tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post84799542701911900..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: William Stringfellow: theology at the circusBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62282333939344339992008-12-02T12:52:00.000-05:002008-12-02T12:52:00.000-05:00If anybody is still checking this thread...Did you...If anybody is still checking this thread...<BR/><BR/>Did you see the latest addition to circus lovers?<BR/><BR/>The one and only Britney Spears is on tour with her 'Circus'. Tom Waits opening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68963016283016238782008-11-27T08:52:00.000-05:002008-11-27T08:52:00.000-05:00I too was recently introduced to Stringfellow; a p...I too was recently introduced to Stringfellow; a professor of mine assigned one of his books for class: <I>An Ethic For Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land</I>. Long title; good stuff.<BR/><BR/>I just finished posting a <A HREF="http://theologymatters.blogspot.com/2008/11/review-of-ethic-for-christians-and.html" REL="nofollow">review</A> of the book over at my blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-19101193665871435462008-11-26T09:29:00.000-05:002008-11-26T09:29:00.000-05:00Bobby-I hope you'll peek in one more time on the b...Bobby-I hope you'll peek in one more time on the blog here.<BR/><BR/>Bobby said:<BR/>"...Actually I think we are ALL EVIL, thus our need for Christ. I have limited my statements to scripture..."<BR/><BR/>Aha!!! I knew lurking in the circus tent was the most vexing theological problem of all. <BR/><BR/>The little matter of 'original sin' and how our 'interpretations' of scripture re: the atonement knock each of us high wire walkers off the tightrope.<BR/><BR/>Bobby-forgive my condescending tone with the backwaters phrase. I didn't mean it to shun you--more to alert some of the other thoughtful posters that their biases were showing.<BR/><BR/>I, for one, think we'd all benefit if you came back to this site. Unlike most 'conservative' (I hope you're not offended by that word) bloggers, you bring honest questions and humility to this virtual circus of heavyweight lion tamers.<BR/><BR/>I love coming to Ben's blog because I find him and his cyberspace commenters some of the most creative and thoughtful people on the planet. I don't get half of what they are saying, have read little of the writers they reference, but I am thrilled and challenged (and maybe a bit corrupted) by many of the posts!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for speaking 'your' truth (which you've gotten from scripture), and for engaging.<BR/>I do think some more reflection might be helpful for you around your views on homosexuality as a particularly evil sin (which I know you've taken from the Leviticus and Romans passages). I think BT's points are very well taken.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm just a clown in this circus, but I have a role to play--writing one liners to keep the dogs at bay!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-77946716861025985712008-11-26T05:46:00.000-05:002008-11-26T05:46:00.000-05:00Okay, let me interject one more time!@BT:Actually ...Okay, let me interject one more time!<BR/><BR/>@BT:<BR/><BR/>Actually I think we are ALL EVIL, thus our need for Christ. I have limited my statements to scripture, which you haven't engaged whatsoever; nor has anyone on this thread. I obviously have offended you, but you haven't offered anything constructive in response to anything I have said (see Halden for an example of how to do this). Anyway, I want to ask for forgiveness for offending you. We sincerely disagree on this issue, on many levels, i.e. the "holiness" of homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>Roger,<BR/><BR/>thanks for the words. I guess scripture pretty much doesn't get any play here . . . at least as something that is reflective of Yahweh's holy life, and the principles of holiness that he expects (not legalistically, or in a moralizing way, but in a way that is indeed framed by His liberating love, and holy presence). That's too bad . . .<BR/><BR/>Bobby, from the "backwaters" ya'll . . . okay I'm truly out (won't be back, don't worry)!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-20779952906721725842008-11-25T21:21:00.000-05:002008-11-25T21:21:00.000-05:00St E-You started this bit with your recommendation...St E-<BR/>You started this bit with your recommendation of the String thing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23980846825666239632008-11-25T20:52:00.000-05:002008-11-25T20:52:00.000-05:00Speaking of dogs, if you haven't read Anthony Town...Speaking of dogs, if you haven't read Anthony Towne's book <I> Excerpts from the Diaries of a Late God</I>, its well worth the effort to get it. A wonderful send-up of the death of God movement of the sixties, which both Towne and Stringfellow thought wholly ridiculous, it is told from God's point of view as he laments his fate. It's a howl and a half, if you ask this mutt mutt. <BR/>Shatorch, <BR/>St. EAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-49871553140909448952008-11-25T20:39:00.000-05:002008-11-25T20:39:00.000-05:00BT-I get your points 123.I agree.I hope we shall b...BT-<BR/>I get your points 123.<BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>I hope we shall blog together again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-81141393919432580652008-11-25T20:21:00.000-05:002008-11-25T20:21:00.000-05:00Roger,I appreciate your comments, but b-g is clear...Roger,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comments, but b-g is clearly branding homosexuals as "evil." When I read (from b-g):<BR/><BR/><I>...[Stringfellow's] choice of "evil" (as an unrepentant way of life) should've disqualified him...</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that to me is clearly characterizing Stringfellow as "choosing evil," which to me is ridiculous (firstly, because in the vast majority of cases sexual orientation is not a choice; secondly, because, and as others have said here, it's not as if Stringfellow was a "gay activist" of the secular variety that Christians are usually reacting against; and, thirdly, because b-g clearly has no knowledge of Stringfellow's actual "way of life" whatsoever). But I'll leave it at that, I've commented enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-89853182685638758082008-11-25T18:49:00.000-05:002008-11-25T18:49:00.000-05:00My blerate for what it's worth.I think BG means we...My blerate for what it's worth.<BR/><BR/>I think BG means well and is trying to understand.<BR/>Sorry if my feel good platitudes are off-putting, but I don't hear him branding anyone as 'evil'...<BR/><BR/>I do hear him speaking from a theological perspective that seems like backwaters to some of the prominent commenters, but I don't think the thread has gone to the dogs--but we've definitely left the circus. <BR/><BR/>It is very possible that God may be speaking<BR/>in this thread coded and uncoded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-30839220060762623342008-11-25T12:48:00.000-05:002008-11-25T12:48:00.000-05:00Roger,Just to be clear, I have never claimed to be...Roger,<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, I have never claimed to be personally accepting of all sins, nor even to "teach" anyone anything (God does that, not me). I'm responding to the mischaracterization of Stringfellow as advocating "evil" by someone who has admittedly never even read his work.<BR/><BR/>Yet, while I'm at it, if I'm going to be categorically dismissed as "evil" as well, then I have no qualms about (virtually) fighting back. If that offends the Holy Spirit, then so be it, although I seriously doubt it's any more offensive to the Holy Spirit than off-handedly relegating an entire percentage of the population as "evil" just because their lust (or, hopefully, love!) doesn't default to the opposite sex, as it does for another population (it’s all-too-common to presume that "straight lust" is somehow less of an issue, spiritually speaking, than "gay lust"--there's is no uniform "lifestyle" for either population). It's easy to shell-out feel-good platitudes about being loving and kind, but a bit more demanding when you're casually branded an "evil one" from the beginning. False peaces are worthless, ultimately.<BR/><BR/>But again, God gives peace, not human judgments. However, I don't feel any obligation to have patience toward someone branding-about "evil" accusations on such a casual and uninformed basis, that's all. If that’s a “pounding,” then so be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3837892183367140082008-11-25T12:04:00.000-05:002008-11-25T12:04:00.000-05:00Just a quick reply to Roger, oh and the 'word veri...Just a quick reply to Roger, oh and the 'word verification' for this post is "blerate" sort of a combo of berate and blather!! who comes up with these? I think every post should have to start with an explication of the validating word. Sort of like 'fictionary' for bloggers. And who's to say G-d is not somehow speaking here, thru binary code? In fact, perhaps we should think about using computer generated homilies!! Just get this darn flesh with its sensuos bulbous regions out of the picture! Anyway, to answer Roger, i live on Whidbey Island and i reckon we'all here are pretty much wrestling with the same things y'all are. I am interested to see how all this pans out on this site, obliged, daniel.Daniel Imburgiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011159253204822220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-80275998061466141952008-11-25T10:10:00.000-05:002008-11-25T10:10:00.000-05:00I think Bobby Grow has taken quite a pounding on t...I think Bobby Grow has taken quite a pounding on this Stringfellow thing. <BR/><BR/>Just because we (as a virtual community of circus wannabes) have taken the (again virtual) high road of gracious acceptance of all sinners, (which I highly doubt) is no reason to walk by and taunt him as the bearded lady.<BR/><BR/>Though I disagree with his moralizing (and his messing up of the high art of Faith and Theology blog) he appears to be sincere and teachable person. <BR/><BR/>May his teachers be kind, patient, insightful--and at the end of the day--loving. I don't think it's prudent for any of us to play Christ writing in the dirt. He's on the road to find out, as all we are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41065208066152534402008-11-25T07:26:00.000-05:002008-11-25T07:26:00.000-05:00b-g wrote:...Do you see the tension, for me, betwe...b-g wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>...Do you see the tension, for me, between 3 and 4?