I mean seriously? (HT: Brian McLaren) Torture and evangelicals, not a good combination...and white evangelicals at that. Uh.
So I alluded to this quote in a comment in my previous post, but in Shey and I talking about politics, specifically McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate, Shey made a brilliant yet extremely sad point about why she thought Palin was chosen, basically Shey said: "McCain chose Palin because he was banking on voters being more racist than sexist in this election." I might add to this statement, white evangelical voters. So while I think a lot of conservative, women-can't-be-leaders evangelicals are in some sort of conundrum with Palin possibly being the #2 of the U.S. gov't, I couldn't agree with Shey more about the racist tendencies in the U.S. political arena. It is interesting that we have heard a lot about Obama's relationship to Jeremiah Wright and Wright's liberation theology and questions about racist tendencies in government and history in the U.S....but we aren't hearing nearly as much about Palin's church and their interesting record of political perspectives, not to mention some interesting theology. Greg over at the parish highlights some of the problems evangelicals might/should have with Palin's supposed family values and christian perspectives.
I have to remind the students I work with that my own parents (who are right now 52 and 51) both lived and experienced the integration of schools while in high school. That Virginia, the state I live in, was one of the worst in the formal integration of schools, as massive resistance took place in many counties around the state, some lasting years before integration was allowed. And we need not look hard at current events to see how race continues to be an important underlying issue around our country.
Again, I don't have any false hopes the Obama and Biden duo are Jesus come again, or that they are going to actually accomplish all the change they talk about...not because I think that they are bad people (nor do I think McCain and Palin are "bad") but I am really struggling with some of the perspectives on war, terrorism, healthcare, the military-industrial complex, crossing of theology/political ideology, posturing, racist tendencies, and poverty issues amongst other issues, and I honestly was scared after watching Guliani the other night, and after seeing a painting on the door to the republican headquarters on Main Street in Warrenton where Palin is decked out in furs, looking happy while holding a huge gun...I just am kind of sad with the rhetoric/tone of Republicans right now. And sometimes, I'm just ashamed of being white with the tone of people (like the first link to the recent perspectives on torture) or the ignorance of white folks in their willingness to dismiss the significance of a little ol' African-American community organizer making a difference in such a way that he might become president of the U.S. i have another post on race and voting in the works...but got to get some more work done. until then...hope folks are well.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Friday, September 12, 2008
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
two prayers
In light of some recent conversations about divergent points of view on some theology, these prayers have echoed the hopes of my heart:
God, you have prepared in peace the path I must follow today. Help me to walk straight on that path. If I speak, remove lies from my lips. If I am hungry, take away from me all complaint. If I have plenty, destroy pride in me. May I go through the day calling on you, you, O Lord, who know no other Lord.
Ethiopian Prayer (from The Divine Hours)
God be in my head
and in my understanding.
God be in my mouth
and in my speaking.
God be in my heart
and in my thinking.
God be at mine end
and my departing.
Sarum Primer, 1527 (from The Divine Hours)
Ethiopian Prayer (from The Divine Hours)
God be in my head
and in my understanding.
God be in my mouth
and in my speaking.
God be in my heart
and in my thinking.
God be at mine end
and my departing.
Sarum Primer, 1527 (from The Divine Hours)
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
reading week
So things never seem to slow down, but this week I've got a lot to try to finish up including a paper and applying for Advanced Placement classes and starting to research some Ph.D. stuff. After some discussion with our academic dean and a couple professors, I am considering to possibly continue my studies. Anybody have any recommendations of schools, professors, programs, etc.? Anybody know how to even start this process? I figure I will spend some time researching schools, examining programs and seeing what might be a good fit for what I'd like to study and the type of professors I'd get to work with. But really, I have no idea what I'm doing, and I don't even know where to start.
The academic dean who got the ball rolling with me, asking me to at least "consider" working on a doctorate, thought that Philosophy or Philosophy for Theology, or Philosophy of Religion, or Doctorate of Theology (at Duke) were some programs to consider....I'm not that smart, so I have no idea if any of this will work, or if I'll have the energy to go on for further studies. Yet at the same time, if i do want to continue to do this whole "pastoring" thing, I would like to be able to work and financially be more independent from having to be dependent on a church and the bulk of the community's tithes going towards running an organization. I think teaching could be a great job, and I'd love to consider teaching alongside pastoring.
Maybe I'm just crazy though. I'm pretty sure I am.
