Joshua Seek

Personal Meanderings of Joshua Seek 
Filed under

postmodernism

 

Black or White Scenarios [Communitas Collective]

By Helen at Communitas Collective...

 

Black or white scenarios

keysI’ve been doing some programming recently which has reminded me how black or white computer code is. When it’s correctly written it always works. If it’s just one character off it will (maddeningly) entirely fail to run. And yes, I’ve been reminded of the latter this week!

When I became a Christian I joined a Christian tradition with black or white at its core:

  • There are two eternal destinies: heaven (perfect happiness) or hell (unending conscious pain)
  • Heaven is for perfect (100% sinless) people only
  • Either God’s spirit indwells you or you aren’t a Christian at all

There’s a stark elegance about black and white on a piano. And as I mentioned, I know from (frustrating) experience that computer code is black and white.

Yet the more I thought about *people* the less it made sense to try to fit them into the black or white framework of the theology I’d been taught... [more...]

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Absolute   Communitas Collective   postmodernism  

Comments [0]

Bonhoeffer: Religionless Christianity

I read a post today about Deitrich Bonhoeffer and his thoughts on "religionless christianity".  I had never heard of such a topic, so I looked it up.  Towards the end of his life, while in a German prison, Bonhoeffer wrote a series of letters to a friend on his ponderings of what it meant to be a Christian in a day when absolutes could not be expressed absolutely (post-modernism anyone??).  When a man has no choice but to life a secular life.  But how would such a man consider himself a Christian?  

Does God require Christianity, a religion, a supposed level of piety?

From Bonhoeffer:

To Eberhard Bethage, April, 1944:

What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience--and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving toward a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore. Even those who honestly describe themselves as "religious" do not in the least act up to it, and so they presumably mean something quite different by "religious."

Our whole nineteen-hundred-year-old Christian preaching and theology rest on the "religious a priori" of mankind. "Christianity" has always been a form--perhaps the true form--of "religion." But if one day it becomes clear that this a priori does not exist at all, but was a historically conditioned and transient form of human self-expression, and if therefore man becomes radically religionless--and I think that that is already more or less the case (else how is it, for example, that this war, in contrast to all previous ones, is not calling forth any "religious" reaction?)--what does that mean for "Christianity"? It means that the foundation is taken away from the whole of what has up to now been our "Christianity," and that there remain only a few "last survivors of the age of chivalry," or a few intellectually dishonest people that we are to pounce in fervor, pique, or indignation, in order to sell them goods? Are we to fall upon a few unfortunate people in their hour of need and exercise a sort of religious compulsion on them? If we don't want to do all that, if our final judgment must be that the Western form of Christianity, too, was only a preliminary stage to a complete absence of religion, what kind of situation emerges for us, for the church? How can Christ become the Lord of the religionless as well? Are there religionless Christians? If religion is only a garment of Christianity--and even this garment has looked very different at different times--then what is a religionless Christianity? 

The questions to be answered would surely be: What do a church, a community, a sermon, a liturgy, a Christian life mean in a religionless world? How do we speak of God--without religion, i.e., without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness, and so on? How do we speak (or perhaps we cannot now even "speak" as we used to) in a "secular" way about God? In what way are we "religionless-secular" Christians, in what way are we those who are called forth, not regarding ourselves from a religious point of view as specially favored, but rather as belonging wholly to the world? In that case Christ is no longer an object of religion, but something quite different, really the Lord of the world. But what does that mean? What is the place of worship and prayer in a religionless situation? 

The Pauline question of whether [circumcision] is a condition of justification seems to me in present-day terms to be whether religion is a condition of salvation. Freedom from [circumcision] is also freedom from religion. I often ask myself why a "Christian instinct" often draws me more to the religionless people than to the religious, but which I don't in the least mean with any evangelizing intention, but, I might almost say, "in brotherhood." While I'm often reluctant to mention God by name to religious people--because that name somehow seems to me here not to ring true, and I feel myself to be slightly dishonest (it's particularly bad when others start to talk in religious jargon; I then dry up almost completely and feel awkward and uncomfortable)--to people with no religion I can on occasion mention him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course. 

The transcendence of epistemological theory has nothing to do with the transcendence of God. God is beyond in the midst of our life. The church stands, not at the boundaries where human powers give out, but in the middle of the village...How this religionless Christianity looks, what form it takes, is something that I'm thinking about a great deal, and I shall be writing to you again about it soon. It may be that on us in particular, midway between East and West, there will fall a heavy responsibility.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Bonhoeffer   emergent   postmodernism   religion   religionless christianity  

Comments [1]

Brian McLaren on Postmodernism and Absolutes

Do postmodernists believe in no absolutes?

