From what to what? From where to where?

Holy. Moly. I did not intend to take a month to write this next post! I apologize... church happens!

Anyway --back to the beginning with my question --initial impression of Tickle's approach... what think ye?

And as I intimated, I would like to offer my initial impressions.

And my confession: I am, generally, usually non-linear. I am not progress oriented nor outcome driven. I do not believe that 'history repeats itself' --No... --rather, in every generation we discover sin anew. And isn't that an unpopular thought.... if I were to offer you my world view, it would look something like this:

Ummm, errr, yah. Mandelbrot fractals...

So, Tickle's opening approach leaves me scratching my head. In her opening statements, she paints a near universal movement of change in 500 year increments, not only in Christianity, but in Judaism and Islam as well. I find such broad sweeps of history to be breath-taking.

If the broad picture of change that Tickle paints is so, how does one factor the movement and understanding of Christianity in China? The history of Christianity in that neck of the world is so very different as to be impossible to include it in the very broad strokes she paints. (There is some really, really cool stuff here and here.) So, if she is wrong in one instance, can she be wrong in others?

Tickle's vibrant optimism --that change always brought about a better church certainly needs to be challenged in some degree. Such an approach to morphology of the church over time would lead one to the conclusion that we are a better church now than ever before.... I would certainly hesitate to agree.... primarily because this type of optimism is part of parcel of what some might call Progress History --a belief or theory that the world can become increasingly better in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc.

Given the history of the last 100 years --the world wars, the genocide, ethnic cleansing, the 'better' bombs and weapons --I am not sure I can lay claim to the idea that humans have 'progressed.' Perhaps to the contrary....

This is certainly true in the Church as well --I mean, laying claim that we are a better church now than ever before. (And, I might add, fundamentalism is an entirely modern invention of the last century...)

Tickle could quite possibly be categorized as a 'progress' oriented history, with a particular Hegelian cyclical bent.... that her view of time is strictly linear, which in view of our contemporary understanding of time is just wrong! --all of which can be argued against and thus have Tickle dismissed... because the premise--the foundations--the world view with which she writes can be dismissed. Academically speaking....

But I think rather than succumbing to the academic trounce of the practice and theory of Tickle's presentation, we need to lift the veil and get to the grit of what she is saying --which is, in short --the church is a-changing, be not afraid.

That, I believe, we can handle.

So, how is the church a-changing? From what to what? From where to where?

Read on valiant reader. Read on!

Initial Impressions

Okay. You have had your chance. You all have read to the end of Chapter One, right!!

Well, if not, do so. And let me begin the discussion this way:

Gonna own my own perspective... I was trained to read text as an historian --and one of the first things one does when reading history is look for patterns, assumptions, world-view etc.... And, given that The Great Emergence is a book that looks at history, discusses history --and places the theology of the Church in history --I feel I can legitimately and perhaps even cogently remark on my initial impressions of this book.

Perhaps these initial impressions will change by the end or even the middle of the book --but these are first whiffs:

Tickle has painted history with a very broad brush --500 year increments with a universal --a true-in-every-place scope of change. She ear-marks the changes as Jesus --Gregory the Great --the Great Schism --the Great Reformation --and finally the current age. On page 30, she broadens the scope to "all three of the faiths of Abraham" --these changes and patterns of change occur not just in the Church, but in Judaism and Islam as well.

She has divided the church in to three basic entities --Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Protestantism --interestingly not geographic), Eastern Orthodoxy (Greece, Asia Minor, eastern Europe, and Russia with an increasing presence in North America, China, Finland and Japan), and Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian or Syrian).

And, Tickle is enthusiastically optimistic. She states that with every turmoil a "new, more vital form of Christianity does indeed emerge." (p17) And, that the "organized expression of Christianity which up until then had been the dominant one is reconstituted into a more pure and less ossified expression of its former self." (p17) And that

...every time the incrustations of an overly established Christianity have been broken open, the faith has spread --and been spread --dramatically into new geographic and demographic areas, thereby increasing exponentially the range and depth of Christianity's reach as a result of its time of unease and distress. Thus, for example, the birth of Protestantism not only established a new, powerful way of being Christian, but it also forced Roman Catholicism to make changes in its own structures and praxis. (p17)

Before I color (perhaps) your initial impressions and remark on these observations --remember --I am not dismissing what she is saying --at all --merely trying to step back and taste and see....

