Author Archive for Wolfgang Vondey

Wolfgang Vondey
Profile
Wolfgang Vondey was born and raised in Germany. He lived in Japan during the early 1990s and in 1996 moved to the United States, where he lives with his wife, Michelle, and son, Noah Alexander. After earning degrees in Japanese linguistics, Japanese Studies, and Media Sciences, he turned to theology when hearing God’s voice in a sugar cane field in Okinawa. Continuing to process this event and to discern God’s call, he earned a M.Div. from the Pentecostal Theological Seminary (formerly Church of God Theological Seminary) and a Ph.D. in systematic theology and ethics from Marquette University. He has taught at Lee University, Marquette University, and Boston College, and he now teaches courses in systematic theology and various doctrines at the School of Divinity of Regent University. Wolfgang once intended to become an artist and had several exhibitions featured in local newspapers in Germany but today finds little time to draw or paint. He is an avid cook and enjoys listening to music or working in the garden. He has published several books on theological themes and currently works on a larger project relating theology to the church, the sciences, and the public life. Wolfgang is the director of the Center for Renewal Studies at the Regent University School of Divinity.
Website
http://www.wolfgangvondey.info/

Allergic to the Campus

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 by Wolfgang Vondey

It’s allergy season. If you have not noticed, because you spent most of your time in the classroom or on the couch with your iPad, you just have to come on campus. Pick any university, any college, and you’ll be greeted by the sound of the mowers and, soon, the smell of cut grass, weeds, and pollen. 55% of Americans test positive for allergies (source: WebMD). So let’s say roughly half of the campus suffers during allergy season. Sure, people with allergies suffer everywhere. But for some inexplicable reason, this suffering seems to increase when on campus.

Allergy symptoms are often higher indoors than outside. We track pollen and dust and carry it with us in our hair and clothes. The concentration of pollen is high in the classroom–a closed environment we cannot escape. As a result we suffer at school and await nothing more than to escape. As I am writing this, the smell of freshly cut grass invades my office on campus. It is mowing day. Well, really, that is not a special day. Any day is mowing day here. Mowers go Monday through Friday, rain or shine, short grass or tall grass. I keep wondering, do we really have to mow all the time? But more importantly, is there any consideration of those who suffer from seasonal allergies? Last week I was approached by a student with a box of tissues and asked if exam time could be scheduled outside of mowing time. Having exams during the spring semester in April and May with the mowers at full blast leaves a mark on many students’ capacity to perform. Before I even finished the last sentence, I hear some sneezing next door and down the hall. The mowers are still going strong. Actually, they are pretty loud as well, and last semester students asked me if I could go outside and request that mowing be suspended during a midterm. I got a bewildered look from the man on the riding mower, but they moved on to a different location–always tracking a dust cloud along. Oh, and have you ever tried lecturing for hours during allergy season when you are suffering from hay fever?

So what can we do about allergy season on campus? Do you suffer from allergies? What is your experience? What is your solution? 

Do you think it is necessary to mow every day? Would it not save cost to mow less? Does it not benefit the grass as well? Do we prefer an English lawn on campus at the cost of a sniffling, sneezing, and generally miserable half of the campus population?

Of course, I am wondering about the proper response from a Christian perspective. Something along the lines of: mowing in and of itself is not evil, but if it offends your neighbor…

I am just thinking out loud here, so please give me your feedba…       sorry, gotta grab a tissue…

The Big Waste

Thursday, January 12th, 2012 by Wolfgang Vondey

This week, Food Network debuts its one-hour special, The Big Waste. In the show, popular ”chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli tackle one of the most massive problems in food today – waste! Divided into two teams, with only 48 hours on the clock, they are challenged to create a multi course gourmet banquet worthy of their great reputations, but with a big twist; they can only use food that is on its way to the trash. The chefs’ hunt takes them from grocery aisles to produce farms, and orchard lines to garbage piles, as they attempt to source enough ingredients to feed a gathering crowd. Bobby and Michael square off against Anne and Alex, as they challenge their views of food waste and how and why it is created” (Official Description, Food Network). I watched the show, and so should you! It repeats on January 15 and 16 (see TV Listing). The show is right: waste is a huge problem, literally. But this post is not a blanket recommendation of Food Network or this particular show. It is a critical view. In all its accurate critique of the waste created by our society today, the show is rather silent in reflecting on Food Network’s own contributions to the problem.