Absolutely not!

Brian McLaren writes on a question recently posed to him by a student and give some background to the common beliefs about a postmodern society, namely the rejection of any truth.

Of course I believe that some things are morally good and others are morally evil. Of course!

Here's my concern: If a person or group pushes the "we've got moral absolutes absolutely figured out" button too fast or too often, they run an increased risk of behaving in immoral ways, and they are the last to know it because of their excessive self-confidence.

[Continued...]

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Brian McLaren   emergent   postmodernism   Relativism  

Comments [0]

Why I am emergent

I might consider this a coming out of sorts.  Certainly, many people close to me know of my involvement with Emerging Desert.  This post is for the rest of you, but it's mostly for my own ability to write things out and have an explanation for my thoughts.

A few years ago I was a part of what many would consider a megachurch.  I was on staff there, I worked there, and I was deeply involved.  But there came a point when I couldn't be involved as much as I might have liked, due to college and work.  When this happened, I noticed my access to community dried up.  Many people I considered myself close to began to stop calling.  I was out of the club.

I attempted to get involved again, but I couldn't find a way back in.  One day, I went in and wrote on a "Get Involved" card that I wanted to help with anything that was needed.  With 30 different ministries, I figured there was someplace I could get involved.

I didn't get a single call.  Nor, when I left, did I hear anything either.  A friend of mine helped me connect with some other people that were planting a church in Phoenix.  I went with them and helped plant this church for a couple years.  I though that getting out of a large church would change everything.  It didn't.

My entrance into the emergent church conversation was through house churches.  I learned that I really wanted to be a part of, and plant, small churches where every person was empowered to serve one another.  I got to experience a bit of this through the church we planted in Phoenix, and I wanted to do more.  After leaving the church in Phoenix, I started meeting with some friends in their house, very informally, and exploring options.

At this same time, I was reading a lot of books and talking with people online and offline.  Frank Viola's books on the organic nature of the church were immensely helpful, as were books by Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and books from Jossey-Bass and Emersion Books (publishers). 

I met up with Emerging Desert earlier this year, and they are an amazing community of people who love people and love God.  I'm glad that they exist here in Phoenix.

That's the background... now on to why I am emergent...

To explain this, I'm going to use the framework of Tony Jones' "Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier":

Dispatch 1: Emergents practice a generous orthodoxy that appreciates the contributions of all Christian movements.

While I was involved with my reformed, Calvinistic tradition, I came to know many people who were not a part of my tradition.  People who were charismatic Calvinists, Armenians, orthodox, and many other segments of the Christian faith.  In those days, these people were the enemies.  Even though we both loved God, they believed wrongly - or imperfectly - and thus it was my job to tell them how they were wrong.  Little time was spent telling people who don't know that God wants to know them about his love.  But this nagging thing kept happening.  Every time I tried to attack others inside my own faith, the more they loved me!  Drat!

It was because of this that I realized that they were the same as me.  I was given the opportunity to get to know them as friends, not enemies.

Dispatch 2:  Emergents reject the politics & theologies of left versus right — they anticipate a more complex reality.

I was a hardcore right wing Christian.  But inevitably, following one party means that you abhor the sins of others while accepting the sins of your own.  I believed that abortion and gay marriage were wrong, but wars, executions, torture, and isolation was acceptable.  Even the solutions that we had for the things we thought were wrong didn't really solve the problem, they just legislated our morality.

This doesn't mean I swing to the other side and become a hardcore left-winger, but I see the good and the bad in both and live outside them - a third way.

Dispatch 3: The gospel is like lava: no matter how much crust has formed over it, it will find a way to burst through.

Dispatch 4: The emergent phenomenon began when a group began talking about how postmodernism was affecting the faith.

This is the world we live in, and the emergent conversation is talking about it.  This is why I want to talk about it. 

Dispatch 5: The emergent movement is not exclusively North American; it is growing around the globe.

One of my first introductions to emergent was through Andrew Jones (tallskinnykiwi), a New Zealander.  Many in the UK would say it started there, and they're probably right.  but the interesting thing is that these conversations started separately from each other.


Dispatch 6: Emergents see God’s activity in all aspects of culture and reject the sacred-secular divide.

My first experience with this was with a group of people who went to Four Peaks Brewery every week and just spent time with people there.  Normally, there would be a divide between the religious piety, and the secular beer-drinking culture. These people did not ascribe to that, and the sacred infiltrated the secular through them.

Dispatch 7: Emergents think that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine.