So, before I remark on these initial observations --do you think they are pertinent? Do you have some observations of your own? Click on the 'comment' below and let us know what you are thinking --initially... and why...!

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye

Read the Foreward and all of Chapter One of The Great Emergence!
The link to the book is on the right.

Do it NOW!

Authority... majority rule... just what is a Christian community?

Or, --maybe it's not about authority!

In the continued dialogue that is his book, Hauerwas states a couple of very interesting things.

First, he states: North American fundamentalism is a complex phenomenon that actually arose independent of the development of biblical criticism. The nineteenth-century form of fundamentalism, according to George Marsden, is distinct because fundamentalists of all stripes thought of themselves as representing the intellectual and scientific approach to Scripture. (p30)

Oh no, I think to myself --not that gorgon head of science vs. bible....

But, he continues --The claim that the meaning of Scripture is plain, of course, goes hand in hand with the North American distrust of all forms of authority. To make the Bible accessible to anyone is to declare that clergy status is secondary. The Bible becomes the possession not of the Church but now of the citizen, who has every right to determine its meaning. Ironically, by freeing the Bible from the Church and putting it in the possession of the individual conscience, the Bible becomes, in the process, the possession of nationalistic ideologies. (p31-32)

So --hmmmmmmm..... that line about making clergy status secondary leaped right off the page for me --because I do believe the church can sometimes be overly clerical, to the detriment of the people of God from which they were called....

But, given his line about science and the individual --what if science [substituting the word bible for science etc.] becomes not the possession of scientists, but of the citizen, who has every right to determine their own facts.... and you know --quite frankly, what comes to mind are those who reject the claims of scientists regarding global warming.... Or those who claim the bible as science and reject the idea that the earth could be more than 6,000 years old....

So, this is when where how Hauerwas puts the fundamentalist approach and biblical criticism on the same worthless coin --both separate the text as having independent meaning from the community of faith --and it can't. And, importantly --both fundamentalists and biblical critics "fail to acknowledge the political character of their account of the Bible, and they fail to do so for very similar reasons. They want to disguise how their "interpretations" underwrite the privileges of the constituency that they serve. (p35)

Ahhhhh --the truly gorgon head --bible > church > POLITICS!

Hauerwas states: The biblical critic and fundamentalist of course simply serve different constituencies within the North American polity. The fundamentalist serves the lower and middle class; the biblical critic feeds on the semiliterate class associated with the university. Both wish to make Christianity available to the person of common sense without moral transformation.

Frankly --while I think Hauerwas is quite wrong in assuming that fundamentalism is restricted to the lower and middle class (is he talking economics? political access? what?!) I think he is spot on in claiming that both want to make Christian scripture and hence Christianity available without moral transformation....

I think it is the most exciting thing in the era in which we live --that Christianity is losing its place as a state sponsored assumption of a presumed world view --that Christianity is losing it's place as the religion of the masses.

When we read scripture, together, we must be willing to be changed, and to give up our moral assumptions.... about anything and everything. We must be willing to hear Jesus when he says that we must hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself and explore what that really means in a life of faith.... in light of the example of the life of Jesus. (Luke 14:25)

Before he begins preaching at us, Hauerwas quotes Athanasius and says any attempt to make Scripture intelligible in and of itself can only be seen as an attempt to protect ourselves from the challenge of having our lives changed. (p38)

Right. On.

However, I do not stand with Hauerwas and say that fundamentalism and biblical criticism are two peas in the same pod... I see fundamentalism as an exercise in authoritarianism gone awry --a defined answer for every question. I see biblical criticism as a means to open the text to experience and exploration.... a deepening awareness of the text so that it may be writ large in our lives.

I do like Hauerwas's push to put scripture in the hands of the church and in lived experience. I do like the reckoning that scripture is political. I do agree whole-heartily that when we gather and read scripture, we must be willing to be changed.

But as one who has lived and spoken from the fringe more than once --I tremble with his easy go at authority... I have found too many default positions for the exercise and acceptance of authority.... and, yes, we do live in a day and an age and a place where authority is and should be constantly questioned.

Yes?

