the ‘receptacle’, or unformed, shapeless and chaotic ‘matter’. The third category is the demiurge or the divinity “who does not create but shapes that which is of equal eternity with him.”[1] Thus, in the platonic worldview, the demiurge takes the shapeless and chaotic matter and creates the world according to the eternal forms. Everything is eternal. Creation (or the world we live in) is a reproduction or a representation of the eternal forms or ideas. Everything around us, including ourselves, is categorically lower or even denigrated in comparison with the eternal forms. All we have to do is think about his allegory of the cave to understand this separation of ourselves from the forms. (We can only see the shadows, not the forms/ideas themselves.) From this comes a dualism that prioritizes the non-material (or ‘spiritual’) over the material.

In a Christian worldview, God alone is eternal: always was and always will be. God creates ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing). There is nothing co-existent with God and creation comes about from nothing outside of God’s abundant and loving creative activity. The duality set up in this worldview is that of Creator and created. There are no beings that mediate between the Creator God and the created order. As Basil puts it, there is an ontological homogeneity of the creation, for all things are, on an equal footing, created by God. There is distinction and variety of being rather than a hierarchy of being in this way of thinking. There is God’s reality and there is created reality; and these exist simultaneously without competition.

There is one more worldview that should be mentioned in this context, that of Plotinus or neoplatonism. In this worldview, there is one eternal category: the One, which is the source of all being. From the One flows all life, much like a fountain overflowing downwards. The farther “up” the fountain one was in this flow of being, the more divine, the farther down, the less divine. A number of heretical formulations of Christology, such as Gnosticism and Arianism, are really just variations of this hierarchical worldview. Gunton asserts that

Neoplatonism…held that reality formed a hierarchy or ladder, by climbing which it was possible to ascend to divinity. Thus one ascends through matter via higher forms of being like mind to the divine. This doctrine presupposed a fundamental dualism between the material or sensible and the spiritual or intellectual. It also presupposed the inferiority of matter to mind.[2]

This way of thinking has a huge impact on the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. How can God really come into space and time if the material world is inherently worthless or even evil? As Gunton argues:

If God in his Son takes to himself the reality of human flesh, then nothing created, and certainly nothing material, can be downgraded to unreality, semi-reality or treated as fundamentally evil.[3]

Also, how we construe the reality of the world around us shapes, in significant ways, our philosophy of the material of the world. If matter is necessarily imperfect or evil, why should we invest our lives and talents in the material world? Why should we work for peace or the good of all? If ‘spirit’, the ‘intellect’ or the ‘mind’ are really more ‘divine’, then, we can assume, we should spend our energies developing those human characteristics. Or, if this life and its materiality are really inherently flawed, then we should spend our energies evangelizing so that we can have a good afterlife somewhere else (i.e., heaven).

Instead, we are searching for a worldview that upholds the goodness of creation. God makes good. God declared the material order ‘good’. Thus, we are brought back to a more helpful duality that we want to develop: that of Creator and created. And, we want to somehow leave behind a hierarchical construal of reality; although this duality lies heavily within our language.

---

[1] Gunton, Triune Creator [TC], 3 & 31. See Plato’s Timaeus.
[2] Obviously, this is a much more complicated concept. I am thinking about musical space here as a model for distinct yet simultaneous space. The triune Creator is not in competition with the creation. God is in relation, and does not have to be either completely immersed within the created order (immanentism; pantheism; panentheism) or absolutely other (deism). It is very difficult to hold together the concepts of particularity and oneness (unity); or of individuation and universality. Unity and diversity are concepts that are often construed as mutually exclusive rather than as mutually constitutive.
[3] Gunton, TC, 71.
[4] Gunton, TC, 52.

Sex and the Church

Many of you have indicated an interest in thinking theologically about sex and the body, so I thought that I would share a recent article by the Anglican theologian, Sarah Coakley. She is currently working on a new book (the first of her systematic theology!) entitled, God, Sexuality and the Self: an essay on the Trinity. I bet you would read a theology book with that title!

• "Rethinking the Sex Crises in Catholic and Anglican Churches," by Sarah Coakley

If you read the article, let me know what you think.

