WWJD?
I am often asked, especially around the church, when I will be “ready for ordination.” Those asking this question are usually referring to the taking of 144 Master of Divinity units, four extra PC(USA) courses in preparation for five ordination exams, as well as church and hospital internships (totaling 400 hours each).
Then comes my rambling attempt to explain, in essence, “I’m there.” I have been approved, that is, to accept an ordained position, after which I will be officially ordained. But, don’t get any crazy ideas, I will never be “Pastor Curtis” or “Reverend Bronzan.” Just “Curtis” is fine, thank you.
You don’t call a plumber “Plumber Joe” or a secretary “Secretary Linda.” Referring to a pastor as “Pastor [Name],” I’ve become convinced, implicitly sets up an unbiblical hierarchy. Furthermore, I’ve become convinced that such titles often contradict Jesus’ ideas regarding religious leadership, note especially verses 8 through 12:
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
“So,” comes the response, why are you still going to school? And at that, I struggle even more to respond coherently.
At times, I have said something to the effect of how the Master of Divinity degree (though earned from the best seminary in the history of the world) sought to make me into a Constantinian who had very little ability or developed skill to tell anyone outside the church anything important about Jesus. In short, it can become all about keeping butts in the pews, instead of faithfully exegeting our post-Christian culture, thus reaching outside the church to proclaim and enact good news.
Thus, I began a post-graduate degree focused upon contemporary, postmodern culture. My proposed thesis is tentatively entitled “De(con)structing the Temple(s): An(other) Attempt at Religion (without Religion).” Thus far in my research, I have found a rather interesting dynamic; when you ask big questions, like the role of institutions in the life of faith, lots of people (who would normally be ousted from discussions among the “faithful”) have something to say, including even the likes of Neitzsche (who taught us how to philosophize with a hammer).
It all got started with John Caputo’s brilliant little pamphlet of dynamite, What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church:
The church is Plan B. (In deconstruction, everything is Plan B.)… The existence of the church is provisional – like a long-term substitute teacher – praying for the kingdom, whose coming Jesus announce and which everyone was expecting would come sometime soon. But this coming was deferred, and the church occupies the space of “deferral,” of the distance of “difference,” between two comings. (I just said, in case you missed it, the church is a function of différance!) In the meantime, and it is always the meantime for the church, the church is supposed to do the best it can to bring that kingdom about in itself, here on earth, in a process of incessant self-renewal or aut0-deconstruction, while not setting itself up as a bunch of kings or princes. The church is by definition a call (kletos) for renewal.
That is why the church is “deconstructible,” but the kingdom of God, if there is such a thing, is not. The church is a provisional construction, and whatever is constructed is deconstructible, while the kingdom of God is that in virtue of which the church is deconstructible. so, if we ask, “What would Jesus deconstruct?” the answer is first and foremost the church! For the idea behind the church is to give way to the kingdom, to proclaim and enact and finally disappear into the kingdom that Jesus called for, all the while resisting the temptation of confusing itself with the kingdom. (WWJD?, 35)
My contention is that in our day and age, the church has, in fact, set itself up as a bunch of “kings and princes.” Thus, I am hoping to short-circuit Jesus’ original, prophetic “de(con)struction” with post-modern ecclesiology, by engaging Scripture, critical theory and continental philosophy.
Tags: Church, Jacques Derrida, John Caputo, PC(USA), ThM
Categories:
Bills, Miles, Pages
























Curtis A. Bronzan » Blog Archive » It’s a Constant Process
[...] this same sentiment be applied to the church? Like John Caputo says (previously noted here): The church is Plan B. (In deconstruction, everything is Plan B.)… The existence of the church [...]