So --in reading this little book, I have been changed --new sources and ideas for approaching scripture have been introduced in to my toolbox --and I stand transfixed in a crossroads between understanding authority as an exercise between autonomy and discipleship, between individual and the economy of community, and being changed as a Christian while trying to muddle along in an economy based in capitalism rather than the common good and knowing wholeheartedly that my politics are indeed formed by my Christian faith. Somewhere between single-handed authority and majority rule is the ideal of Christian discernment and community....

And you?

The book is about authority.... ?

So --Hauerwas ends up in a pickle by saying that the text of scripture cannot be read or understood separate from the experience of the people of God... the Christian community... but that the people of God shouldn't get to interpret scripture by voting on it... nor should it be interpreted by individuals... that the text outside of the context of the worshipping community means nothing.... scripture is nothing without the people living it.

... but that unity and authority are not conformity....

Yes, Hauerwas is an idealist.... So, from whence does authority spring in a Christian life? What does Christian authority look like? Is scripture the source of authority --upon whose authority is it translated, interpreted, lived....?

So, let me just get this off my chest right up front --I think authority is a very dangerous thing, indeed. AND, that the experience of authority in the church in particular can look as bad as the Inquisition, the burning at the stake, hanging and worse --and yet, authority in the church can also look as good as the life of St. Francis of Assisi... which really was based in community.

As Kenneth remarked below --is Hauerwas lumping together in the idea of text---
the actual text,
the translation,
the interpretation...

It is through modern biblical criticism (one of the very things Hauerwas denounces) that the relationship between text, translation and interpretation becomes pronounced. Out of the field of biblical criticism emerged a more expert understanding of the texts, their origins, what came first and how and when the texts were modified and changed. Read more about texts and origins here.

With the expansion of Christianity throughout northern Europe, and, after the demise of the so-called Holy Roman Empire and Latin as a so-called common language, the urge to translate scripture in to the language of the people was revived (yes, it had been an urge of the early church --stifled along the way, with issues of authority.... oh, but I transgress). What became a source of wonder, scholarship and politics was whether Greek, Latin or English was the basis of further translation....

And so it remains today. But the most important thing to remember is that each original text, each translation--no matter how scholarly or even what source, and each interpretation comes --lock, stock and barrel, with an agenda. Have. No. Doubt.

In the Hebrew scriptures, some texts are written with what is called a Priestly point of view --others with a Deuteronomic --others still with that is called the Old Epic tradition. (Understanding the Old Testament, B.S. Anderson)

In the Christian scriptures, each Gospel has a particular vision of Jesus --either as a man infused with God (as in Mark) --or the Word of God spoken in creation which holds all things in being (as in John), and a particular vision of what following Jesus means.

So, yes, the texts have agenda. What is a marvelous necessity is to hold all these agendas, all these visions of our relationship to God in tension, in conversation each with all.

The translations all have agenda. To prove it --sit down with three or four different translations of next week's lessons, and read each. Better yet, come to the Wednesday morning bible study, and listen to the class work their way through the text (they read the next week's lessons). They are working from the Greek --and they mash through the different ways each concept has been translated in each version.... because Greek is full of idiomatic speech, and is not to be read literally.....

And --interpretation!!?? The best and most honest interpreters will have to confess, right from the beginning --where they stand, how they approach the text. It was with an understanding that the differences of gender, economic status and race among other things, that scholars and amateurs alike began to realize that there was the text, there was translation --but one's own world view mattered in interpretation --as a matter of fact, one could not escape what one brought to the text... So, one has a responsibility to cultivate almost a working relationship to the text itself --are you a friend, are you most always left out of the picture, are you usually occupying the seat of cultural privilege...?

Given all this --in knowing, understanding and relating to the scripture itself, where in the world is the final say-so?

Where is authority?

I think that is one of the critical foci of this book --and Hauerwas is dismissing the claims to authority made by fundamentalists, scholars and the democratic process and sensibility, and places it as the lived experience of a community of faith.

Does that fly?

If not --where is authority in/of scripture? Do we embrace the beginning of presuppositions that we need authority? If so, what does authority look like? If not, what do we do?

So, questions that might be further asked:

1. Does the 'authority' of scripture dwell in the text itself, as the divine revelation of God? (This might be close to the 'inerrant' understanding of fundamentalism.)

2. Do the scholars own the persuasion of the authority of scripture?

3. Do the people of God get to do a majority rule type of authority? --and what happens if fundamentalists are the majority? (--as scholars seem to be the majority now...)

