Friday, January 24, 2003
It is Friday morning and I have returned from the Theological Dialog. There are a few thoughts running through my head.
There is a sense that our emergent get togethers are like a Super Bowl Party or Halloween Party - the purpose is the party and not the game or the outfits.
We had an emergent party with Stanley Hauerwas, but the best part was the party. It is so good to be with smart, loving people who are practioners and theologians.
Thought two: We are top-notch theologians. I do not say that as a cocky thing, but just a realization that the thoughts and ways of thinking of the emergent community is true, significant theologically minded people with much to offer to each other.
We need to keep having opportunities to hear from one another.
I do have two significant thoughts in head from our time:
I need to some thinking about the very nature of holding to ethics. I want to be a person who has beliefs, which play out in particular practices, in certain situations. That seems to me to be different from holding an ethic by which I say, I am so in control of my life that I will dictate my actions in settings that I have not yet entered. So, in the case of Pacifism. I think it is enough for me to be a person who doesn't kill. To this point I am a pacifist, I have not killed, nor used force on people (other than in a few 10th grade brawls). So I am a person who does not kill. I have every intention of staying that way, but in the right situations other actions may be called for. I do not think this is situational ethics, well I guess it is. But it seems to be something better than that - It seems to be a wanting to be of faith, belief, conviction in practice. Not a belief that transcends all my settings.
I need to do more thinking on this because it seems right to me.
The second thought is also around pacifism. Pacifism (I need to say right now, that I really like the notion of being someone committed to non-violence, and am one, but there seems to be this next step in being a stated pacifist that I am wanting to give good thought to because it is such an important topic, it deserves good thinking) seems to be built on the idea that death is the greatest wrong and life is the greatest accomplishment. I am not saying that I do not value life, but there seems to be a way of thinking applied to physical force used in causing death that is not applied to other areas of importance.
Two years ago my wife and I adopted two boys, biological brothers, from Foster Care. They were taken from their parents for good cause by the county. Their parents had hurt them and were not good to them in very important ways. There were times when they were good to them and the boys still clearly love them.
All the pacifist I personally know who know of our situation believe that it was a good thing for us to adopt the boys and for them to be taken from hurtful parents. But, I want to compare that to the classic pacifist idea. If one holds that living is the most important thing, even more important than loving then one could conclude that it was not as bad to take the boys from their parents as to, say, kill their parents.
But as a parent I am not sure. I have thought on a number of occasions that I would rather die than have my children taken. There is something about our culture that says that life is the highest good, even if it is empty.
I wonder if there is not something more relationally violent about removing a parent from a child, then taking that person's life. I am wonder if a true pacifist would have to say that all kinds of violence should be avoided, for any purpose. It seems to me that life would be unlivable in that way. Stanley Hauerwas responded to a question at the emergent event by saying, "some times the innocent have to die in order for us to keep our convictions".
I am glad that way of thinking did not keep my boys in an abusive situation.
I need to think more on this as well.
I have to go, I have a bunch of stuff to do after being gone for nearly a week.
There is a sense that our emergent get togethers are like a Super Bowl Party or Halloween Party - the purpose is the party and not the game or the outfits.
We had an emergent party with Stanley Hauerwas, but the best part was the party. It is so good to be with smart, loving people who are practioners and theologians.
Thought two: We are top-notch theologians. I do not say that as a cocky thing, but just a realization that the thoughts and ways of thinking of the emergent community is true, significant theologically minded people with much to offer to each other.
We need to keep having opportunities to hear from one another.
I do have two significant thoughts in head from our time:
I need to some thinking about the very nature of holding to ethics. I want to be a person who has beliefs, which play out in particular practices, in certain situations. That seems to me to be different from holding an ethic by which I say, I am so in control of my life that I will dictate my actions in settings that I have not yet entered. So, in the case of Pacifism. I think it is enough for me to be a person who doesn't kill. To this point I am a pacifist, I have not killed, nor used force on people (other than in a few 10th grade brawls). So I am a person who does not kill. I have every intention of staying that way, but in the right situations other actions may be called for. I do not think this is situational ethics, well I guess it is. But it seems to be something better than that - It seems to be a wanting to be of faith, belief, conviction in practice. Not a belief that transcends all my settings.