The academic dean who got the ball rolling with me, asking me to at least "consider" working on a doctorate, thought that Philosophy or Philosophy for Theology, or Philosophy of Religion, or Doctorate of Theology (at Duke) were some programs to consider....I'm not that smart, so I have no idea if any of this will work, or if I'll have the energy to go on for further studies. Yet at the same time, if i do want to continue to do this whole "pastoring" thing, I would like to be able to work and financially be more independent from having to be dependent on a church and the bulk of the community's tithes going towards running an organization. I think teaching could be a great job, and I'd love to consider teaching alongside pastoring.
Maybe I'm just crazy though. I'm pretty sure I am.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The un/known God
Continuing in Rollins' book How (Not) to Speak of God...
This is a subsection of Chapter two, and in this section of "The un/known God" Rollins' first paragraph helps immensely in our discussion of God's location and relationship to us in the midst of life, creation, the world, suffering, joy, etc.:
"What is beginning to arise from the discussion so far is the idea that God ought to be understood as radically transcendent, not because God is somehow distant and remote from us, but precisely because God is immanent. In the same way that the sun blinds the one who looks directly at the light, so God's incoming blinds our intellect. In this way the God who is testified to in the Judeo-Christian tradition saturates our understanding with a blinding presence. This type of transcendent-immanence can be described as 'hypernymity'. While anonymity offers too little information for our understanding to grasp (like a figure on television who has been veiled in darkness so as to protect their identity), hypernymity gives us far too much information. Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence. The anonymous and the hypernonymous both resist reduction to complete understanding, but for very different reasons."
...We've been having a discussion the last few weeks in the adult small group I'm in about the problem of God and the problem of evil, and how to talk about God and evil and the suffering people go through. Which has ultimately led us back to the notion and idea of prayer, and how God "answers" or "hears" or "responds" to our prayers.
I have mostly come to rest in this mystery of prayer as an act of posturing before God, "as the object before the ultimate Subject" or as the human at the feet of God. Prayer helps me to be aware of God's hypernymity in ways that I have been too busy or too selfish, or simply unaware of before. I have a hard time with God being outside of time or space because I believe God to not be distant because God is striking the hiesman pose and keeping us at arms length, but rather God is radically transcendent through being such a blinding light, that I cannot possibly capture God in the fullness of God's being, and totality of the reality of God's movement in the world with my senses. There is this sense that God is at work all around us and in us as a community in the midst of suffering and evil and is beautifully blinding to our senses because we cannot comprehend the abounding goodness and grace of God.
This is a subsection of Chapter two, and in this section of "The un/known God" Rollins' first paragraph helps immensely in our discussion of God's location and relationship to us in the midst of life, creation, the world, suffering, joy, etc.:
"What is beginning to arise from the discussion so far is the idea that God ought to be understood as radically transcendent, not because God is somehow distant and remote from us, but precisely because God is immanent. In the same way that the sun blinds the one who looks directly at the light, so God's incoming blinds our intellect. In this way the God who is testified to in the Judeo-Christian tradition saturates our understanding with a blinding presence. This type of transcendent-immanence can be described as 'hypernymity'. While anonymity offers too little information for our understanding to grasp (like a figure on television who has been veiled in darkness so as to protect their identity), hypernymity gives us far too much information. Instead of being limited by the poverty of absence we are short-circuited by the excess of presence. The anonymous and the hypernonymous both resist reduction to complete understanding, but for very different reasons."
...We've been having a discussion the last few weeks in the adult small group I'm in about the problem of God and the problem of evil, and how to talk about God and evil and the suffering people go through. Which has ultimately led us back to the notion and idea of prayer, and how God "answers" or "hears" or "responds" to our prayers.
I have mostly come to rest in this mystery of prayer as an act of posturing before God, "as the object before the ultimate Subject" or as the human at the feet of God. Prayer helps me to be aware of God's hypernymity in ways that I have been too busy or too selfish, or simply unaware of before. I have a hard time with God being outside of time or space because I believe God to not be distant because God is striking the hiesman pose and keeping us at arms length, but rather God is radically transcendent through being such a blinding light, that I cannot possibly capture God in the fullness of God's being, and totality of the reality of God's movement in the world with my senses. There is this sense that God is at work all around us and in us as a community in the midst of suffering and evil and is beautifully blinding to our senses because we cannot comprehend the abounding goodness and grace of God.
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.