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and as I commented, you're free to move along. (I'm not a Stringfellow ideologue who feels a need to justify him to you, or to make him your "teacher.") I'd just suggest in the future you actually study a figure, or at the very least read their works, before you even bother to build up such tension over their "evil lifestyle." Just a thought.<BR/><BR/>Kim wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Bobby has a problem with teachers who call evil good. There is, however, another problem - Jesus of Nazareth had it: it is with people who call good evil. Jesus called this sinning against the Holy Spirit.</I><BR/><BR/>So is the phenomenon of someone defaulting to assuming a figure is preaching evil, without even reading them, "Holy-Spirit-neutral," just be taken as a matter of course? What's actually amusing in this case is the burden this puts on any ostensible "teacher," the requirement to somehow prove one's sexual purity prior to even simply pointing out anyone's default starting presuppositions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-68686830329001355222008-11-25T06:31:00.000-05:002008-11-25T06:31:00.000-05:00Egads and little fishes. A thread on Stringfellow ...Egads and little fishes. A thread on Stringfellow has gone to the dogs. Time to send in the clowns. Here's one little floppy-shoed stumble: <BR/>“What I found out—what I found out theologically—from my stay in Harlem is, of course, that all men are outcasts in one sense or another. It is only more vivid that men are outcasts in a place like Harlem.” (My People is the Enemy)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-22934690047233518032008-11-25T05:57:00.000-05:002008-11-25T05:57:00.000-05:00BT said:. . . By b-g's logic, just Stringfellow's ...BT said:<BR/><BR/><EM>. . . By b-g's logic, just Stringfellow's commitment to be the loving companion of another male is "evil," yet the basest, most carnal heterosexual sex is somehow automatically more holy than that love? Gimme a break.</EM><BR/><BR/>How so? My "logic" doesn't lead this direction whatsoever. It's your presumption, of "my logic," which leads this way (you've caricatured me).<BR/><BR/>But let me clarify, one more time, I'll do that by re-posting my first comment on this thread:<BR/><BR/><EM>Just to clarify, Stringfellow was a homosexual? I suppose his works can have an ex opere operato sense to them . . . but personally it would pose problems for me to "sit" under someone living in a lifestyle that is clearly at odds with the Gospel (I would have the same problem if I knew that x theologian was sleeping around with y female students in his class). . . .</EM><BR/><BR/>1.) I never said that Stringfellow didn't say anything Christ-honoring.<BR/><BR/>2.) I never said that there couldn't be any "witness" to Christ in Stringfellow's writings.<BR/><BR/>3.) In fact what I did say was that because of the witness to Christ, in Stringfellow's writings (presumably), apart from any "moral" or "immoral" proclivity in his life, that it would be possible for fruitful interaction with Him.<BR/><BR/>4.) And then what I said was that, <STRONG><EM>I</EM></STRONG> "personally" would struggle with sitting under his teaching knowing that he was gay (because this seems blatantly incompatible with the gospel; i.e. disqualifies him as a "teacher"---just go see I Tim 3).<BR/><BR/>Do you see the tension, for me, between 3 and 4?<BR/><BR/>And by the way, how did Paul deal with immorality in the church in Corinth (see I Cor 5 & and II Cor 2)? If there was unrepentant, ongoing sin in someone's life they were to be excommunicated; until a time of repentance and brokenness was produced (also see Mt 18). Whether the person's name is Barth, Stringfellow, Luther, etc., no matter, if they don't submit to this kind of "loving" discipline then they should be <EM>treated</EM> as "unbelievers," until they recognize the problem. And if they don't, and they are to be treated as unbelievers, and "separated" from the church (for a season); then how is it that they can be teachers "within" the church? <BR/><BR/>This is the tension I have here. How does this apply to the writings of "sinners?" I suppose it depends on the person's attitude toward their "sin." David certainly was a sinner of sinners, but his response to sin (cf. Ps 51) was of brokenness. <BR/><BR/>Maybe the real "sin," was that the "Church" never confronted Stringfellow, or Barth (and others), for these explicit sins . . . and so the "sin" would be the church's as well (see Rom 2; I Cor 5). Just because we're all sinners, doesn't mean we can't call sin, sin. In fact if we don't, then we, as a people, are in trouble . . . and we aren't being the church.<BR/><BR/>Kim,<BR/><BR/>I totally agree with you! I don't think Stringfellow was any more "evil," than anyone else is, or will be; just that his choice of "evil" (as an unrepentant way of life) should've disqualified him as a teacher . . . at least for awhile.