Peace,
Chelle

Mary Daly

Here is Mary Daly. I wish I knew the story behind this picture! It cracks me up.

Today in class, we are going to talk briefly about Mary Daly. She was always a controversial character, as she challenged the misogyny of the Catholic Church from the halls of a Catholic institution, Boston College.

As I was researching today, I found out that she had died earlier this year. Regardless of your thoughts about her as a feminist, or her claim that she was 'post-Christian', she remains an important voice to read and consider. She came to speak at my college when I was taking feminist theology. I disagreed with so much of what she said, but she motivated me to think and study.

Professor Daly, great spinster of theology and philosophy. Thank you for stirring us up and inspiring us to re-imagine a non-misogynistic world.

The Filioque

Toby Guise Protesting in London

So, what is the big deal about the filioque? What is the filioque? Well, it is the phrase that was added to the Nicene/Constantinople Creed at the third Council of Toledo (589). Originally it was stated that the Spirit proceeded from the Father. At Toledo the phrase "and the son" was added to this. In this way, the doctrine of the Spirit was changed. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Why is this important? Well, it split the church from East and West in the 11th century. The Eastern Orthodox Church only says "from the Father" while the Roman (Western) Church says "from the Father and the Son".

The Pope was recently in Britain. The picture above is of one lone protester. (Here is a link to the story.) His hope was not for controversy but instead for conversation and unity. We should be talking about these doctrinal differences instead of always being divided over them. Let's have another ecumenical council. It has been over a 1,000 years!

I don't know, somehow this make me smile!

What We Listened to in Class: Thomas Tallis

A few of you have asked about the choral piece that I played at the end of class on Wednesday. It is "Spem in Alium" by Thomas Tallis (c. 1570). Here is what Jeremy Begbie has to say about this piece: "Here forty different voices weave their way in and through each other…. Despite the sonic profusion, it never sounds ‘jammed’ or crowed. There is multiplicity without dissipation, togetherness without mutual overwhelming, each voice being enabled to become more fully itself: ‘As though being ourselves we’re more capacious.’" (Jeremy Begbie, "Through Music: Sound Mix," in Beholding the Glory, InterVarsity Press, 2000, 152.) Thanks, Jeremy. Great description!

Here is what they are singing:
I have never put my hope in another
except in you, God of Israel,
who will be angry yet become gracious.
And all the sins of man
in suffering you forgive.
Lord God, creator of heaven and earth:
look on our humility.

Here is a link to the King Singers singing Tallis's Spem in Alium. It is fun because you can see the vocalists in the eight different choirs, singing all 40 parts. Well, you'll see...

For All Those Football Fans

Here's a little shout out to all those football fans at the beginning of the season. Who says theology doesn't apply to just about any area of life!?! How would you articulate your theology of football?

Enjoy!

Early Trinitarian Sources

Here are some of the earliest references to the Trinity:

Theophilus of Antioch (180 AD), in his To Autolycus, discusses the shape of God's creative activity as Father, Logos and Sophia. Here is a quote:

• "He is God, who heals and gives life through Logos and Sophia. God made everything through Logos and Sophia, but by his Logos the heavens were made firm and by his Spirit all their power [Ps 32:6]." Theolophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, tr. by Robert M. Grant, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1970, I.7.
  

In another place, he says:

• "the three days prior to the luminaries are types of the triad of God and his Logos and his Sophia. In the forth place is man, who is in need of light--so that there might be God, Logos, Sophia, Man." (the footnote to this: "This 'triad' is not precisely the Trinity, since in Theolophilus' mind man can be added to it.") Theolophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, tr. by Robert M. Grant, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1970, II.15.
  

Though this is not a perfect articulation of trinitarian theology, you can see how Theolophilus is attempting to put words and concepts to something that was already believed in early Christendom.

Another source of early trinitarian thought is Irenaeus of Lyon (125-203). He also talks about God creating through the Logos and Wisdom (Sophia), but more specifically talks about the Son and the Holy Spirit as the two hands of the Father:

• "It was not angels...who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things..." Ireneaus, "Against Heresies," in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Eerdmans, 1996, Book IV: chapter XX.1.