Friday, July 20, 2007
some things i'm thinking about
so is anyone else excited about David Beckham? L.A. Galaxy is playing D.C. United in DC on August 9th...and I'd like to go if anyone else is interested...let's make it happen. I think our little Fauquier County Soccer Club has tickets that we can buy. i hope this helps soccer to take off a little more in the US.
i've got a paper to write due tomorrow and i leave for a trip with the students from my church where i youth pastor on Sunday. anybody want to write my paper for me? i have to write a paper discussing how the humanity of Christ relates to the situation where a husband has made it difficult for his wife to go to church has committed suicide, and then i have to allow my theology about that situation to inform my creation of a funeral service....
lastly, here is a pic from the garden of late. we had some beautiful thunderstorms yesterday and last night. which brought some great and needed rains, however, the wind blew so hard that it knocked over some of my corn, so i spent part of this morning standing them back up properly. we have some bell peppers starting to grow as well as some jalapeños. i've gotten to eat some banana peppers, and the rest of the stuff is flowering and growing well. hopefully the corn will rebound a bit after a rough go of it in the wind yesterday.
i've got a paper to write due tomorrow and i leave for a trip with the students from my church where i youth pastor on Sunday. anybody want to write my paper for me? i have to write a paper discussing how the humanity of Christ relates to the situation where a husband has made it difficult for his wife to go to church has committed suicide, and then i have to allow my theology about that situation to inform my creation of a funeral service....
lastly, here is a pic from the garden of late. we had some beautiful thunderstorms yesterday and last night. which brought some great and needed rains, however, the wind blew so hard that it knocked over some of my corn, so i spent part of this morning standing them back up properly. we have some bell peppers starting to grow as well as some jalapeños. i've gotten to eat some banana peppers, and the rest of the stuff is flowering and growing well. hopefully the corn will rebound a bit after a rough go of it in the wind yesterday.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Theology
Well, I'd like to come back to Rollins finally, in an exploration of his second chapter of How (Not) to Speak of God. As I write I'm listening to Ryan Adam's Easy Tiger and on the advice of Jonny Baker I've also picked up Sinead O'Connor's newest titled Theology. Both are tremendous albums and I highly recommend them! I've never owned or really listened to Sinead O'Connor much, but I'm really blown away by the content of this double album.
So Rollins' second chapter is titled "The Aftermath of Theology" and in this chapter he seems to be describing the role and view of theology in light of previous chapter's critique of ideology and the notion that we can somehow capture or colonize God through our ideas of God. He proposes that we see ourselves as the object of theology where theology is created through our lives as God speaks into them. Theology is less a human discourse about God where we debate ideas and notions of God; instead, theology is the place where God speaks into human life and discourse. Rollins goes on to write of theology:
"It is no longer thought of as a human discourse that speaks of God but rather as the place where God speaks into human discourse. In other words, theology is understood as the site in which revelation makes its appearance in the world, the place in which theos (God) impacts, and overwhelms, the human realm of logos (reason). Consequently we do not do theology but are rather overcome and transformed by it: we do not master it but are mastered by it (pg. 21)."
So in this view of theology, the traditional modes of the relationship are subverted and redefined. God is now the subject unto which all of creation and humanity are object to. This helps us immensely to be free from the temptation and task from trying to reduce God into an object for our consideration. "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in." (pg. 22) This is such a freeing notion to me that I need not worry or think that it is somehow of my ability to comprehend God as God really is...as though if i just read the Bible enough or studied enough, or could just "get it right" then I would be able to reach a new level or plane in knowing God. Instead, in this journey of faith, theology becomes the mystical union and exploration of the revelation of God in my own life and the life of my community as God works among us.
I'm going to stop here in Chapter 2 and start next where Rollins talks about God as "hyper-present" because I think that this is one of the most important concepts in the book that discusses how God is present with us in revelation.
So Rollins' second chapter is titled "The Aftermath of Theology" and in this chapter he seems to be describing the role and view of theology in light of previous chapter's critique of ideology and the notion that we can somehow capture or colonize God through our ideas of God. He proposes that we see ourselves as the object of theology where theology is created through our lives as God speaks into them. Theology is less a human discourse about God where we debate ideas and notions of God; instead, theology is the place where God speaks into human life and discourse. Rollins goes on to write of theology:
"It is no longer thought of as a human discourse that speaks of God but rather as the place where God speaks into human discourse. In other words, theology is understood as the site in which revelation makes its appearance in the world, the place in which theos (God) impacts, and overwhelms, the human realm of logos (reason). Consequently we do not do theology but are rather overcome and transformed by it: we do not master it but are mastered by it (pg. 21)."
