Good morning
Look at the valedictorian scared of the future
While I hop in the De Lorean
Scared-to-face-the-world complacent career student
Some people graduate, but we still stupid
They tell you read this, eat this, don't look around
Just peep this, preach us, teach us, Jesus
-Kanye West, "Good Morning"
I had breakfast with Tim today, and after some good conversation and a trip to Target to pick up some fun for my man R.J. who is giving one of his kidneys to his cousin today, I was driving home and listening to Kanye's new album. I think the combination of the two classes I have on Tuesday nights is a recipe for some big change...I am taking a Mystical Theology class where we are studying the early Desert Fathers, followed by a class on preaching. While I am wrestling with both in very different ways, the readings and the classes are wonderful explorations of my most personal and communal theologies. Union with God and community, and the event of preaching.
As I was listening to the first track on Kanye's album "Good Morning", this morning, this verse (above) struck me in a way as another perspective of the promise I made to myself this year. I promised myself to start putting forth more of my own ideas, new theologies and perspectives that I am wrestling with and trying to articulate. Even though the teachers and preachers are often trying to convince me of "the" way to preach, view baptists, understand the reformation, or new theologies or expressions of church, I promised to start speaking up, questioning out loud more, and find my voice amidst the chorus around me. I'm not going to disregard or stop listening to these voices, these teachers and preachers, but I don't want to wake up years from now, and feel like I never digested what I was told or instructed or learned. I might just join Mr. West for a trip in the De Lorean this year...so good morning.
Showing posts with label mystical theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mystical theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
hyper-present
Remember Peter Rollins? Well, let's see if we can't work through a bit more of How (Not) to Speak of God. If you remember, I was working through some of this fantastic book. Let's see if we can't work through the rest of it in the next couple of weeks. If you want to read from the beginning, go here, here, here, and here.
Continuing in Chapter 2, Rollins proposes this notion of God as hyper-present, super-present. "It means that God not only overflows and overwhelms our understanding but also overflows and overwhelms our experience (pg. 23)." So often, people talk about this notion of God being close, yet distant. This has to do with the realization that while we try to talk about God and know God, we come to realize that we can't capture God, and that even our best attempts to talk about God are limited. So in one sense there seems to be distance. Yet, in this distance, followers of Jesus also try to talk about God's immanence, the notion that God is not far away, and that God is intimately involved in the events of today. Yet it is hard to reconcile these notions of God being both distant and yet close at the same time.
So as Rollins describes God as hyper-present, the distance we feel or sense in our understanding of God is not because God is actually far away, but in reality, it is because our understanding of God is saturate with "a blinding presence (24.)." God is super-present, or "hypernonymous" in that God is so close, the presence of God in our midst overwhelms our senses and reality and we can only take in so much (24). This acknowledgment of God as hyper-present rests in the belief that God is the "absolute subject before whom we are the object (23)." In this sense, we are the object before God to be known, and rather than the other way around.
Rollins again clarifies saying that, "In this reading, Christ, as the image of the invisible God, both reveals and conceals God: rendering God known while simultaneously maintaining divine mystery. Here the God testified to in Christianity is affirmed as an un/known God (25)." If you sense a tinge of Eastern Orthodox and apophatic theology coming through...it is beautifully mysterious isn't it? I had written a paper on Pseudo-Dionysius in the spring about the notion of knowing God in our unknowing, and Rollins articulates both the point of view of PD and the aftermath of theology in writing: " Pseudo-Dionysius argues that this knowing unknowing acknowledges its profound finitude and inability to grasp that to which the religious individual intends. This divine darkness represents a type of supra-darkness that stands in sharp contradistinction to the sub-darkness of desolate nihilism. While one is brought about by an absolute excess of light, the other results from a total absence; while one represents a higher form of unknowing that subverts reasoning, the other signals mere ignorance (28)." An absolute excess of light...that is a beautiful vision.
