It's been interesting

It's been interesting lately! I am enjoying the snowfall, finally the most significant I have seen in more than a year. We are supposed to get another 2 waves of it before the weekend. It's supposed to come through tomorrow on Thursday from California. I am glad to get some snow finally.

I put up my Christmas tree too. It's about 5 feet tall and I only put a few little ornaments on there. It has lots of small white lights however. The light at Christmas is so important to me, perhaps even more so this year than in previous years. I have also been trying to get into the Christmas Spirit by reading Schliermacher's dialogue on Christmas Eve. It's a wonderful creative work of theology. I have found I do not appreciate his attitude/assumptions about women however. One of the characters, a woman in the room, speaks up about what she thinks and another character chides her about what the Bible says about women (presumably about their authority to speak about religious matters). I also found him to be a little narrow-minded in saying that since women do not "possess the fruits of science within themselves," then they are more fervent and "unreservedly attached to the Church." I would say that it's possible that if women had been permitted to "possess the fruits of science," that is, to be permitted to study the sciences (remember this was written just around the Age of Enlightenment and while the Scientific Method was being developed, they weren't quite enlightened enough for women to be allowed to participate, except in rare situations), women just may have been able to find a way to possess both the fruits of their scientific studies, and be full participants in the life and theological development of the Church. Women have traditionally been socialized in this country as "peacemakers" and relational people who find ways to reconciliation among people, even if it means to be creatively searching for new ways to understand things. How could things have turned out differently if we had permitted women to have equal say in the philosophical development of scientific inquiry and theological inquiry? Would there have ever been a Scopes Trial? Could we have helped the world evolve emotionally a little faster and more peacefully? Would we have had so many wars in the name of YHWH, Allah, or any other holy name?

Schliermacher had a long-term infatuation with a woman in his younger days, as a student. I don't think he ever got over it. I find this fascinating about him because it reflected how emotionally attached he had become, perhaps as someone who was an utter romantic, born out of the age of Romance, grew up somewhat isolated from his own mother by being sent away to school, grew attached to the Pietistic religious movements of his region. I have split feelings about him because he both embraced the emotional aspects of religion and I believe that his attachments to women had much influence on this theology about religion as "feeling" and growth into greater awareness of Christ. However, he seems limited in seeing the full range of power in such "feeling." He became fiercely nationalistic later in life, which I believe was a sign that he was taking "feelings" in a direction that women would not have intended. This is not to say that women do not also have the propensity to let their feelings go out of control or to allow them to close their hearts to rational thought. We are all guilty of that.

I would argue, however, that the nationalism of Schliermacher takes religion as "feeling" in a direction for which our "feelings" about faith were not intended. I would also say that nationalism is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself either, for I do adhere to the common principles of conscience and participation in one's own nation's interests. But what Schliermacher writes is a tiny bit over the edge. If you read his sermon on Nation, Church and State, preached 28 March 1813, you can see retrospectively how his theology grossly influence the rise of German nationalism over the succeeding decades. I think that whenever we allow our feelings to break up rather than seek reconciliation between people and nations, then perhaps we should review those feelings and reconsider whether they are adequately representing the consciousness of Christ that we first accepted. Schliermacher would say that when we become Christians, we accept an inner call to a journey that will continue for the rest of our lives, as we grow and grow into greater awareness of Christ in ourselves, or "God-Consciousness." If we forsake that awareness and simply take it for granted, we might lose our necessary link between our "religion as feeling" and our journey into greater "God-Consciousness." In other words, you can't have one without the other because they keep each other in check. This is why Schliermacher is such a contributor to modern theology, particularly Reformed theology. I see these two theological attributes as inseparable, yet at times linked like two train rails that run parallel.

Schliermacher says some wonderful things in his Christmas Eve dialogue however. Here they are:
On Christmas festival: "It is the distinctive nature of this festival that through it we should become conscious of an innermost ground out of which a new, untrammeled life emerges, and of its inexhaustible power, that in its very first germ we should already discern its finest maturity, even its highest perfection. However unconsciously it may reside in many people, our feeling of marvel can achieve resolution only in this concentrated vision of a new world, and in no other way. This vision may grip anyone, and he who brought it into being may thus be represented in a thousand images and in the most varied ways - as the rising, e'er returning sun, as the springtime of the spirit, asking of a better realm, as the most faithful emissary of the gods, as the prince of peace." (Schliermacher: Pioneer of Modern Theology, Fortress Press, 1991, p 198)

On being and becoming as an individual in a community: "In fact the union of being and becoming is found in humanity not incidentally but eternally; and this is because that union exists and comes into being as man in himself does...[which includes doing so in community as well]...which arises within a common life and activity with other men; for it is in comunity that that knowledge which is proper to our planet not only exists but develops. Only when a person sees humanity as a living community of individuals, cultivates humanity as a community, bears its spirit and consciousness in his life, and within that community both loses his isolated existence and finds it again in a new way - only then does that person have the higher life and peace of God within himself." (ibid, p 201)

Those are some great quotes to chew on. I'm almost tired of writing about Schliermacher now, but I think these are things to sleep on. See? He's an amazing and eloquent writer. He was visionary for his time, being around the turn of the 18th-19th century. He probably had an influence on Paul Tillich, who didn't come around the period of WWII. It would be very interesting to compare the theology of Schliermacher and theology of Tillich with respect to the theology of world religions. I have a book I would like to read by Tillich, called Christianity and the Encounter of World Religions.

Well, it's time to go. I have jobs to apply for, a sermon to write on 1 Corinthians 9:16-23 and some other miscellaneous paperwork. Yes, I am still looking for work and am thinking of how to fund my "life" until I do find work. I am asking myself whether to use more of my retirement funds, or even to withdraw funds from an annuity that I have never tapped before. I am wondering if this is what God wants me to do or not. I also would like to ask what my Grandpa would do, since much of this money was originally his and I just added to it some. Grandpa was a devout Catholic and is now in heaven with a whole different perspective on things. Through his own tenaciousness and frugality, he died a rich man and none of us were aware of it. I am not even sure if he was fully aware of the money he left. I have used some of this money as a means to graduate school. I am wondering now, as our country appears on the edge of some kind of mild depression, how this money should be used. I believe that I should be practical as much as possible in order to honor Grandpa's own pragmatism. He grew up through the Great Depression and he was one of the many honest, hard-working, men and women who learned the values of life the hard way. There is much wisdom in his saving up for so many years. And if I hear that wisdom, I understand that perhaps this is the right time to try and manage my finances so that I keep as much of them as possible invested in the future, as I also try to survive the present. I suppose if anyone reads this they are going to tell me to "pray on it." That's what I will do then.

Must go and take care of business. Bye for now.
Amy