I hope this helps. If anyone wants to pursue other sources, let me know.

Peace,
Chelle

How Do We Listen?

Many of you have expressed an interest to learn more about contextual theology. My interest in this kind of contextual or critical theology stems from a desire to learn to listen. Often this means that I have to set aside my preconceived ideas (as much as I can at any given moment) and learn to hear what others have to say or to offer. Sometimes I feel threatened, sometimes I simply disagree. The challenge is to hear what others are actually saying, not to project onto others what I think they are saying from my preconceived ways of knowing.

This is a dangerous proposition. Who knows what will happen? How will we change? Perhaps we will learn to hear differently? We might even be significantly transformed in the process?

All of this sounds very mysterious or even frightening, but I would like to offer a bit of inspiration to you for this pursuit of listening well--not only to "the other" but also to ourselves. (Aren't we all in this together?) To help us understand this from a different perspective I will turn to music, my old friend. The following video is a TED talk by Evelyn Glennie, one of the world's foremost percussionists. She is an amazing performer, as you will hear. She is also profoundly deaf. Every time I hear her talk about music, performance and the art of hearing/listening I am deeply moved. She teaches me about myself as she tells me about her own experience in the world. If you want to hear more from Glennie, check out the documentary, "Touch the Sound." (There is a copy in the library.)

So, how do you hear/listen?

Enjoy!
Chelle

Author of *The Shack* in Town Friday

I just wanted to let you know that Paul Young, the author of The Shack (which we are reading for class) will be in town Friday (tomorrow) September 10th. Here are the details:

Paul Young will be at First United Methodist Church near downtown Seattle at 1PM on Friday September 10th. This is a free event. Here is the link for more info.

If you go, let me know what you think.

-Chelle

John Cage's "Rules for Students and Teachers"

John Cage performing 4'33'' at a toy piano

John Cage was a composer whose life spanned most of the 20th century (1912-1992). He was influenced by composers such as Schoenberg, Messiaen and Boulez. He believed in creating compositional space in which musicians and audiences alike could participate in the creation of the music. Cage's style can be thought of as controlled chaos or chance music. For example, he was known to make decisions while he was composing by rolling dice. His most famous piece is 4'33'', which involves a performer with his or her instrument sitting silently for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. The purpose of this composition is to explore the sound in the room, the "what might happen" in any given period of time and space. It is about chance in the moment. (A friend of mine performed this piece in a recital. A few of us knew about the piece beforehand, so we brought stuff to throw at him. It was a bit cheeky of us!)

"Fontana Mix" a composition by Cage

Cage is also known for redefining notation, the visual language of music. You can see here an example of his charting of improvisation and preparation--controlled chaos. This can also be called 'aleatoric' music. Often performers are given suggested notes for a given amount of time and they then have to improvise with the material offered. Thus, the performance is just as much determined by the performer as it is by the composer.



Click here to read about a recent dance concert inspired by Cage, performed in a rock quarry. The stage was set up in the round with the dancers in the center and the 150 musicians seated around the outside. The craziest part was that each of the musicians had their own part to play, and each was improvising with a given set of musical ideas. The concert sounds like it was amazing. I wish I could have been there.

Here is John Cage performing one of his pieces, "Water Walk", on a 50's TV show. Fascinating! 



As you can see, his music requires a lot of participation and engagement by musicians and audiences alike. It is not just a matter of just learning notes, or listening to notes and sounds for that matter. Cage's music gives space for listening to others and responding to the whole, or simply for the chance of the moment (e.g., the laughter of a TV audience). Whether or not you like his music, that is a totally different conversation. Mostly, I like the concepts that he is promoting as an example of engagement and participation, even if his music is not really my (or your) cup of tea. 

With this in mind, here are the rules of engagement that I talked about in class. May we learn to play together this year!