Certainly, waste should be reduced. Actually, “waste” is not the proper term–we are talking about food here that has hardly any blemishes: potatoes with spots, peaches fallen of the tree, eggs that are too small or too big for the carton, chicken with broken wings, animal parts we find less appetizing, corn without husks, tomatoes with cracked skin, markings on snow peas. The list goes on and on. Would you have cooked with that food. Probably not. Would you have even found it? I do not think so. The former is a question of habit, the latter a question of distribution (driven by the former).

Surprisingly, the show laments the habit of wasting good food but says little about its own hand in creating that habit. After all, it is Food Network that has created a new generation of food-awareness, restaurant critics, cooking battles, iron chefs, fine dining, fast dining, and anything in between. But what about the habit? How many times have I seen a cooking show where food is cut up with immense waste. Many chefs cut food quick and dirty on the show, often in the interest of time. You just have to watch a behind-the-scenes show and you will learn that many meals are prepared several times, sometimes only in part, to account for special camera shots. And don’t forget those special shots have only one goal: to make the food look great! HD television demands HD food! You simply do not see a cracked tomato or a browned cauliflower or a less than perfect onion on Food Network. And add to that the frequent comments by chefs to “make sure you buy the good …” or “use only the best …”  Whatever it is, everything has to be perfect, unblemished, and ready for “presentation.” That, in a nutshell, is the Food Network culture. Oh yeah, I admit, I watch Food Network any day over shows that have no educational value or worse, that affront good taste. With food and drink, I generally feel safe, and I learn more about cooking (provided I actually go into the kitchen and do something with what I saw). But if Food Network adds shows with critical value, let’s see if they cannot start with themselves. The Big Waste will not go away quickly. One show is not going to cut it. Dear Food Network: If you want to make a difference, begin to reduce the waste in your own shows. Create a new food aesthetics! 

The issue of distribution is a different problem. There are few people who would call themselves “freegans”–you know, people who go “dumpster diving” in search for food fit for consumption. Personally, if I went to a dumpster at night, I would not be surprised to be told that that is illegal or at least inappropriate. Most people do not have the time to search through dumpsters, even if they wanted to. And just imagine the competition if only a dozen people went to the popular dumpster (think Trader Joe’s, Fresh Market, Whole Foods). My question here is not about using food others throw away. Go for it! My concerns is on the other end of the distribution chain: what we actually find in the grocery stores, and how much we find there, should be a matter of concern for all of us. My local store, for example, regularly carries exotic foods. I see the food rot on the shelves. Last summer, another store added an entire shelf of spices; we counted 17 varieties of salt. The same store has potatoes rot in plastic bags and regularly showers its vegetables with water–even those that should be kept dry. Another store was selling the same bags of Clementines for the same price six weeks after Christmas. My point is that I don’t think most ordinary grocery store employees know much about food, nor do they care much about food (hey, there is another show in this, Food Network!). I drive 5 miles to a store if I want to talk to a person who knows how to handle their vegetables; 10 miles to a store with an expert on meat and fish. Once these experts leave, the quality of food goes down with them. So there I am again with the issue of training. I would like to see trained staff at our local stores that sells “seconds” or “blemished” food. But what distributor is going to sell it to the market? Who will advertise “blemished bananas”? How much can we charge for blemished food? Who will buy the food not fit for television? I think it begins with the way we care about our world and ourselves.

People are not going to buy that kind of food unless they are told it is good (not waste), unless they are shown that is tasteful, unless they start a new habit. The Big Waste made a good start! Bravo Food Network! Now let’s talk about the clean-up.