So in this view of theology, the traditional modes of the relationship are subverted and redefined. God is now the subject unto which all of creation and humanity are object to. This helps us immensely to be free from the temptation and task from trying to reduce God into an object for our consideration. "God is not a theoretical problem to somehow resolve but rather a mystery to be participated in." (pg. 22) This is such a freeing notion to me that I need not worry or think that it is somehow of my ability to comprehend God as God really is...as though if i just read the Bible enough or studied enough, or could just "get it right" then I would be able to reach a new level or plane in knowing God. Instead, in this journey of faith, theology becomes the mystical union and exploration of the revelation of God in my own life and the life of my community as God works among us.
I'm going to stop here in Chapter 2 and start next where Rollins talks about God as "hyper-present" because I think that this is one of the most important concepts in the book that discusses how God is present with us in revelation.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
so i preached...
I don't preach too often at the church where I'm youth pastor at (probably for a number of very good reasons!), but this past Sunday I got to throw all my cards on the table and share a message from the pulpit, that is the music stand in the elementary school gym where we have our worship gatherings. I preached a sermon titled "The Kingdom of God: God With Us." I explored and visited the text of Lamentations 3:15-26 as a meditative reading and responsive reading during different parts of the service, and preached on Luke 4:14-30.
If you'd like to download the sermon right click here and "save as" to download the sermon. If you'd like to stream the sermon, simply click here and you you'll be redirected to stream and listen now to the sermon.
Some of you may know that the last six weeks or so have been some difficult ones...my grandfather passed away just as finals were beginning for seminary, I got poison ivy so that I couldn't walk, my mother-in-law broke her ankle, and since Shey's only sister who requires full-time care as a result of a car accident a number of years ago was devoid of a care giver who could get around...Shey and I moved in to the in-laws house for a few days each week for a few weeks to help out. My youngest brother C-$$ graduated high school, and I had crazy papers to write to finish up school which all hit in a short amount of time. And as I was preaching and sharing about God being those who are down-and-out, the vulnerable, the blind, the poor and the downcast...I was moved deeply as I was realizing the depth to which God is with us in the midst of an embodied community.
I'm no great preacher, but I am thankful for the chances to share a little bit of where I am going in my journey with Christ in the midst of a larger community that I am a part of.
Hopefully the summer will slow down a bit from here. I'm trying to read some literature and novels along with some theology this summer and play a little Wii if I get a chance. Anybody read The Kite Runner? That's one of the highest on my list for the summer, it kind of skipped up the list after listening to a recent podcast with Greg Horton over at The Parish and with Wired Parish.com. Otherwise, just trying to chill out a bit for the first time in a while it seems...
If you'd like to download the sermon right click here and "save as" to download the sermon. If you'd like to stream the sermon, simply click here and you you'll be redirected to stream and listen now to the sermon.
Some of you may know that the last six weeks or so have been some difficult ones...my grandfather passed away just as finals were beginning for seminary, I got poison ivy so that I couldn't walk, my mother-in-law broke her ankle, and since Shey's only sister who requires full-time care as a result of a car accident a number of years ago was devoid of a care giver who could get around...Shey and I moved in to the in-laws house for a few days each week for a few weeks to help out. My youngest brother C-$$ graduated high school, and I had crazy papers to write to finish up school which all hit in a short amount of time. And as I was preaching and sharing about God being those who are down-and-out, the vulnerable, the blind, the poor and the downcast...I was moved deeply as I was realizing the depth to which God is with us in the midst of an embodied community.
I'm no great preacher, but I am thankful for the chances to share a little bit of where I am going in my journey with Christ in the midst of a larger community that I am a part of.
Hopefully the summer will slow down a bit from here. I'm trying to read some literature and novels along with some theology this summer and play a little Wii if I get a chance. Anybody read The Kite Runner? That's one of the highest on my list for the summer, it kind of skipped up the list after listening to a recent podcast with Greg Horton over at The Parish and with Wired Parish.com. Otherwise, just trying to chill out a bit for the first time in a while it seems...
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Introduction to Part 1 of How (Not) to Speak of God
The introduction's title helps introduce us to the deep thread that ties the book together:
Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief to Believing in the Right Way
This book is written in two parts. Part One is a collection of theological and philosophical reflections, riddled with parables, stories, quotes from other authors, mystics, philosophers, theologians, and Rollins' himself. Similar in how Brian McLaren makes the point that theological and philosophical ideas can be perhaps more subversive in parables and stories in The Secret Message of Jesus, Rollins employs this tactic throughout Part One of the book. The parables don't stop there however. Part Two of the book is a collection of 10 services that Rollins' has participated in and probably helped create with his community called Ikon in Ireland, that bring out the themes, theologies, and philosophies in the first part of the book, while stirring up our imagination with more stories and parables to illuminate, however darkly, the ideas from the first section of the book.