4. Ultimately, what kind of authority can the bible really have? ( --remembering the very diverse witness and character of scripture!)

So, what say ye?

comment by Kenneth

This comment by Kenneth was too great not to make it a post --and, besides, it was too long for the comments!

I think Kenneth hits several nails on the head.... what think ye?

I’m having trouble with the way Hauerwas throws around the term “text.” It
seems that for him the term is a synonym for “meaning,” or nearly so. But this
seems to me too limited. I’m considering a structure that looks something like
the following:

Text: the actual words originally written.
Translation: the words conveyed to us by copyists and translators.
Interpretation: “meaning” derived by interaction between words read and the
reader.

Hauerwas purports to believe that only the last of these depends upon political
considerations, but this assertion cannot be accurate. Since, for example, no
word of the Gospels was set down on paper by anyone who actually met, ate
with, listened to, and/or argued with Jesus; and since important accounts differ
among the Gospels, we know that even the originally written words are hearsay.
What a writer (“Mark,” for example) then chose to include or omit depended at
least in part upon his political views, since the life and message of Jesus were
very political – else no one would have bothered to execute him. Additionally,
decisions as to what to include – or not – in the Biblical canon were based in
part on political considerations, assuming you accept that the formation and
governance of a newly established religious organization must have had political
overtones.

If you take literally Hauerwas’s assertions on pages 66-68, you have to see
that he implies, in fact, that those who were actually present at the Sermon on
the Mount would have had an understanding of its meaning inferior to that of
those who read about it later, after Jesus’s death and resurrection, and after
the Church Fathers had had a chance to give its written words an approved
spin. This possibility is reinforced by the understanding that at least 90% of
Christian theology is based not on anything in the Gospels, but on the words
(probably) of Paul, who never “met” Jesus but on the road to Damascus, and
heard him “speak” no more than twenty of so words on that occasion. If he heard
more, he does not say so.

The same problems exist for copying and translating. Recent scholarship seems
to show that early copyists made hundreds of errors, some insignificant, but not
all, as well as quire a few changes that were probably done in accordance with
current Church policy and interpretations. Translation presents similar issues.
An example I’ve used for students is the phrase, “Dinah, blow your horn!” from
the old song, “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad.” Two thousand years later,
who in the world is Dinah (I can imagine dissertations on Roman mythology,
etc.), and what kind of horn (I don’t even want to go there) does she have, and

why would she be blowing one early in the morning? (More dissertations, this
time on resurrection myths) So, you’re a translator faced with a term that could
mean, “virgin,” or “young woman,” and you’re a member in good standing of the
Church. Which do you choose? No politics here?

So. I’m not arguing that Hauerwas is wrong in saying that basing too much
of one’s Christianity on reading scripture is dangerous. I’m saying that (1) his
argument is not well put, and incomplete, and thus (2) there are implications that
– as soon as he gets into Sermon Mode – he fails to consider. I’m still thinking
about what they might be. Comments about this post may show that I should
have thought more so start with. But that’s what makes it fun.

Kenneth

The other side of the coin

So, that was, in a nutshell, Biblical criticism. There is more --so much more to it all --but I think you can probably catch the drift. Biblical criticism is textually based examination of holy scripture.

And Hauerwas stated that literalist-fundamentalism and the critical approaches to the Bible are but two sides of the same coin.... (p17)

So, (2) What is literalist-fundamentalism?

Wikipedia defines it thusly: The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart.

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":^[8]

• The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

First observation, one can tell that 'Fundamentalism' is a totally and thoroughly modern invention. It has not been part of the Christian package except for the past century or so.... And it seems that the inerrancy of the Pope, a dogma begun in 1870 of the Roman Catholic Church, and inerrancy of Scripture (seemingly begun about the same time) spring forth from the same modern rupture: Authority.

The modern pressures of multiple authorities --of science, of scholars, of theologians, of churches, of the individual, of the Nations --how is one supposed to choose which authority is supreme?

I hope I do not have to wax on about Fundamentalism --it has reared its head in every facet of our lives... and it is not limited to one system, one faith.... and has impacted even our daily lives....

But, in 1993, when Hauerwas wrote this book, I do not think many people of mainstream Christian houses of worship, protestant or Roman, feared fundamentalism --it was a fringe activity, left to those who were ignorant and uneducated....