<BR/><BR/>My intention here was never to come off as an "bigot," or some kind of "holier than thou." I know we are, indeed, all sinners . . . but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call sin what it is.<BR/><BR/>As far as my "personal" struggle with "sitting under" someone like Stringfellow, maybe I do see "this particular sin" with more disdain (graded)than others. So I will take heed to this (esp. Halden's challenge), and reflect on this further.<BR/><BR/>I know I have posed some questions in this particular comment; but I'm out . . . peace in Christ!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-3660621315170510562008-11-25T02:47:00.000-05:002008-11-25T02:47:00.000-05:00Bobby has a problem with teachers who call evil go...Bobby has a problem with teachers who call evil good. There is, however, another problem - Jesus of Nazareth had it: it is with people who call good evil. Jesus called this sinning against the Holy Spirit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-51550881025386127172008-11-25T01:11:00.000-05:002008-11-25T01:11:00.000-05:00Not exactly sure what Daniel is talking about, but...Not exactly sure what Daniel is talking about, but I think it might be 'pritely' patronizing to the poor suckers (sorry) who don't get it. But the bit I think I might be getting, I think I agree with. <BR/><BR/>But Daniel, if you're surprised that people are still wrestling with the idea that homosexuality is ethically problematic within Christendom I have to wonder where you are living!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-59418178281540427352008-11-24T21:17:00.000-05:002008-11-24T21:17:00.000-05:00"bobby grow" wrote:. . . tell me, did Stringfellow..."bobby grow" wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>. . . tell me, did Stringfellow call evil, good---in re. to his sexuality? . . . I'm assuming Stringfellow, although he struggled, according to you, concluded that homosexuality was "good" (maybe in the terms Dan, above, highlighted---i.e. as God's continued "creative" activity).</I><BR/><BR/>"bobby grow": If you really have an interest in anything Stringfellow actually thought, see especially his "An Exhortation to Integrity" address from 1979. (I'm afraid that the text may be a *tad* less scandalous than you may be hoping for?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-69039304504761344052008-11-24T20:08:00.000-05:002008-11-24T20:08:00.000-05:00Bravo, Daniel! Thanks for that excellent intervent...Bravo, Daniel! Thanks for that excellent intervention!Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-82221566463840351382008-11-24T20:00:00.000-05:002008-11-24T20:00:00.000-05:00first off, the "word verification" in order to pos...first off, the "word verification" in order to post this is "prite" perhaps a neologism for the 'pride of being right'? Anyway, i am new to this site but this kind of discussion seems very commonplace (but not un-important). How do y'all feel about Heidegger's nazism in relation to his philosophy (or his boffing Hannah Arentd when she was his student?). Every now and then someone digs up a letter or college essay by some notable supporting Hitler and all heck breaks out (DeMann, Adorno, et.al.). As one that 'rightly passes' (to borrow a phrase from our French friend) to be a Catholic, we are always holding our breath waiting for the next altar-boy to access some repressed memories, and our sainted parish priest to be hauled away in handcuffs. Seems like mostly in philosophy or theology does this become a decisive issue, no one seemed to have had a problem with nazi scientists building rockets for the USA, but if they had a "wide stance" in a bathroom stall seems like it somehow affected their ability to translate Greek into Latin or explicate a parable about goats and sheep. Well, i hashed this all out back in the late 80's with the French and German philo's and i was a bit surprised to find such agitation still percolating. l look fwd to seeing how all this turns out for you'all. And for you theological celebrities who publish and what not, watch your posts and keep your feet no wider than than shoulders (or heads) or our children will be asking these questions about you someday! obliged, DanielDaniel Imburgiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011159253204822220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-63735025791913792912008-11-24T19:36:00.000-05:002008-11-24T19:36:00.000-05:00Re: Halden's comments, this is exactly right. Stri...Re: Halden's comments, this is exactly right. Stringfellow was critical of any and every "identity" as soon as it becomes its own image or power, apart from striving to live in Christ alone. Heterosexuals just by default happen to benefit from the presumption that their lust is somehow automatically "holy" -- by bobby-grow's moral logic, in fact, an adulterous married man is automatically more virtuous than a (for all we know) largely celibate gay man. I have no desire, nor the ability, to police Stringfellow's life, but he himself in his writings referred to his partnership with Towne as "monastic." Granted, this is likely, to some extent, closeted language, to avoid some degree of scandal among his readership at the time, yet (horror or horrors) what if we were to take Stringfellow at his word? By b-g's logic, just Stringfellow's commitment to be the loving companion of another male is "evil," yet the basest, most carnal heterosexual sex is somehow automatically more holy than that love? Gimme a break.