Today, I'd like to just begin conversing about the introduction to Part One...perhaps this will help others like me, I feel like I need to keep the ideas and notions in manageable chunks, both to be able to have conversation about them, and also to digest the rich thought in the book. So I thought I'd throw out another quote, that sticks out to me from the introduction to Part One (in which Rollins' is setting up his aims for this section of the book):
"Here I picture the emerging community as a significant part of a wider religious movement which rejects both absolutism and relativism as idolatrous positions which hide their human origins in the modern myth of pure reason. Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief, these chapters show that the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as the one who believes in the right way--that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. The reversal from 'right belief' to 'believing in the right way' is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the opposite of right belief is simply wrong belief); rather, it is a way transcending the binary altogether. Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis) understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world (Rollins, pgs. 2-3, italics and bold mine)."
I think that this notion of orthodoxy, as right way of living and believing hits at the heart of what I've thought for some time now. I have struggled a lot with Reformed theology and the whole predestination/free will thing for a long time, though it has become much easier in the last few years, largely because of this nagging suspicion that orthodoxy was never about having all the right beliefs lined up in a row to show God (or others). Rather, orthodoxy was the way in which we are called to live and love in the likeness of Christ. This helps to free us from the fear that if we don't believe all the right things, or are "led astray" on a certain doctrine, that we can find hope in that orthodoxy is rooted in the way we live and believe, rather than in what we believe, which bypasses the whole, "say the sinner's prayer" or before you can be saved you must believe 1, 2, and 3.
How does this sound to you? Orthodoxy as right living and believing rather than having a fixed or proper set of beliefs that are all "correct" (if we can even be perfect or correct in our doctrines about God)?
Heretical Orthodoxy: From Right Belief to Believing in the Right Way
This book is written in two parts. Part One is a collection of theological and philosophical reflections, riddled with parables, stories, quotes from other authors, mystics, philosophers, theologians, and Rollins' himself. Similar in how Brian McLaren makes the point that theological and philosophical ideas can be perhaps more subversive in parables and stories in The Secret Message of Jesus, Rollins employs this tactic throughout Part One of the book. The parables don't stop there however. Part Two of the book is a collection of 10 services that Rollins' has participated in and probably helped create with his community called Ikon in Ireland, that bring out the themes, theologies, and philosophies in the first part of the book, while stirring up our imagination with more stories and parables to illuminate, however darkly, the ideas from the first section of the book.
Today, I'd like to just begin conversing about the introduction to Part One...perhaps this will help others like me, I feel like I need to keep the ideas and notions in manageable chunks, both to be able to have conversation about them, and also to digest the rich thought in the book. So I thought I'd throw out another quote, that sticks out to me from the introduction to Part One (in which Rollins' is setting up his aims for this section of the book):
"Here I picture the emerging community as a significant part of a wider religious movement which rejects both absolutism and relativism as idolatrous positions which hide their human origins in the modern myth of pure reason. Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief, these chapters show that the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as the one who believes in the right way--that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. The reversal from 'right belief' to 'believing in the right way' is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the opposite of right belief is simply wrong belief); rather, it is a way transcending the binary altogether. Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis) understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world (Rollins, pgs. 2-3, italics and bold mine)."
I think that this notion of orthodoxy, as right way of living and believing hits at the heart of what I've thought for some time now. I have struggled a lot with Reformed theology and the whole predestination/free will thing for a long time, though it has become much easier in the last few years, largely because of this nagging suspicion that orthodoxy was never about having all the right beliefs lined up in a row to show God (or others). Rather, orthodoxy was the way in which we are called to live and love in the likeness of Christ. This helps to free us from the fear that if we don't believe all the right things, or are "led astray" on a certain doctrine, that we can find hope in that orthodoxy is rooted in the way we live and believe, rather than in what we believe, which bypasses the whole, "say the sinner's prayer" or before you can be saved you must believe 1, 2, and 3.
How does this sound to you? Orthodoxy as right living and believing rather than having a fixed or proper set of beliefs that are all "correct" (if we can even be perfect or correct in our doctrines about God)?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Bright Sadness
Lent is well on its way, and thus far it has been a great experience. Soda hasn't been nearly as hard not to drink as I anticipated, although not buying any new music has been harder than I thought...I forgot that Arcade Fire's Neon Bible was coming out...anybody gotten their new album? It's gotten great reviews thus far...