We now know that is not true. Our own house of worship --The Episcopal Church and its sister churches in the wider Anglican Communion, have been wracked with division and schism, much of it fomented in the turbulent arena of biblical interpretation and authority.... Not to mention the fact that much of the public view of what it means to be a Christian at all has been largely shaped by "bible" churches.

So, again, why does Hauerwas suggest that biblical scholarship and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin?

C'mon --give me your best.... {and then we will get to the (4)--and what does he begin to establish as the "third way" in approaching, reading, interpreting our holy scriptures that we call the "Bible" ??? Like --what does he mean by "necessary mediation by the Church!!!!????}

What is Biblical Criticism?

Most North American Christians assume that they have a right, if not an obligation, to read the Bible. I challenge that assumption. No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America. (p15)

And, so Hauerwas begins....

Let's begin with context. Who is Hauerwas? Briefly, Stanley Hauerwas is a Professor of Theological Ethics at the Divinity School, Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. His life began as the son of a bricklayer --which he says formed him in many ways, and his ministry has been within the ivory tower of academia. He identifies with the Methodist Church, attends an Episcopal Church where his wife, an ordained Methodist minister serves, and he calls himself catholic. He has written many books.

This particular book was completed in 1993.... --so mind you, it is a tad dated.... nonetheless, it speaks to fundamentalism, religion and politics --individualism... the how/why we are/be church. These are still hot topics in our current ethos, and worthy of discussion. It is why I chose the book.

Religion and politics --the two things one is never supposed to try to mix together.... So, here we go!

First and foremost, I would like to hear from you --what are you left thinking after reading the first two chapters? Was there something in particular that moved you? Made you angry? Left you with questions? Please click on the "Comments" word below.

Secondly, --more context: Hauerwas state that literalist-fundamentalism and the critical approaches to the Bible are but two sides of the same coin, insofar as each assumes that the text should be accessible to anyone without the necessary mediation by the Church. (p17) (1) What in the world is Biblical Criticism? (2) What is Fundamentalism? (3) And why does he say that they are two sides of the same coin (4) --and what does he begin to establish as the "third way" in approaching, reading, interpreting our holy scriptures that we call the "Bible" ??? Like --what does he mean by "necessary mediation by the Church!!!!???? (Yes, he does confess that cannot help but appear authoritarian and elitist!)

One thing at a time:

As to (1): Biblical Criticism is not judgmental comments about the Bible! "Criticism" comes from the Greek word krino which means 'to discern' or to be discriminating in making an evaluation or forming a judgment --like music or art critics.

Biblical Criticism has to do with looking at scriptural texts and verifying authenticity, authorship, preservation, production, audience, transmission and preservation.... who, what, where, when and why of the text. New forms of Biblical Criticism have emerged in the last couple of decades from new academic areas --such as Feminist, Womanist and, yes, Queer criticism --and these methods focus on experience and interpretation.

Here are a few approaches to Biblical Criticism (definitions taken largely from HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996)

Textual Criticism: examines changes in the text over time, determines when and how the changes were made, and assesses the significance in the changes... for example --yes, those scribes and monks did everything by hand, and they made mistakes, they made marginal corrections and comments, and they doodled.... Just like looking at a piece of art, an art specialist can determine when and where it was made by materials, style and other signifiers --so too with those engaged in Textual Criticism.

Historical Criticism: One of my favorite interpretive tools is Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Malina and Rohrbaugh). They give a context to scripture --how people behaved, relationships between the genders, attitudes about children, meaning of 'family,' dress codes, economics  --that kind of thing. Historical Criticism looks to place the scriptures in the wider events and cultures from which they were generated.

Literary Criticism: We know that some parts of the Christian Scriptures are letters --these are called Epistles on Sunday mornings. They have a definite form --a greeting, the matters addressed and communicated, and a closing. We know that the Psalms were songs --they too have a definite form. All of scripture can be related to a specific 'form' of writing. Sandra Schneiders states that the Gospel of John is actually written in two forms --one as a Greek tragedy --the whole Gospel is a play, with a last and will testament inserted (the part called the 'High Priestly Prayer --Written that You May Believe). So some scholars focus on the form as a means of interpretation, meaning, historicity and content.