I need to do more thinking on this because it seems right to me.
The second thought is also around pacifism. Pacifism (I need to say right now, that I really like the notion of being someone committed to non-violence, and am one, but there seems to be this next step in being a stated pacifist that I am wanting to give good thought to because it is such an important topic, it deserves good thinking) seems to be built on the idea that death is the greatest wrong and life is the greatest accomplishment. I am not saying that I do not value life, but there seems to be a way of thinking applied to physical force used in causing death that is not applied to other areas of importance.
Two years ago my wife and I adopted two boys, biological brothers, from Foster Care. They were taken from their parents for good cause by the county. Their parents had hurt them and were not good to them in very important ways. There were times when they were good to them and the boys still clearly love them.
All the pacifist I personally know who know of our situation believe that it was a good thing for us to adopt the boys and for them to be taken from hurtful parents. But, I want to compare that to the classic pacifist idea. If one holds that living is the most important thing, even more important than loving then one could conclude that it was not as bad to take the boys from their parents as to, say, kill their parents.
But as a parent I am not sure. I have thought on a number of occasions that I would rather die than have my children taken. There is something about our culture that says that life is the highest good, even if it is empty.
I wonder if there is not something more relationally violent about removing a parent from a child, then taking that person's life. I am wonder if a true pacifist would have to say that all kinds of violence should be avoided, for any purpose. It seems to me that life would be unlivable in that way. Stanley Hauerwas responded to a question at the emergent event by saying, "some times the innocent have to die in order for us to keep our convictions".
I am glad that way of thinking did not keep my boys in an abusive situation.
I need to think more on this as well.
I have to go, I have a bunch of stuff to do after being gone for nearly a week.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Me - there is a difference in loving our enemies and working to get our enemies to love us. This is the christian story versus the current popuar story.
he is asking if xn's could get themselves banned from the military like the gays.
He said, "how could the gays do something so moral they got themselves banned from the military"
he is moving between critiquing the church and american government - this is a flaw in his arguement, to me.
I want to ask him these questions:
You seem to hold the united states to the pacifist position that is uniquely a Christian position?
Do you think that there is a call to protect the innocent? And is it ever moral to use force to accomplish this?
He said, "how could the gays do something so moral they got themselves banned from the military"
he is moving between critiquing the church and american government - this is a flaw in his arguement, to me.
I want to ask him these questions:
You seem to hold the united states to the pacifist position that is uniquely a Christian position?
Do you think that there is a call to protect the innocent? And is it ever moral to use force to accomplish this?
Stanley is entering into night 2 - he is doing a tlak called, what I wanted to be said after september 11
I need to order "First Things" magazine
Stanley quit as part of the editors board due to an exchange around sept 11 - I wonder if he too easily quits things
He is giving good thoughts about his time speaking at US Air Force academy after sept 11 - he is giving them good credit for not wanting to be murderers.
The struggle around doing war in such a way that our enemies die and we don't. He is saying that there are many in the gov who debate over this.
I need to order "First Things" magazine
Stanley quit as part of the editors board due to an exchange around sept 11 - I wonder if he too easily quits things
He is giving good thoughts about his time speaking at US Air Force academy after sept 11 - he is giving them good credit for not wanting to be murderers.
The struggle around doing war in such a way that our enemies die and we don't. He is saying that there are many in the gov who debate over this.
It is now Tuesday. we are having a discussion about last night.
I am suggesting a critique of Stanley taking a view that Christians are their own culture, that is distinct from ourhost culture.
I am suggesting that christians are always bi, or multi-cultural. We are christian within a certain setting.
i jsut ran my anthropoligicial stuff about the what makes a culture - the way people think, what they value, and the tools and asthetics.