As I mentioned before, Lent is traditionally called "Bright Sadness" in the Orthodox tradition, and after a few weeks of exploration into apophaticism, this notion of Bright Sadness has come to more adequately explain this time of Lent during this season of the church year for me. It has marked a period of my life rampant with dramatic change during the last few years and last few months. The Bright Sadness of this time of advent (or Lent), this time of waiting and participating in joining Christ in his sufferings, has brought great illumination, and yet sadness too. There have been moments of recognition and brightness that have reminded me of the importance of spiritual disciplines and obedience, rooted in humility, and a deep reverential silence that have shaped my life since childhood. Yet there have been periods of sadness and grief over the changes from where I've come from, and the loss of former perspectives. There has also been sadness in the changed relationships that have stemmed from deep theological shifts in the last five years, that have made it difficult to continue to perpetuate perspectives that no longer urge me along the journey of faith. And while I grieve in a way the loss and change of certain relationships in that they don't remain the same or rooted within a particular time and place, I also rejoice, for the journey of faith is also bright and illuminating. There is truly a sense of Bright Sadness right now--i.e. I am seeing life in new ways, yet there is a sense of loss, and I am changing and finding God in new ways, yet the relationships around me are also changing.
I've realized that it is important for me to wrestle with some more of these thoughts, and so I've decided to start blogging through Peter Rollins' book How (Not) to Speak of God. This book has been a breath of fresh air, and has helped put into words many of my thoughts that I had yet to find words for, and also stretched me in new ways. Combine this book with some of the best lectures and discussions of my seminary experience on Apophatic Theology from the last few weeks, especially as seen expressed in Pseudo-Dionysius, and bright sadness takes shape in powerful ways.
This should be fun and challenging, and for my friends and family reading this, if there are words that don't make sense, let me know. I know that I have yet to "define" apophatic theology (or for a Wiki definition, click here), and I will come to that, but for now, I'd like to quote a bit of the introduction of Rollins' book, that I won't even comment on tonight, but would simply like for it to ruminate and give shape to the coming discussion. This is found in Rollins' introduction, and explains his reasons for being drawn to mystical theology, which shapes a large part of the book and which illuminates much of my own perspective of how this dialogue about faith, church, the kingdom of God and so much more should take shape. This quote is in reference to Rollins trying to explain why how we (don't) talk about God is important:
As I mentioned before, Lent is traditionally called "Bright Sadness" in the Orthodox tradition, and after a few weeks of exploration into apophaticism, this notion of Bright Sadness has come to more adequately explain this time of Lent during this season of the church year for me. It has marked a period of my life rampant with dramatic change during the last few years and last few months. The Bright Sadness of this time of advent (or Lent), this time of waiting and participating in joining Christ in his sufferings, has brought great illumination, and yet sadness too. There have been moments of recognition and brightness that have reminded me of the importance of spiritual disciplines and obedience, rooted in humility, and a deep reverential silence that have shaped my life since childhood. Yet there have been periods of sadness and grief over the changes from where I've come from, and the loss of former perspectives. There has also been sadness in the changed relationships that have stemmed from deep theological shifts in the last five years, that have made it difficult to continue to perpetuate perspectives that no longer urge me along the journey of faith. And while I grieve in a way the loss and change of certain relationships in that they don't remain the same or rooted within a particular time and place, I also rejoice, for the journey of faith is also bright and illuminating. There is truly a sense of Bright Sadness right now--i.e. I am seeing life in new ways, yet there is a sense of loss, and I am changing and finding God in new ways, yet the relationships around me are also changing.
I've realized that it is important for me to wrestle with some more of these thoughts, and so I've decided to start blogging through Peter Rollins' book How (Not) to Speak of God. This book has been a breath of fresh air, and has helped put into words many of my thoughts that I had yet to find words for, and also stretched me in new ways. Combine this book with some of the best lectures and discussions of my seminary experience on Apophatic Theology from the last few weeks, especially as seen expressed in Pseudo-Dionysius, and bright sadness takes shape in powerful ways.
This should be fun and challenging, and for my friends and family reading this, if there are words that don't make sense, let me know. I know that I have yet to "define" apophatic theology (or for a Wiki definition, click here), and I will come to that, but for now, I'd like to quote a bit of the introduction of Rollins' book, that I won't even comment on tonight, but would simply like for it to ruminate and give shape to the coming discussion. This is found in Rollins' introduction, and explains his reasons for being drawn to mystical theology, which shapes a large part of the book and which illuminates much of my own perspective of how this dialogue about faith, church, the kingdom of God and so much more should take shape. This quote is in reference to Rollins trying to explain why how we (don't) talk about God is important:
"Each time I returned to the horns of this dilemma, I found myself drawn to the Christian mystics (such as Meister Eckhart), for while they did not embrace total silence, they balked at the presumption of those who would seek to colonize the name 'God' with concepts. Instead of viewing the unspeakable as that which brings all language to a halt, they realized that the unspeakable was precisely the place where the most inspiring language began. This God whose name was above every name gave birth, not to a poverty of words, but to an excess of them. And so they wrote elegantly concerning the limits of writing and spoke eloquently about the brutality of words. By speaking with wounded words of their wounded Christ, these mystics helped to develop, not a distinct religious tradition, but rather a way of engaging with and understanding already existing religious traditions: seeing them as a loving response to God rather than a way of defining God (Rollins, xii)."