So to wrap up this monster post, and Chapter 2, we have talked before about our need to both speak about God, yet realize the limitations in out talk about God, and the need to realize that when we speak about God we are not capturing God with our thoughts, as though God is the object of whom we can capture. Instead, we recognize our need for an "epistemological silence" and as Rollins writes, "We must speak and yet we must maintain our silence, we maintain distance amidst the proximity of God, and we must worship while being careful not to make God into the object of our worship: for God is the subject before whom we worship (30)." Amen.
Continuing in Chapter 2, Rollins proposes this notion of God as hyper-present, super-present. "It means that God not only overflows and overwhelms our understanding but also overflows and overwhelms our experience (pg. 23)." So often, people talk about this notion of God being close, yet distant. This has to do with the realization that while we try to talk about God and know God, we come to realize that we can't capture God, and that even our best attempts to talk about God are limited. So in one sense there seems to be distance. Yet, in this distance, followers of Jesus also try to talk about God's immanence, the notion that God is not far away, and that God is intimately involved in the events of today. Yet it is hard to reconcile these notions of God being both distant and yet close at the same time.
So as Rollins describes God as hyper-present, the distance we feel or sense in our understanding of God is not because God is actually far away, but in reality, it is because our understanding of God is saturate with "a blinding presence (24.)." God is super-present, or "hypernonymous" in that God is so close, the presence of God in our midst overwhelms our senses and reality and we can only take in so much (24). This acknowledgment of God as hyper-present rests in the belief that God is the "absolute subject before whom we are the object (23)." In this sense, we are the object before God to be known, and rather than the other way around.
Rollins again clarifies saying that, "In this reading, Christ, as the image of the invisible God, both reveals and conceals God: rendering God known while simultaneously maintaining divine mystery. Here the God testified to in Christianity is affirmed as an un/known God (25)." If you sense a tinge of Eastern Orthodox and apophatic theology coming through...it is beautifully mysterious isn't it? I had written a paper on Pseudo-Dionysius in the spring about the notion of knowing God in our unknowing, and Rollins articulates both the point of view of PD and the aftermath of theology in writing: " Pseudo-Dionysius argues that this knowing unknowing acknowledges its profound finitude and inability to grasp that to which the religious individual intends. This divine darkness represents a type of supra-darkness that stands in sharp contradistinction to the sub-darkness of desolate nihilism. While one is brought about by an absolute excess of light, the other results from a total absence; while one represents a higher form of unknowing that subverts reasoning, the other signals mere ignorance (28)." An absolute excess of light...that is a beautiful vision.
So to wrap up this monster post, and Chapter 2, we have talked before about our need to both speak about God, yet realize the limitations in out talk about God, and the need to realize that when we speak about God we are not capturing God with our thoughts, as though God is the object of whom we can capture. Instead, we recognize our need for an "epistemological silence" and as Rollins writes, "We must speak and yet we must maintain our silence, we maintain distance amidst the proximity of God, and we must worship while being careful not to make God into the object of our worship: for God is the subject before whom we worship (30)." Amen.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
a convergence of sorts
there are always times in life when things seem to be converging in a way that help some of the often seemingly random experiences of life fit together in great ways. i've nearly finished How (not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins, we are studying Pseudo-Dionysius (with a reading in class tonight about how mystical and apophatic theology is connected to postmodernism in my historical theology II class), and in one of my seminar classes last night called "Who is God?" my professor seemed to hint at the Derridian notion that the spirit in receiving a gift is more significant than the gift itself, a strong theme in Rollins' book...