Form Criticism: is very much a blend of historical and literary criticism, recognizing that literary forms may change over time.... which can be important because certain tendencies of certain texts can demonstrate certain themes or preoccupations.... which can say certain things about a certain people.... at a certain time.... which may reflect upon our understandings... certainly.

(Folks --this is one form of criticism that I respect, but in no way have the skills or desire to engage. I mean, I know from my museum work that a chair, for example, has not always been a chair --and that chair forms change from region to region --like the Chinese alway had backs on their chairs --Europeans chairs emerged from stools --and I know right away how to discern a pedigree of any chair --but a lot of good it does me! That is kind of what Form Criticism is!)

So --is it Chinese?

Canonical Criticism: This approach looks at the texts as received by the two communities of faith --Israel and the Church. Some texts were not written as sacred texts (such as the Song of Solomon, or the collection of philosophical writings called Ecclesiastes) but nonetheless have been looked at through and with the lens of faith --and so a more universal or over-arching witness or message of faith --the entirety of Scripture must be heard --not picked out in bits and pieces.

Liberationist Criticism: Originating in South and Central America, and looks deeply at what we might call the politics of the Bible --ideological structures of power and how, in the case of Christian Scriptures, Jesus himself does not take a neutral stand regarding the powers that be. Liberationist criticism demands a process of reflection on our own social structures and informs us of the neccessity to address the systems of oppression, degradation and privilege in our own time and place.

Feminist Criticism: This approach developed out of the "Women's Movement" --recognizing that the experience of women in the church and portrayal of women in the Bible was fairly exclusionary. The Feminist Criticism movement has moved from the radical stance that Biblical texts were sexist and even misogynistic, to a less absolutist interpretation. R.R. Reuther contends that at the heart of Christianity is a canon within a canon, a prophetic messianic principle for all. (Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, p239) Also, there has been a revision of theological themes --for example, less emphasis on the atonement theology of the cross, and more emphasis on incarnational and resurrection theologies. Or, even, the maleness of Jesus as a theological principle--hence the ordination of women may still be seen as an outward and visible sign of the priesthood of Christ. Womanist Theology has also emerged from the women's movement and --the perspective of women of African American descent --and is a critique of not only the women's movement and who it leaves out, but of a fresh and radically illuminating perspective perhaps best described as feminist and liberationist criticism combined.

There are other forms of Biblical Criticism --including ethnic varieties (Asian, African American, Native American) which offer diverse perspectives other than the northern European academic varieties --and these are refreshing and necessary to know and understand.

So, why does Hauerwas look at these methods as the other side of the same coin as Fundamentalism? And, yes, you guessed it, --I will post next on Fundamentalism....

So, I will ask again-- what are you left thinking after reading the first two chapters? Was there something in particular that moved you? Made you angry? Left you with questions? Please click on the "Comments" word below.

Basics --and read to the end of Chapter 2

Welcome to Read, Mark, Learn and inwardly Digest.

This is an experiment --an on-line book club. All are welcome. I have created this space as an outgrowth of Christian formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, mostly because so many folks cannot come out to a mid-week evening class --they work --they don't like to drive after dark, or they've got kids.... I understand.

So, now there is no excuse not to join in conversation --this is available 24/7. Even from the beach....

I will be posting at least once a week, maybe twice or thrice. I am hoping that you will not just take it in --not just read it --but that you will comment.

In the ensuing discussions, I hope you all will identify yourselves --and please, if you do not have an on-line profile, you may use the "anonymous" tag, but please please please sign your name.

So --order the book. My first discussion post will be next week --please read to about page 28 (that would be the end of chapter two) or so, and come with your questions--comments--etc. Read the Forward too...

And, if you don't want to throw the book across the room, or if you are not in some way dismayed --I will be surprised. I know that I was ready to go fist-to-cuff with Hauerwas in the first few paragraphs.... besides, what's life without being able to articulate why somebody has rubbed your world view the wrong way?

Looking forward to working through this book with you.

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye

Order your book now!!!! New and used available here beginning at the fabulous price of $4.95!!! And, hey --if this book doesn't ruffle your feathers.... well, then I will!

Discussions will start next week.
Looking forward to it!

Unleashing the Scripture

Order it now --here.

No, sorry, you can't click to look inside..... but you can at the link above!
C'mon. Join us!