amen.
amen.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Mr. Deity and Mr. Pagitt
Two great things happened today, both of which are related to Doug Pagitt actually. First...I went to a seminar led by Doug today called A Theology-Shaped Church : Ministry Beyond the Pragmatic that was really good. Doug raised a lot of interesting questions about the methods and hopes of many faith communities today that are simply trying to become "authorized re-tellers" of the gospel story rather than theologically imaginative communities in the way of Jesus. Central to this distinction is the missiological hope that seeks to include those who have questions by inviting and including them into the community (which implies a say in the life, direction, hopes, and aspirations of the community) through relationship rather than orthodoxy or orthopraxis as prerequisites for inclusion or a voice in the community. (Think Ortho-centric or boundary sets of community living in contrast to relational connection.) Doug pointed out that although churches and faith communities are trying to say that "spiritual" or "faith" conversations aren't happening, they are right in that those conversations aren't happening in the very place you'd expect they should be happening, that is within the church, but that they are happening very well and very intelligently outside of the church. Which brings me to Mr. Deity. Whatever you're doing, stop now and both go to the website (click on Mr. Deity.). And then using whatever podcatcher you have, subscribe to the Mr. Deity podcast and download the 5-6 video casts. Hot dang they are funny and poignant. Seriously, don't walk away from your computer until you download at least the first video-cast "Mr. Deity and The Evil."
I'd love to hear what you think of these videos, they are hilarious and really quite brilliant. Doug showed a couple in the above seminar and they stirred up a lot of laughs and great conversation about the theological task ahead of the church.
After the seminar I got to sit down with Doug and Todd and Brady (Todd's son) for about an hour and a half today to talk about church planting, new expressions of theologically imaginative communities, my paper discussing how our eschatology affects and informs the spiritual formation of our communities of faith, we shared stories, laughed, talked about Todd's (and Lisa's!) church restart Convergence, and more. Doug is a really great guy, and is awesome for taking some time to hang out and chat. If you're ever in the Minneapolis area you should visit and check out the community he is a part of called Solomon's Porch. This includes my brothers who freakin' live so close by...go check it out.
It's my last night in San Diego, and it's been a fun day. It's been a lot of fun hanging out with the Cullop's and has been cool getting to know Todd's family better. Not sure what will be going on tonight, but am hoping to check out one of the movies up for picture of the year...we'll see.
I'd love to hear what you think of these videos, they are hilarious and really quite brilliant. Doug showed a couple in the above seminar and they stirred up a lot of laughs and great conversation about the theological task ahead of the church.
After the seminar I got to sit down with Doug and Todd and Brady (Todd's son) for about an hour and a half today to talk about church planting, new expressions of theologically imaginative communities, my paper discussing how our eschatology affects and informs the spiritual formation of our communities of faith, we shared stories, laughed, talked about Todd's (and Lisa's!) church restart Convergence, and more. Doug is a really great guy, and is awesome for taking some time to hang out and chat. If you're ever in the Minneapolis area you should visit and check out the community he is a part of called Solomon's Porch. This includes my brothers who freakin' live so close by...go check it out.
It's my last night in San Diego, and it's been a fun day. It's been a lot of fun hanging out with the Cullop's and has been cool getting to know Todd's family better. Not sure what will be going on tonight, but am hoping to check out one of the movies up for picture of the year...we'll see.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
semi-pelagian?
We're down to the end of the semester, with class tonight and finals next week. Things never seem to quite slow down as much as you think they could or should...but I'm looking forward to being on the other side of next Thursday when I take my last final and turn in my Historical Theology paper on Origen and his method of biblical interpretation.
Two things I've come to realize thus far in Historical Theology I (which is the class where we study the development of theology and doctrine during the patristic time period, i.e. Augustine, Origen, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Pelagius and many more) are:
1) I tend to enjoy studying the theologians and church leaders who were declared heretical on certain doctrines.