I've also been struggling a lot with categories of late which i think has led finally to some of the above pieces fitting together, e.g.: categories with which are appropriate to talk about God, the difference between religious and scientific categories and how to talk about the difference with my friends who are not yet believers, language games, and the limited understanding of the revelation that we can understand. I've decided to write my research paper for this second of three historical theology courses on Pseudo-Dionysius and his work Mystical Theology. (my seminary doesn't have systematic theology, we instead study the content of systematic theology as the doctrines and perspectives develop over time through the course of history, philosophy, and theology. after two introductory courses which help to give a very, very broad overview of some of the theologies and doctrines that will be discussed, we are required to take Historical Theology I: Patristics, II: Medieval, and III: Reformation and Counter-Reformation to Contemporary. I have to say that I really appreciate this method of studying the plurality of perspectives deemed orthodox by the church and one of the reasons i chose The John Leland Center was for these courses, and the practice of rooting our perspectives in particular contexts and histories. It helps to show the complexity of issues rather than making things black or white.)
on a side note: i should probably not use the word "convergence" and not point people over to my good friends Todd and Lisa who are co-pastoring a church re-start called Convergence. They are doing some great stuff, and I highly recommend hanging out with their theologically imaginative community if you get a chance. better yet...create some art with them, get involved in acts of justice, and stick around for some great conversation.
lastly, i think that i'm realizing so many of the differences that arise in the conversations about the character of God, epistemology, categories, ecclesiology, and missiology arise out of differences in understanding the authority and role of scripture in church community. one of the downsides and things that i am trying to be careful not to do as i'm enjoying a brief respite of some issues and while some of my understandings and theology is coming into a time of better (yet certainly not even close to clear) focus, i want to be careful not to inflict violence on the other (especially in class) by falling into the fundamentalist trap of believing that what i perceive to be "right" thinking puts me in a better place or makes me of more value than the other who is trying their best to make sense of their theology in their particular context. it's been a great time as some of the dots have started to connect, but a humbling time as well, where the draw towards arrogant belief or "better belief" or "more correct perspective" in light of my relationship with others who do not and may never agree with me is strong. this has challenged me in class...especially in ethics and "Who is God?" to listen before disagreeing or speaking out. maybe that's why the dots are starting to connect in the first place?...
I've also been struggling a lot with categories of late which i think has led finally to some of the above pieces fitting together, e.g.: categories with which are appropriate to talk about God, the difference between religious and scientific categories and how to talk about the difference with my friends who are not yet believers, language games, and the limited understanding of the revelation that we can understand. I've decided to write my research paper for this second of three historical theology courses on Pseudo-Dionysius and his work Mystical Theology. (my seminary doesn't have systematic theology, we instead study the content of systematic theology as the doctrines and perspectives develop over time through the course of history, philosophy, and theology. after two introductory courses which help to give a very, very broad overview of some of the theologies and doctrines that will be discussed, we are required to take Historical Theology I: Patristics, II: Medieval, and III: Reformation and Counter-Reformation to Contemporary. I have to say that I really appreciate this method of studying the plurality of perspectives deemed orthodox by the church and one of the reasons i chose The John Leland Center was for these courses, and the practice of rooting our perspectives in particular contexts and histories. It helps to show the complexity of issues rather than making things black or white.)
on a side note: i should probably not use the word "convergence" and not point people over to my good friends Todd and Lisa who are co-pastoring a church re-start called Convergence. They are doing some great stuff, and I highly recommend hanging out with their theologically imaginative community if you get a chance. better yet...create some art with them, get involved in acts of justice, and stick around for some great conversation.
lastly, i think that i'm realizing so many of the differences that arise in the conversations about the character of God, epistemology, categories, ecclesiology, and missiology arise out of differences in understanding the authority and role of scripture in church community. one of the downsides and things that i am trying to be careful not to do as i'm enjoying a brief respite of some issues and while some of my understandings and theology is coming into a time of better (yet certainly not even close to clear) focus, i want to be careful not to inflict violence on the other (especially in class) by falling into the fundamentalist trap of believing that what i perceive to be "right" thinking puts me in a better place or makes me of more value than the other who is trying their best to make sense of their theology in their particular context. it's been a great time as some of the dots have started to connect, but a humbling time as well, where the draw towards arrogant belief or "better belief" or "more correct perspective" in light of my relationship with others who do not and may never agree with me is strong. this has challenged me in class...especially in ethics and "Who is God?" to listen before disagreeing or speaking out. maybe that's why the dots are starting to connect in the first place?...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)