Hello from the Campus Starbucks,
Familiarity can be a double-edged sword, most certainly, but sitting back in Starbucks at the Andruss Library is a good thing. The rearrangement of the traffic flow as well as the tables makes getting some work done much more arduous, but thank goodness for a charged phone. The memories of meeting students here or in the Gathering Place over the years definitely is present as I ponder schedules, continue managing appointments, and examine my ever-growing to-do list. Presently, my MacBook is charging in the corner because the remodeled space has no way to sit at a table and plug in my computer (I believe that was more intentional than they admit), so I have decided to blog something that has been percolating for some time, though regularly the past few days.
A year ago, the middle of October saw a shift in the momentum that first characterized the Harris campaign, and, to be honest, I was feeling more and more resigned to a repeat of Grover Cleveland in American Presidential history. Certainly, that is what occurred, and much of what has occurred in the country is what was promised by Mr. Trump, so when people seem surprised by some of the falls out, and I am generally referring to the moderate, or even some on the more extreme, right, I want to respond with a sort of Homer Simpson “Doh?!” However, because of my commitment to decorum in general, I do not. I think about one person in particular who notes they will probably lose their Medicaid, but they unabashedly support the MAGA agenda. They lamented this loss to one day, while, ironically wearing the tell-tale red baseball cap. Hmmmmmm!! The second group of people, many for whom I still have appreciation and care, are those conservative believers. Those who claim the importance of a creator, but seem too often to stop with the first article of the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed, seeing second and third article as subservient at best, which I will assert is non-Trinitarian. However, my recent pondering and reading has caused me to reconsider, simultaneously being both kinder and more worried.
The conservative direction of Christianity (not where it is going, which is an issue), which I (and others) assert is vertical, has important implications and consequences. More will be said about that. Conversely, I will assert, Christian denominations who practice a more horizontal theology (focusing on the consequences of the second article and the subsequent involvement of the third article) think more about their fellow humans. I know that is a bit of a broad-stroke move, but hear me out. The vertical nature or morality of Christian conservatism, which is pushed even further in “Christian Nationalism,” is about power; it is about the authority of God over all. Hence, first article dominance (pun intended). It is about a system that is incredibly top-down. It is about the acceptance of the rules and a rejection of actions or behaviors that violate the rules. For those who find such a system comforting, the all-powerful God is easy to follow; as a ruled-based theology it becomes a recipe card no matter what. If you put in the correct ingredients, the final product is just fine. Of course, what happens if you are out of that teaspoon of baking powder? Is it possible to change? Can one question the recipe, question the all-powerful? Is there even a possibility? What happens when you employ the same verticality into our politics? Germany of the 1930s is a great case study. Present day North Korea or Iran are also instructive.
So what does a horizontal theology look like? Is there room for such a possibility? And some might question if such a theology is Biblical. Returning to my initial contention, certainly one can argue such a direction is Biblical if you look at the actions of Jesus, from his disciples to his questioning of both political and religious authority in his world. The significance of Jesus’s daily ministry (and non-inclusive of his salvific role) was his personal ministry to those outside the Jewish religious hierarchy. Again and again, from his initial miracle to his teachings and actions, much of what he did calls into question a rules-centric philosophy. His focus on a people-centered gospel, a relational gospel which flew in the face of the first use of the law, which was typical Midrash. Jesus called into question the optic heavy theology of the Pharisees, pushing a need for compassion, empathy, and love for the other. Jesus believed the consequences of God’s love, which is certainly vertical in nature, was understood best when it was horizontally given to those in need. The admonishment of Jesus in Matthew 25 is not merely a horizontal theology, but it is a both/and. The commandment to do to the other is a given, something given by God to creation, so the verticality cannot be ignored, but neither can what the command requires, which is decidedly horizontal. Loving and caring for the other is how one experiences the love of God.
So what are the struggles in our present world? When theology and politics overlap, and even more so, when the idea of vertical morality and power are intertwined, the reality of good versus evil, of us versus them, or of the nation versus the world, the consequence and reality of Christian Nationalism and an Old Testament theonomy becomes inherent in the practiced theology and politics, making the separation of church and state impossible. However, the theology of the Old Testament is not the gospel, the Good News, that is proclaimed in the New Testament. The legalism of Paul, the legalism of the Torah is much more difficult than most conservative Christians are aware, but such a hermeneutical struggle, to be fair, is not surprising. Between a cherry-picking of scripture that suits narratives of power and a seeming unwillingness to consider any kind of compassion, the vertical theology of Christian Nationalism removes any sort of responsibility for the immoral treatment of the other under the guise of obedience to God’s commandments, or the prescribed understanding of God’s commandments.
And yet, perhaps some consideration of those commandments might be appropriate. Certainly the first three commandments are vertical in nature, focusing on the relationship of the human, the creature, to the creator. But that is precisely 30% of the Decalogue, There is still another 70% to consider, or more than 2/3rds . . . And those commandments are about the humans relationship with the world and with one another. From the giving of the Commandments in Exodus, which followed the Hebrews leaving bondage in Egypt until today, there has been an unquestioned reality that the chosenness as people means we have both a duty to God as well as to our community. However, such a theological position is much more complex, and it requires the choosing of paths which are seemingly incongruent with the rule-based beliefs of a nomo-focused faith practice. And it certainly does not protect those who need power or authority. Furthermore, the reality is it blinds one to injustice, creating a practice of personal salvation over a social concern for our fellow humans. Vertical morality is cluttered with examples of the damage such morality has created; from slavery to the Sunday morning Christian wearing a white hood the night before, from bishops in Germany pledging allegiance to Adolph Hitler to the Shoah, from the demonization of immigrants to the persecution of political enemies, the lack of accountability allowed from this top-down threatens the very gospel preached by Jesus, and it negates the call of the Holy Spirit to lead us to faith.
Certainly, the current world is struggling with what it means to believe in the amazing grace of our Triune God, or so it seems. There is an irony that many conservative Christians use the epistle of James to speak about their faith (and a works-based theology), but vertical morality eliminates that option. With no horizontal aspect to one’s faith, it truly is pro-forma; and contrary to the vertical idea of depth, the practice of faith as simply following a list of requirements. Such practice is profoundly shallow. It eliminates the love and grace of God. I will argue rather than strengthening our personal relationship with a loving God, it removes us from the hope snd love of that same God.
Thank you as always for reading.
Michael
thewritingprofessor55 