Jim Souhan criticizes we Okies. After reading his piece in The Oklahoman titled, Don’t Act Like Okies, Minnesota, I though of responding all schoolyard. You know, something like, “And you really think your team will ever make the postseason?” Or, “You’re just jealous.” Even, “Don’t be a hater.”
Criticism opens up a whole set of possibilities. For instance, maybe the colored logo on the shirts provided by fans needs to be larger so that Mr. Souhan is able to see the chroma color t-shirts are not really mono-chromatic. I realize he is considering the appearance on television but most beat writers know better. Until you have been in the wildest, small-market, NBA venue in the Country it may appear all same-same. Enter the Peake and anyone there knows it is anything but same-same.
Context is everything. Souhan lives in the erudite North. We hail from the red-neck South, but not really South as in Dixie. He sees things differently than we do. And, we need that.
One of my friends who hails from the Land of the T-Wolves talks a lot about Jürgen Moltmann. In fact Tony Jones and Tripp Fuller have been quote bombing each other. Tony triggered it all with a Moltmann quote. Tripp responded. For some time I have been intending to read The Crucified God by Moltmann. But, like Tony have endless stacks of “to read” books. Mentioning Tony and Tripp as friends, considering reading Moltmann, and linking to them in itself may prompt knee-jerk criticism to be sure.
This morning I was reading Moltmann’s In Explanation of the Theme, something of a Preface or Introduction. I came across a quote or two that reminded me of Souhan’s criticism of we Okies. Really it struck me that criticism opens up possibilities. We tend to receive criticism and become defensive. We go all schoolyard on our critic. But, criticism often acts as a means to expose our own ideologies. We must own them and see how the criticism calls our way of thinking into question. After all, when we offer our own critiques we do the same.
For Moltmann it appears he intends to critique the Christian theology of the Cross as received as too narrow. By received, I mean as it has been codified in history and packaged for subsequent generations. The problem, it seems, arises at the point of context. What may have been molded in the 16th Century owes its vision and project to the peculiarities of its time. The idioms and metaphors worked as they were part of the common vocabulary of the time and embedded in a generally common experience.
The experiences out of which Moltmann writes differs distinctly from that of, say, Martin Luther. Interpreting the world and the Cross of Christ from the context of suffering the horrors of the holocaust certainly calls into question the way in which the vision cast by a neatly packaged version of the Gospel today, that Scot McKnight calls the Soterian Gospel, avoids seeing the Cross in a larger context that takes in personal salvation rather than that the Cross is all or only about personal salvation.
Today I will be thinking about a couple of quotes from the early pages of The Crucified God,
Ideological and political criticism from outside can only force theology and the church to reveal their true identity and no longer hide behind an alien mask drawn from history and the present time.
What does it mean to recall the God who was crucified in a society whose official creed is optimism, and which is knee-deep in blood?