John Cage's "Rules for Students and Teachers"

1. Find a place you trust, and then try trusting it for awhile. 
2. General duties of a student—pull everything out of your teacher; pull everything out of your fellow students. 
3. General duties of a teacher—pull everything out of your students. 
4. Consider everything an experiment. 
5. Be self-disciplined—this means finding someone wise or smart and choosing to follow them. To be disciplined is to follow in a good way. To be self-disciplined is to follow in a better way. 
6. Nothing is a mistake. There's no win and no fail, there's only make. 
7. The only rule is work. If you work it will lead to something. It's the people who do all of the work all of the time who eventually catch on to things. 
8. Don't try to create and analyze at the same time. They're different processes. 
9. Be happy whenever you can manage it. Enjoy yourself. It's lighter than you think. 
10. Break rules. Even your own rules. Leave plenty of room for X quantities.

"Mozart Mix" by John Cage

 

Welcome to Fall 2010!

Welcome to another year of Constructing the Theological Mosaic. I thought that I would start off the class blog with a few thoughts on why we should do theology:

    I believe that when we, as embodied human beings, experience the world around us, we tend to make certain assumptions about the world and begin to ask big questions. A few classic questions are: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “What is the meaning of life?” or another way to ask this is “What brings meaning to life?” “Who are these people around me and what is my relationship to them?” “What is the definition of family in such a fragmented and alienated culture?”

    These questions are inherently theological because they ask how we are in the world in relation to that which is not ourselves. In other words, is there anything beyond and/or outside of the individual self? And, if so, what is it?

    We all ask these questions. The problem is, if we don’t take the time to explore and examine our presuppositions, then we are left with half articulated beliefs that seem proper or correct in the moment but don't have real substance for the long haul called life. So, when life happens and we come to the end of our understanding, we tend to either turn to anger and frustration or to simply reject faith all together; especially faith represented by the established church. I think that this is amazingly characteristic of our contemporary culture. How do we respond to this within our culture? Or, more honestly, how do we respond to this within ourselves?

    Again, we can ask the question, "Why do theology?" Well, you are here at this graduate school doing a degree at this particular time and place. I assume that you are interested in theological questions or you would not be here because you would have gone to a different school. However, you are diverse in your goals. Some of you are counseling students, some are training to be pastors and some of you are not sure why you are here . (There is nothing wrong with not really knowing why you are doing a degree. That was me when I went to do my master's degree and now I'm teaching at a seminary. You never know where you'll end up!) In that context, the challenge of this class (which is my task as much as it is your task) is to learn to connect our/your individual questions about life, the universe and everything to the discipline and tradition of Christian theology.

    I would like to challenge you, to charge you with this task: work hard in this class to push your own questions outward in order to connect those personal questions to the wider tradition of theology. In the midst of this, it is OK to disagree with me, with one another and even yourself. (I saw a bumper sticker once that said: “Don’t believe everything you think.” It is a good philosophy when approaching theology!!)

    I believe that theology should be transformative and even life-giving. But, in my own story, it wasn’t until theology was connected to my own questions that I could even understand the broader theological questions. In fact, it wasn’t until I connected theology and music that I became a theologian. Throughout my theological journey, I have worked to connect my questions and my ways of thinking with the traditional questions. It was hard work. I’m still working hard, and that is why I am here at Mars Hill Graduate School teaching. I want to understand how theology connects with life, with us as individuals and how the hard work of individual exploration can connect us back to a wider community that transcends time and space: throughout the world and throughout history. When we sing, when we proclaim and profess, when we preach and when we laugh and cry with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, we do so with Christians throughout the ages and the world. We sing “Holy, holy, holy,” together in the broadest sense of that word.

    Therefore, as we start this class, we need to acknowledge that we are not the first people to ask the ultimate questions. We are also not the first ones to offer answers. It is the height of arrogance to say that we understand the relationship between God and the world better than those believers that lived 50, 150 or 1500 years ago. However, we do understand the world differently. We have a different context and a different Zeitgeist. But to answer these questions in isolation, ignoring the tradition, is naive at best. Despite our attempts to answer these questions in isolation, we should acknowledge that we all have inherited many assumptions and beliefs, often unexamined. In this class, with respect I hope, we will work to question, critique, explore and sometimes even answer these inherited presuppositions.

    So, why do theology? Because it hits us in the intimate places where we live. It shapes the way we are in the world with ourselves and with one another.

To the Task!

Chelle