Modern Warfare

Monday, December 12th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

So you want a video game for Christmas? Chances are that stores will have most of its stock filled with video games that practice shooting, killing, destroying, bombing, and blowing up buildings, people, and whatever stands in the way. Some of these games made news in the last few weeks by breaking sales records beyond any other game in history. People buy them! We love to play with violence! (As long as it does not really hurt.) Gone are the days were kids played tennis or soccer or football (whether outside or on the computer). These are the days of brutality, horror, and warfare. Does this topic really deserve a long post?

I cannot imagine why any parent would let their kid play sharpshooter or killer. Why would any father or mother spend their evenings destroying virtual lives? Being a soldier is an honest vocation, but impersonating a soldier in a video game knows nothing about the horrors of war. We are ignorant of the reality of War that shaped people’s thought in the twentieth century. Most of us are far removed from the reality of war in the world. For others, the video games glorify the violence they experience in the streets. Oh, yes, violence is real. But it does not need glorification!

“Set your mind on things above” are the words of the Apostle Paul (Col. 3:1-2). Hurting, violating, and killing are not the things any person should contemplate. I am happy to throw into this lot movies that glorify violence and horror (yes, including Vampire movies for teenagers in love or the more explicit versions of walking dead that now occupy our television screen). Tell me just one good thing that comes from this violence on our television screens and computer monitors! Just one way these things lift up and edify our lives! I cannot find one. They are time-wasters, mood-changers, character-killers! Christians have come so far as to excuse their own participation in violent movies and games. From a Christian perspective, our world of violence desperately needs renewal. As long as the violence of the cross is seen as an excuse and not the end of violence, there is much work to be done. As long as cooking shows and home improvement shows and children’s programs and sports events can be seamlessly interrupted by advertisement of violence, we have a long way to go. As long as Christians participate in justifying violence, Christianity has not understood its own gospel.

If you think about buying these games for Christmas this year, think again. Pray about your involvement in these things and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you if God truly desires for your eyes to see violence, for your conscience to become desensitized to the hurt, pain, and suffering glorified in 3-D effects in front of you, for your children to be exposed to violence, gun fire, and the screams of technologically created virtual reality. I think you know the answer. You just don’t like it.

Revising a Seminary: Student and Alumni Reflections

Thursday, November 17th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

In a previous post I invited students and alumni of the School of Divinity to voice their opinion about the Future of the Seminary and the current attempt to restructure its curriculum. We had a large number of responses, many of them by email rather than directly to the post. Here are the results of opinions offered. They are interesting, to say the least, even if not always conclusive. The table below shows the responses ordered from highest to lowest percentage. Opposing opinions do not always show next to one another. Let me know what you think!

Number

Respondent Feedback

%

1

SOD should keep biblical language/biblical studies courses

15

2

SOD should offer more practical/ministry-oriented courses

12

3

SOD should NOT reduce or drop spiritual formation courses

8

4

SOD should keep systematic theological courses

8

5

SOD should revamp church history

7

6

SOD should offer academically oriented courses

6

7

SOD should NOT reduce the degree programs

6

8

SOD should offer courses related to education, counseling, and  psychology

  4

9

SOD should reduce or drop spiritual formation classes

4

10

SOD should find a way to reduce the courses/costs

4

11

SOD should offer more electives and reduce the core

4

12

SOD should offer more online courses

4

13

SOD should offer training in technological research tools

3

14

SOD should implement a mentoring program

3

15

SOD should re-evaluate practical/ministry-oriented courses

3

16

SOD should revamp missiological courses

3

17

SOD should reduce the electives

2

18

SOD should offer chaplaincy program

1

19

SOD should offer more summer courses

1

20

SOD should create more motivating pedagogical techniques

1

21

SOD should offer public speaking courses

1

Changing a Seminary: The Future of the School of Divinity

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

It’s no secret, the School of Divinity is getting a new building! But what is less known is that the faculty of the School have been working long and hard on changing their curriculum to adapt to the changing face of a seminary in the 21st century. When the new building goes up, it will house a very different School of Divinity. Just what exactly that means, however, is still up for grasps. So why don’t you join in the discussion? What should the perfect seminary look like? Read the rest of this entry »

Women in Pentecostalism: Prophets or Priests?