How many times have you changed your opinion based on someone yelling at you from a street corner, shoving papers into your face, and telling you you're wrong?  For me, never.  Even when I look back at my own faith, every time I've had a change of opinion it's been based on a loving experience.  But my own practice, in the past, has not been the same.  The way I was taught to speak to others is to evangelize them.  Usually this involved tracts, a bullhorn, and debate forums - none of which have ever convinced me to change my mind, and were rarely, if ever, effective on others.  It is my belief now that any discussion must be surrounded by a mutual humility, friendship, and love.  Each conversation must end with more concern for the other than for yourself.

Dispatch 8: Emergents find the biblical call to community more compelling than the democratic call to individual rights.

Dispatch 9: Emergent is robustly theological; the conviction is that theology and practice are inextricably related.

This is described as "orthopraxy":  Our practice of our faith is more important than our beliefs about it.  Emergents are likely to engage in deep theological discussions, but we hold these discussions at arm's length.  We're more worried with how these ideologies lead us to engaging people, loving God, serving others, and living life.

Dispatch 10: Emergents believe that theology is local, conversational, and temporary.

Dispatch 11: Awareness of our relative position—to God & one another—breeds biblical humility, not relativistic apathy.

This is best said in Tony's book:

That theology is local, conversational, and temporary does not mean that we must hold our beliefs without conviction. This is a charge often thrown at emergent Christians, but it’s false. As a society, we’ve been wrong about all sorts of things in the past, like slavery….Our forebears held positions on these issues with deep conviction, but they were wrong. And I can say that unequivocally. At least I can say that from my vantage point – as one who came after them –they were wrong. What I cannot say is which side of those issues I would have been on a century or two ago. Nor can I say which issues I’m mistaken on today.

I am not relativistic.  I do believe in things earnestly.  But I know there are many things which I am wrong on, and that I will be wrong on in the future, so I must hold things with a humility.  The things I curse a friend on today my be the things I am force to reject tomorrow, creating a terrible experience of seeking forgiveness from the person I cursed. 

Dispatch 12: Emergents embrace the whole Bible, the glory and the pathos.

Dispatch 13: Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings.

My dad used to give us an example of our dog.  Our dog was a particularly stupid animal, convinced that every falling leaf was an attack on our property and deserving of a five-minute round of barking.  Our dog had no greater understanding of us than we do of God.  She understood certain things.  She knew what time of day we came home, she knew that going outside equated to receiving a slice of bread.  But she did not know what we did when we left for the day, or why we wore clothes.  Her understanding was limited to the information she had available.  It's the same with us and God.  We can understand to a point, but we will always fail to understand in whole.

Dispatch 14: Emergents embrace paradox, especially those that are core components of the Christian story.

Our God has a son born of a virgin.  He's three people, but also one.  He turns water into wine and walks on water and loves people that we hate.

Paradoxes.

Dispatch 15: Emergents have a hope-filled eschatology: it was good news when Jesus came & it will be when he returns.

I hated "Left Behind".  It was a threat to get kids to turn to Jesus so they could disappear instead of dealing with the world.  It will be a good day for the whole world.

Dispatch 16: Emergents believe that church should function more like an open-source network and less like a hierarchy.

Recently, someone said they wanted to speak to the pastor of our "house church"  I asked, "Which one?"  We are made up of many people who have the gifts of pastoring.  Several of the people who come are pastors at other churches.  So when it came to someone wanting to talk to a pastor, there were several people who were empowered and capable of doing this, because they had been freed to.

Dispatch 17: Emergents start new churches to save their own faith, not necessarily to make new converts.

It starts this way, but it grows from there.  In order to create a garden, you have to lay down a lot of dung.

Dispatch 18: Emergents believe that God’s Spirit is responsible for all good. Our task is to cooperate with God.

I used to feel that I had to curse the good taking place in others.  If they weren't Christians, if they weren't my form of christian, then anything good they did was suspect.  I don't see it this way anymore.  I know that God is the author of all good, and if there's something good happening in or through someone else, then I want to be a part of it.

Dispatch 19: Emergents downplay—or outright reject—the differences between clergy and laity.

See above.  Neither were meant to exist.

Dispatch 20: Emergents believe that church should be just as beautiful and messy as life.

And it is.  Our community is messy, unorganized, over-involved, and unwieldy at times.  And it's beautiful.  Things develop on their own.  Encouragement and challenges come as they will.  And it's fun.  It's been a while since I could say that faith is fun.

This post will continue to grow as I develop my thoughts more.  Writing these things is like a decompression.

 

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   christianity   emergent   emergent church   emerging desert   faith   postmodernism   spirituality  

Comments [0]