Christians do not have distinctiveness in all these areas - or even many of these areas.
I also suggested a critique of his use of "WE" when he speaks. Why does he think that he can speak for the christian we?
Micael Toy is decsonstrucing stanley's call of saying that our priests need to be trained to the level of the doctor, but doctoring can't be taught fully because it is an art, and then saying the expert is killing us.
I am suggesting a critique of Stanley taking a view that Christians are their own culture, that is distinct from ourhost culture.
I am suggesting that christians are always bi, or multi-cultural. We are christian within a certain setting.
i jsut ran my anthropoligicial stuff about the what makes a culture - the way people think, what they value, and the tools and asthetics.
Christians do not have distinctiveness in all these areas - or even many of these areas.
I also suggested a critique of his use of "WE" when he speaks. Why does he think that he can speak for the christian we?
Micael Toy is decsonstrucing stanley's call of saying that our priests need to be trained to the level of the doctor, but doctoring can't be taught fully because it is an art, and then saying the expert is killing us.
Monday, January 20, 2003
When was the last time we heard a sermon telling is that we are going to die and we need to prepare for it?
No wonder people go it alone.
The liturgy helps us with the language of life and death.
He is ussgesting an "Us" in the sharing of our illness. I think he is using all this to get us ot the place where we see our isolation from one another through death.
No wonder people go it alone.
The liturgy helps us with the language of life and death.
He is ussgesting an "Us" in the sharing of our illness. I think he is using all this to get us ot the place where we see our isolation from one another through death.
x'ns are in training to be hopeful in our life and death, that is why we need to give our suffering to one another.
He is telling a story from the Embodied Holiness book, kinda funny to hear him do rebaked material
He is telling a story from the Embodied Holiness book, kinda funny to hear him do rebaked material
sentimentality is killing us.
children are niot our hope, but are a sign of the hope we have.
We should not be pacifists be to stop war, but because we can see no other way to be.
XN is the ongoing traing to be able to die early
The couragous have fears the coward could never know in a reulst it can make the world more dangerous
xn's die in the hope of the saints
children are niot our hope, but are a sign of the hope we have.
We should not be pacifists be to stop war, but because we can see no other way to be.
XN is the ongoing traing to be able to die early
The couragous have fears the coward could never know in a reulst it can make the world more dangerous
xn's die in the hope of the saints
should we hold people to choices they made, when they had no idea what they were doing?
what does this mean for marriage and children?
most people in modernity are simply stoics -0 they are forced to lifve out choices they made when they did not know what they were doing.
he is taking a jab at medical ethics
how do you pratice medicine in a morally anartical society - with no morals other than the story choosing stuff
what we share is the fear of death.
ME - This is the kind of thing that makes terrorist so scary, because these are ones who do not fear death. Is there anything we have to learn from this?
He is taking a jab of Ross's stages of grief - saying we should die the way we live
what do Xn'x have to offer?
Hope in an after life is not sufficient
Some X'ns believe that the belief in the eternal soul is more important.
People do not have an eternal soul, God is eternal, all of what we are is gift, we do not have an eternal soul that has a foot in on God.
All that we have, even soul that God keeps alive is gift.
what does this mean for marriage and children?
most people in modernity are simply stoics -0 they are forced to lifve out choices they made when they did not know what they were doing.
he is taking a jab at medical ethics
how do you pratice medicine in a morally anartical society - with no morals other than the story choosing stuff
what we share is the fear of death.
ME - This is the kind of thing that makes terrorist so scary, because these are ones who do not fear death. Is there anything we have to learn from this?
He is taking a jab of Ross's stages of grief - saying we should die the way we live
what do Xn'x have to offer?
Hope in an after life is not sufficient
Some X'ns believe that the belief in the eternal soul is more important.
People do not have an eternal soul, God is eternal, all of what we are is gift, we do not have an eternal soul that has a foot in on God.