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

The gender paradox in Pentecostalism is no secret. There are many more women in the movement than men, and yet women are not allowed into visible positions of authority (you can reverse this paradox). To put it differently: While Pentecostalism maintains to be an egalitarian movement, women are only as equal as men allow. Some would say it differently again: female Pentecostals can be in any position of authority they want as long as it does not include authority over men. What is wrong with this picture?

The literature on the gender divide in Pentecostalism is large albeit still new. We can certainly blame the neglect of the Pentecostal gender paradox by the social sciences (both the neglect of women and the neglect of Pentecostalism). We can also blame the predominance of theories that silence women’s experiences and marginalize women (not only among Pentecostals). We can also blame a fundamentalist reading of Scripture that purportedly justifies male authority and the submission of women, especially in the church. But these blatant issues are not constituting the paradox. How is it that Pentecostalism is a religious movement largely made up of women, when women are not allowed into visible positions of authority?

I suspect that it has to do with an undeveloped ecclesiology among Pentecostals (and this may include an undeveloped anthropology). The charismatic movement in the mainline churches finds its own problems in the often uncritical adoption of hierarchical (read: patriarchal) patterns of the mother church. For some reason, charismatic manifestations do not seem to challenge institutional structures. Classical Pentecostals, on the other hand, have falsely adopted the Protestant idea of the “priesthood of all believers” in addition to a more genuinely Pentecostal notion of the “prophethood of believers.” (Roger Stronstad has long warned that the Protestant paradigm is ill-fitting for Pentecostals). I have elsewhere suggested that Pentecostalism should not be confused with Protestantism. More so, however, Cheryl Bridges Johns has frequently lamented that the gender divide in Pentecostal leadership is to be blamed on the dominance of the priestly image of ministry and a restricted image of prophethood. She sees an abundance of “priestly pentecostalism” characterized by a male dominated hierarchy and institutionalism while women are placed in the position of prophetic pentecostals that co-exist with the priesthood albeit without challenging the patriarchal authority. I think Johns is on to something that needs further development.

There are to my knowledge no studies on the juxtaposition of priesthood and prophethood in Pentecostalism. If Stronstad is correct, then Pentecostals traded their prophetic heritage and calling for a Protestant mindset of the priesthood that is ill-fitting and misleading. Certainly there is the image of the church as a royal priesthood, and I would not insist as harshly as Stronstad on the false choice made by Pentecostals. I do concur, however, that the prophetic dimension of Pentecostalism has suffered since the beginnings of the modern movement. Evidence to the latter can be found frequently and with particular intensity in regions like Latin America and North America, where the patriarchal heritage and male dominated image is still strong. The emphasis on women as prophets instead of priests is coupled with the relegation of women’s authority to the household instead of the church. The prophetic gift has consequently moved to the family (where it encounters other obstacles). In the Pentecostal churches, prophecy holds no significant ecclesiastical authority. And that is the crux of the matter: the idea and office of the priest has been severed from the image and anointing of the prophet. I am talking strictly in terms of leadership structures here. The barring of women as prophetesses from the priestly office has backfired in ways I am not competent enough to analyze at this time. Certainly a blog is not the place for such analysis. But this is the place to call attention to such matters, especially in light of the ongoing heated discussions in general assemblies among many Pentecostal denominations. I believe these discussions will go nowhere quickly unless we face the theological problem of juxtaposing priesthood and prophethood in Pentecostal churches. A more developed anthropology and ecclesiology might indicate that men and women are called and equipped to be both prophets and priests. At least in my reading of Scripture, prophets and priests are not mutually exclusive. In the very least they coexist in the exercise of authority among the people of God. In the Spirit-filled church, they should be one and the same.