Diving Into History: Future Plans here on the Dirt Roads

I am moving slowly but steadily through the process of ordination in the UMC. A little over a month ago, I was voted on and approved by the Charge Conference at CHUM to be recommended for candidacy to the local District Committee on Ordained Ministry. I move next into an interview with DCOM, hopefully in the next couple weeks, whereupon they will vote whether or not to make me a certified candidate. From there, I hope to get licensed as a local pastor, go through preaching school, and hopefully become a DSA (District Superintendent Appointee) at a church while I begin seminary in the fall.

My process of discerning my call also moves forward. I've known for a while that I wanted to pastor a church, but not as a long term career. The challenge has been identifying the exact area where I live the call I feel in my life. I've long been interested in the work the Board of Church and Society within the UMC does. So that's where my focus has been.

But that is changing now. Another long time interest of mine has been classical history, especially the Roman Republic and Empire, and even more specifically, the time around the transition from Republic to Empire. It's an area of study I consider my an expert on, and though I've long had a passion for it, I never thought it would be something I could incorporate into my career.

That changed a few weeks ago when I watched, of all things, Frontline on PBS.

The episode I watched was Part 2 of a series called from "Jesus to Christ." It focused on the rise of the Christian church in the Roman Empire across three centuries. A fascinating look at the historical and archaeological findings that reveal not just the physical development of the church, but also the theological development. You can watch the full episode online here, and if you have any interest in history, I would strongly suggest doing so. (Part 1, which you can view there as well, is called "The Quest for the Historical Jesus.)

This show absolutely fascinated me. I was glued to it for two hours. And combined with a dive back into my favorite historical fiction series about the Roman Republic (Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series), I not rediscovered a passion, but also figured out where it fits into my future plans.

I still plan on ordination and placement at a church and getting my MDiv. But from there, I want to take the additional hours to also get a Masters in Theological Studies, then pursue a Doctorate in Classical or Greek and Roman Studies. I've already been researching programs at the University of Michigan, University of Oxford, and American University Abroad at King's College London.

I've been looking abroad because I would like to be able to study history in the place where much of it happened. What an opportunity to do research on Roman history in Rome! I have a long love of history that stretches back into my childhood. I've always loved learning about past events, and I have a great aptitude for it; I can remember names, dates and events like most people can remember the names of their immediate family. It's not only a passion of mine, it's a subject I have a gift of knowledge in, one I would be remiss not to cultivate and use towards a better world.

After my doctorate, I want to write, and teach, and most of all, connect the historical church, the church as it was formed and practiced and thought in the immediate years after Jesus, to the way we do church now. I want to bridge that divide, to help people find a purer form of Christianity, one that sheds much of the baggage of two thousand years of interpretation and distortion and politics to find a Way that mimics what the contemporaries of Jesus and Paul and Peter experienced.

So what does that mean for blogging here? Some changes, for sure. I will still write about current events, as my post about Charlie Hebdo a couple of days ago attests to. I will also try to be more vigilant about documenting my journey into ordination and beyond. But also expect to start seeing more topics on Biblical and classical history, especially as it relates to the early church and the development of early church theology. I plan on reading more Biblical scholars, as well as some history of Christianity and early church writers. Right now, I have just started Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, so expect some musings from that as I work through it.

More immediately, I am planning and researching and drafting a series that focuses on the historical context of the books of the Bible. I hope to go through book by book, in the order in which scholars believe they were written (not the order in the Bible) and look at authorship, historical context, and the time they were written, and then to think through the implications of when and where and why they were written on the text contained in each book. It's a slightly daunting writing project, but one I'm excited to do. Expect another post in the next couple of days that more clearly outlines and introduces the series.

I hope everyone enjoys the directions I am heading. Please continue to read, to comment, and please share with anyone who might also be interested. Also, if you are on Facebook, check out the page I made for this blog. I will post links to new writing there, as well as some stuff independent of this blog, like article links and discussion pieces. "Like" my page!

Please also stick with me if posting stays erratic, and know that I have every intention of writing regularly here, but real life often intrudes. I do have two small children, and although I am newly unemployed, a lot of free time is something I still do not have. There is also the possibility that we will be relocating to Tulsa soon, if my wife gets a new job there, so that could interrupt posting. (It will also mean a new subtitle for the blog-no more rural Kansas, but instead maybe, urban Oklahoma!) We are excited about the prospect of Tulsa, especially considering that one of my top seminary choices, Phillips, is there!