2) I think Pelagius got a bad rap.
I'm reading a lecture on Augustine's perspective on foreknowledge and predestination and it reminds me of all the great "conversations" that took place in college about this stuff. Really...reading all this stuff stirs up a desire to read more Eastern theologies...anybody know some good books? (I'm getting How (Not) to Speak of God by Pete Rollins for Christmas...which should be a good look at some apophatic theology.)
Two things I've come to realize thus far in Historical Theology I (which is the class where we study the development of theology and doctrine during the patristic time period, i.e. Augustine, Origen, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Pelagius and many more) are:
1) I tend to enjoy studying the theologians and church leaders who were declared heretical on certain doctrines.
2) I think Pelagius got a bad rap.
I'm reading a lecture on Augustine's perspective on foreknowledge and predestination and it reminds me of all the great "conversations" that took place in college about this stuff. Really...reading all this stuff stirs up a desire to read more Eastern theologies...anybody know some good books? (I'm getting How (Not) to Speak of God by Pete Rollins for Christmas...which should be a good look at some apophatic theology.)
Monday, October 16, 2006
Plato and the Sovereignty of God
so over on some message boards that i hang out at every once and a while to try to be in conversation and to have a chance to write out some of my theology with people who i expect will disagree and with whom i would also usually disagree with also had started a discussion about the notion of the age of accountability, and most of the people at the board starting explaining two things that are very reformed and very Calvinist.
1. Children and babies are born into sin, and though we hope God will judge them mercifully, we don't know what will happen to them.
2. It is God's prerogative as to how he'd like to deal with these children and babies who die at young ages, and who are we to question God or his judgments.
both of these notions scare the crap out of me, and tell me a lot of what these folks think about God and his wrath, and they pose a huge unbreakable (and unchallengeable) wall of God's sovereignty in between God's relationship with humanity. talking about this stuff of course led into a discussion of hermeneutics, a time of defining what the gospel "really is", sin, and on and on about things that really probably can't happen on message boards or blogs because it is like trying to smash what takes some theologians 13 volumes to say in a few really loooong posts. which is dumb too because i am still deconstructing a lot of my own theology anyway, so i'm learning what i think often as i write...
but tonight in philosophy for theology, we were discussing Plato's allegory of the cave and a passage stuck out to me that helps illuminate how intertwined the reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God and Platonic order of realities are:
"And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those who have never seen absolute justice?
Anything but surprising, he replied."
There is this question seen here in Plato's writings that who do the visible beings think they are trying to believe that they understand the Idea of justice from the highest Good? Who are they to question the Good, for their feeble minds are seeing but reflections of the shadows or perhaps the images of justice, but not the idea of justice...
and this reminds me of the reformed doctrine that tries to say through omission, that who are we to question God, if it is of God's desire to send little children and babies to hell, God is able to make such decisions...but in making these claims, we fail to think about what this actually says about the nature of God and how God acts. can we not say that we don't believe that this is how a good God, who pursues and longs to be in relationship with his creation would act?
1. Children and babies are born into sin, and though we hope God will judge them mercifully, we don't know what will happen to them.
2. It is God's prerogative as to how he'd like to deal with these children and babies who die at young ages, and who are we to question God or his judgments.
both of these notions scare the crap out of me, and tell me a lot of what these folks think about God and his wrath, and they pose a huge unbreakable (and unchallengeable) wall of God's sovereignty in between God's relationship with humanity. talking about this stuff of course led into a discussion of hermeneutics, a time of defining what the gospel "really is", sin, and on and on about things that really probably can't happen on message boards or blogs because it is like trying to smash what takes some theologians 13 volumes to say in a few really loooong posts. which is dumb too because i am still deconstructing a lot of my own theology anyway, so i'm learning what i think often as i write...
but tonight in philosophy for theology, we were discussing Plato's allegory of the cave and a passage stuck out to me that helps illuminate how intertwined the reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God and Platonic order of realities are:
"And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those who have never seen absolute justice?
Anything but surprising, he replied."
There is this question seen here in Plato's writings that who do the visible beings think they are trying to believe that they understand the Idea of justice from the highest Good? Who are they to question the Good, for their feeble minds are seeing but reflections of the shadows or perhaps the images of justice, but not the idea of justice...
and this reminds me of the reformed doctrine that tries to say through omission, that who are we to question God, if it is of God's desire to send little children and babies to hell, God is able to make such decisions...but in making these claims, we fail to think about what this actually says about the nature of God and how God acts. can we not say that we don't believe that this is how a good God, who pursues and longs to be in relationship with his creation would act?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)