<BR/><BR/>This may come as a shock to folks like b-g, but sometimes couples form out of something called love, not just to have scripture-sanctioned sex (or to really throw one at God and have "evil" sex -- after all, we're not talking about bestiality here for Christ's sake, we're talking about two adult Christians in a committed relationship, probably mostly celibate, regardless of how one defines "marriage").<BR/><BR/>Anyone who reads through Stringfellow's _A Simplicity of Faith: My Experience in Mourning_ and concludes that his partnership with Towne is "evil" has a serious, perhaps even pathological, lack of empathy (but no doubt could well be married and be having "good" sex). God help us.<BR/><BR/>Yet, as I commented earlier, surely b-g is concerned to categorize, classify, and judge Stringfellow's life, without reading his works, out of b-g's own great love for God, and not at all simply to assuage his scripture-based regime of "good, wholesome, married" heterosexual sex -- couldn't be, because there's not a Bible verse against *that*, is there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53058261591912041862008-11-24T18:23:00.000-05:002008-11-24T18:23:00.000-05:00Roger,I hear ya. I guess I'm not adequately commun...Roger,<BR/><BR/>I hear ya. I guess I'm not adequately communicating the nuance I want to. But I do want to clarify, I am not endorsing any kind of "super-evangelicals;" I'm much too self-critical for that ;-).<BR/><BR/>Halden,<BR/><BR/>I'll respond back later, I'm late for work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-64138316750524131012008-11-24T18:04:00.000-05:002008-11-24T18:04:00.000-05:00For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glo...For we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.<BR/><BR/>Bobby-<BR/>All our theological fathers have clay feet--even the self-proclaimed super-heroes of the evangelical sort.<BR/><BR/>...and I don't really want to know about their sexual identities or activities but I suppose someday I'll have to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-12553932772675026142008-11-24T17:52:00.000-05:002008-11-24T17:52:00.000-05:00I'm not an expert on their personal lives, nor do ...I'm not an expert on their personal lives, nor do I have my Stringfellow books to hand at the moment. Perhaps I'll have something to say on that matter later depending on what I can discover.<BR/><BR/>Two final comments. First, about Stringfellow and Towne. Much of Stringfellow's life was spent dealing with sickness. He spent much of his life in severe physical pain, especially in the latter years of his life. Whatever sustained and defined the relationship between him and Towne was clearly not about sex, as, frankly a person in Stringfellow's health was not likely to have been having it all that often, certainly not for the duration of his relationship with Towne. Whatever kept their companionship together, it was not their sexual orientation, but their love for one another precisely as Christians who sought to do God's work in impoverished tenements in Harlem. We may think that they discerned some things wrongly with regard to sexual morality, and that brings me to my last point.<BR/><BR/>You say that Stringfellow "concluded the wrong way" about sexual morality and that, ostensibly this wrong conclusion renders a desire to read and learn from him as questionable (i.e. your comment that you wouldn't "sit" under someone who was living in a manner at odds with biblical morality). I just want to again try to inject into this construction. We all conclude the wrong way all the time. Sincere, loving Christians concluded the wrong way about slavery, about whether women were fully human, about whether the sword should be used to spread the gospel, and many other things. They concluded the wrong way, and believed that their wrong conclusions were serving the gospel and God's work in the world. They were wrong. Does that mean we do not listen to their voices? Should we refuse to sit under Augustine because he endorsed the execution of the Donatists? Or to Luther for his insistence of on the slaughter of peasants? Or Abraham for being an unrepentant polygamist?<BR/><BR/>I'll leave it at that, I trust my point is clear. Really, I'm just sorry that you may end up forcing yourself to miss out on the power and importance of Stringfellow's works on the basis of questions about his sexuality. His <I>Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land</I> is an incredible book, as are his many other works.Haldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185959033443640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-8335801405482050172008-11-24T17:38:00.000-05:002008-11-24T17:38:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, I just have a problem listening to "pro...I'm sorry, I just have a problem listening to "prophets" who indeed call evil, good---and I think there is great precedence for this approach (the one I am advocating)! And that includes ANY sexual or immoral deviancy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com