All the best, and thanks for reading.

Justin

The Responsibility of Free Speech: Thoughts on the Charlie Hebdo Shooting

The tragic happenings in Paris came to a sort of end today, with the death of three of the Charlie Hebdo shooters at the hands of French police just outside of the city. The deaths of twelve people at the satirical magazine earlier this week has sparked an online debate of sorts about the balance of free speech and respect for religious beliefs.

By Guillaume from Paris, France (#JeSuisCharlie) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The believed cause for the shootings was the numerous cartoons that have run in Charlie Hebdo showing the Prophet Mohammed. In the Islamic tradition, it is forbidden to show images of any prophet, especially of the Prophet, not because they are considered especially holy, but because there was always a worry that images of Mohammed would lead to his worship. Of course, the enforcement of this rule, as is the case with many such religious rules, has been taken to the extreme in some cases, causing death threats to be lodged against non-religious European cartoonists who illustrate Mohammed in the same satirical light they cartoon Jesus or the Pope. It's not about falling into a worshipful trap, it's more the blasphemous nature of the images that has driven the enforcement of the No Graven Images rule.

(On a related note, isn't it interesting that many of the American Christian conservatives who have sprung to the defense of the free speech rights of the magazine would shudder in any other situation to be allied with such an irreligious publication?)

Nevertheless, warranted or not, the outrage felt by many in the Islamic world is very real, and deserves the attention of the civilized world. One way we can give that attention is by discussing that dichotomy of free speech and respectful discourse. No one denies Charlie Hebdo the right to run cartoons of the Prophet at this point. But should they be running them?

This question has caused a lot of angst over the last couple of days. Those arguing on the side of free speech have implored publications across the world to reproduce images of the cartoons that set this all off. There has even been some discussion that such blasphemous conduct is essential to the practice of free speech, that if speech that offends and infuriates doesn't occur, then somehow we aren't living up to the gift we have been given in the First Amendment.

Another permutation of this argument  holds that failing to run the offending cartoons far and wide hands a de facto victory to Islamic extremists, that quivering, hand-wringing liberal weaklings are giving into the radical demands of terrorists by refusing to publish the very material that so offended them.

This argument quite gratuitously ignores the value of prudence, of evaluating our actions in light of how it treats others. Such sentimental musing is dismissed as the worst of that great sin, political correctness. Exploring the responsibility of our stewardship of free speech, of the bounds which we choose to police upon ourselves, is categorized into the same class as reading Bin Laden's declaration of jihad in wake of the 9/11; the horrific nature of the acts disclaims any possibility of understanding what provoked such a response. Never mind that we could learn how to prevent future tragedies by learning what causes such acts; so many would rather ignore all rational cause and effect in favor of keeping our own hands clean and just telling ourselves they hate our freedoms, our shopping malls, our tolerance. And so we invade their countries and mock their religious icons, and we disaffect an entire generation, and then we wonder why they lash out.

This isn't an argument that lays the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo at the feet of said magazine; but it also doesn't make them innocent martyrs. It's an argument that asks that same question as above: just because we can run those cartoons, does that mean we should?

Freedom of speech in a civilized nation means more than acknowledging the limitless bounds of our rights to say things. It means speaking with a self-imposed sense of propriety or respect. It means understanding that just because we can say something doesn't mean we should, not because a government tells us not to, but because we know that with great privilege comes great responsibility. It means that we know that tact and restraint, respect for others and their beliefs, is not a weakness or capitulation, but the ultimate example of civilization. It is the hope for a peaceful and tolerant future.

As Christians, we are called to a life full of respect and love for others. Every Christian who felt deep offense and anger at something like Piss Christ should innately understand the anger Muslims feel over depictions of the Prophet. We can acknowledge the right of persons to display these images while also calling on them to show the restraint to not do so, in the name of tolerance and respect. This isn't giving in to terrorists; it's coexisting with others in a diverse world. It's self-governance in it's highest and more virtuous form.

My prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones this week, that they might find peace and comfort. They also go out to humanity, in the hope that we can coexist peacefully and respectfully. Amen.