All that we have, even soul that God keeps alive is gift.
"This is the most important thing I have to Say what accounts for this view of death? Modernizations stroy - People should have no story other than the story you chose when you had not story."
Stanley is having us look at death to see who we are.
he is on a tangent about the issue of medical school and divinty school.
diff in the two: No one things that an incopetant priest can hurt you, but an incompetant doctor can kill you. "If you think who your doctor is is more important than who you pastor is, you are in trouble"
I wonder if the role of community is more impotant than priest.
There is a belief that doctors can heal. that is what makes that important. Even though we are not going to make it out alive, people tend not to want to believe it.
"when did baldness become and illness" or aging
why has growing old become soemthing that nneeds to be avoided.
if we die too ealry it can be a rip off of the family, doctors are caught trying to appease family and their needs.
the problem is that we simply do not know how to die. it requitres training and examples. We need to give our deaths to one another to teach us how to die.
people tend to tthink that they can only die, when a doctor tells them they can die.
we need permission to die - ministers should perform this.
I am looking at him right now and thinking about how wicked smart he is.
he is on a tangent about the issue of medical school and divinty school.
diff in the two: No one things that an incopetant priest can hurt you, but an incompetant doctor can kill you. "If you think who your doctor is is more important than who you pastor is, you are in trouble"
I wonder if the role of community is more impotant than priest.
There is a belief that doctors can heal. that is what makes that important. Even though we are not going to make it out alive, people tend not to want to believe it.
"when did baldness become and illness" or aging
why has growing old become soemthing that nneeds to be avoided.
if we die too ealry it can be a rip off of the family, doctors are caught trying to appease family and their needs.
the problem is that we simply do not know how to die. it requitres training and examples. We need to give our deaths to one another to teach us how to die.
people tend to tthink that they can only die, when a doctor tells them they can die.
we need permission to die - ministers should perform this.
I am looking at him right now and thinking about how wicked smart he is.
He is askingthe group how we want to die.
He suggest, in sleep, pinlessly, in sleep and not as burden.
minsiter of God of the Gaps - visiting hospital asking god to care for all the caregivers are not able to take.
He is quoting a
Mide evil people wanting a lingering death, to reconcile with enimies famil\\\\\\\
They did not fear death, but God.
Slow death gave them time to care for things as they prepare to die.
He suggest, in sleep, pinlessly, in sleep and not as burden.
minsiter of God of the Gaps - visiting hospital asking god to care for all the caregivers are not able to take.
He is quoting a
Mide evil people wanting a lingering death, to reconcile with enimies famil\\\\\\\
They did not fear death, but God.
Slow death gave them time to care for things as they prepare to die.
At this very moment I am in the Emergent Theological dialog with Stanley Hauerwass in Chapel Hill North Carolina.
My plan is to use my blog to take notes for the event. The event started today and runs through Wednesday.
I will write ideas, thoughts, internal conflicts and the like.
I will not overly edit, instead I will just write and let typos and my common misspelling to jsut be. See there that was an accident with just, an I will leave it.
Stanley is gracious and nice. His voice is a bit high pitched and not very loud.
Hr is reflecting on the issue of life and death in america. The topic of the dialog is around the issue of ethics and christians.
His relfections sound like his writing in a book of essays called Embodies holiness.
OK on the edit thing, I will edit when there is need fro this to make sense to me by being able to recognize the words.
My plan is to use my blog to take notes for the event. The event started today and runs through Wednesday.
I will write ideas, thoughts, internal conflicts and the like.
I will not overly edit, instead I will just write and let typos and my common misspelling to jsut be. See there that was an accident with just, an I will leave it.
Stanley is gracious and nice. His voice is a bit high pitched and not very loud.
Hr is reflecting on the issue of life and death in america. The topic of the dialog is around the issue of ethics and christians.
His relfections sound like his writing in a book of essays called Embodies holiness.
OK on the edit thing, I will edit when there is need fro this to make sense to me by being able to recognize the words.
