Frank Schaeffer is the son of the late theologian and author, Dr. Francis Schaeffer. He has left his childhood faith(Evangelical Christianity), and work with his father for a different path and faith (he has converted to the faith of the Orthodox Church). He shares some of his thoughts via different media in some of the links below. I have read most of the stuff his father wrote and was at one point drawn to much of his thought. I find it interesting to hear how his son today distances himself from much of what his father believed and taught. He is a strong critic of the new atheists like Richard Dawlins, Sam Harris,Christopher Hitchens etc and the evangelical right in the States. The critique is actually towards the strong fundamentalism he sees in both of these ways of faith, and the dangerous consequences fundamentalism creates.

Frank Schaeffers blog and his homepage.

A radio interview with Frank Schaeffer

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Peter Rollins brings his Insurrection Tour to a close in Brooklyn, New York. As always he asks some good questions and brings ideas and thoughts to the table that might be worth contemplating for a minute or two.

Listen to him here.

or watch him below;

Peter Rollins at Baylor University from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

Peter Rollins on his blog.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yoder is best remembered for his reflections on Christian ethics. Rejecting the assumption that human history is driven by coercive power, Yoder argued that it was rather God — working in, with, and through the nonviolent, non-resistant community of disciples of Jesus — who has been the ultimate force in human affairs. If the Christian church in the past made alliances with political rulers, it was because it had lost confidence in this truth.

He called the arrangement whereby the state and the church each supported the goals of the other Constantinianism, and he regarded it as a dangerous and constant temptation. Yoder argued that Jesus himself rejected this temptation, even to the point of dying a horrible and cruel death. Resurrecting Jesus from the dead was, in this view, God’s way of vindicating Christ’s unwavering obedience.

Me, myself and I

I ended off my previous post in this series with a mild criticism on how the western church often views itself as a group of individuals satisfying ones own individual needs by the product offered and packaged as Church. It is a clear tendency in the western Church that members dissatisfied with the theology, the leader, the child ministry or what ever it can be leaves quite easily. This even if one has been in the church for many years and would seemingly have close friendships and relationships with the larger church body. I would argue that this is a clear example of what happens when the old systems of modernism collide with the postmodern mind.

One reason for this is the foundation the western church rests on. It has often been perceived as a package that is consumed and crafted to meet my individual need, when it doesn’t meet my need, I either need the leader to create a new package for me that meets my need or leave and find a package that meets my individual need somewhere else. Was this what Church was meant to be? Or was it meant to be something else? Something where theology, politics, power or anything else would  draw us towards each other,not alienate us from each other, a place where the differences could flourish and be lived out in a fruitful manner. Where family is more important than individuality, where the organic is more important that keeping up a safe status quo?

The reality of a postmodern world

In the wake of modernity the postmodern world responds in contradictory ways. Fragmentation and polarization on the one hand and syncretism on the other. This condition might seem unhealthy, and while there is much that is not healthy about our postmodern context, there are profound creative and redemptive possibilities in this seemingly contradictory ideas.

The word contradiction and paradox are two words that the modern mind find offensive and even dangerous. Post-moderns living in the aftermath of a world by a desire to control and dominate (very much also in the church) are often delighted by notions that defy this easy categorization.

Our postmodern world is a world of profound fragmentation. After modernity this is understandable. Within modernity a select few held power. Now everything is up for grabs.

Balkanization

One word used to describe this is balkanization. This means to divied one place, one idea, or one group of people from each other for any number of reasons. Life is being balkanized. It is fragmenting. The themes of progress and optimism that unified and under-girded the modern project have largely evaporated, and we have been left adrift in a disjointed world where meaning and value is constantly being contested by people willing to fight for it till there death.

Is it any surprise that new kings of churches are emerging out of the husks of these former structures that are struggling to keep pace and adapt to this strange new world?

In a world of balkanization and atomization we are desperate for space to engage, create, and respond free from the power games that are being played in so many circles around us. In a shrinking globalized world we are desperate to learn what it means to be in relationship to the other- to the alien in our midst (or perhaps we are the alien in the midst) for the purpose of dialogue and engagement.

How can we live in this new reality

We desperately need to discover, recover, learn, and live out the ancient Christian practice of hospitality, which is the postmodern means of evangelism.

We do not need more Christian leaders building church empires at a time when our culture is dismantling other such structure around us. We must deconstruct ourselves in love.

A postmodern context requires leaders who instead of seeking to dominate the environment are willing to become environmentalists- people who create spaces that allow Gods people to have the possibility of an encounter with God and other people. Such an environment allows people to discover a future together  under God instead of reducing them to mere pawns serving some large agenda that comes from outside themselves.

Can Postmodernism save us?

Can postmodernism save us? In many ways I believe it can. It can save us from the institution, it can save us from materialism. It can save us from individualism. It can save us from being arrogant. It can save us from being powerful.

In my next post I will ask a question that deals with syncretism. Does everything go? Is it possible in a christian context to blend many different “whatever it could be”?

Read part 1 here; Postmodernity, should we be afraid?

Read part 2 here ; Modernity, the cost?

What is the cost of progress?

Modern travel, modern educational systems, modern medicine, and modern food production are a few examples of the ways in which humanity’s lot has improved through the progress achieved during this era.

However as the twentieth century waned a collective questioning of the assumptions of modernity emerged in many quarters, not least in my quarter.

According to Tim Keel and N. T Wright two theologians I draw on in this article, The very notion of progress itself is questioned. They and others ask; how is it defined and measured, and by whom?

What is the cost of progress?

In the modern story, reality is that which is observable, measurable and repeatable. Everything that is available, accessible and verifiable to the five senses.

No wonder that anything beyond the senses was ignored. Materialism was birthed and the matters of the soul were ignored or reinterpreted within this tightly controlled version of reality.

Spiritual life?

When the life of the spirit is ignored, people will seek to feed the hunger of a neglected soul with the only nourishment available. In my context: the consumptive acquisition of material goods. If spiritually engaged, it is often reduced and turned into on more commodity to be packaged, sold, and consumed like so many other aspects of modern life. In a incredibly individualistic way.

The western church

The western church has been existing within this framework of reality. Church shopping has become the defining metaphor for deciding which community of faith satisfies ones needs. My needs.

Churches rarely possess a corporate understanding of themselves as a people but rather as one more collection of individuals choosing to be together based on similar preferences (music,preaching,programs etc.)

How does the postmodern world respond in the wake of modernity?

read part 3 here; Can postmodernity save us?

Read part 1 here; Postmodernity, should we be afraid?

Post-modernity

I have been discussing the topic of post-modernity with colleagues from many religious backgrounds.

You might be aware of the cultural phenomenon of post-modernity if not its philosophical underpinnings.

Trying to describe or approximate post-modernity as a philosophy or culture is no easy task. Just type it into wikipedia and you will see what I mean.

But as everything else we know little about , it creates fear or distance.

For many of those I speak with, the arrival of post-modernity is a portent of all that is evil and dangerous about our world.

I would offer a more modest assessment : It is simply the context of the world in which we live, thus filled with possibilities and dangers like any other context. ( taken from the thoughts of Tim Keel. Read more in his book “Intuitive Leadership”)

Modernity

Modernity was a time of grand narratives about the nature and destiny of humans freed from the constraints of ignorance and superstition. Under such themes, Western civilization sought to colonize both the natural and intellectual world, unifying it into classifiable systems by reducing material existence into distinct, separate and easily identifiable categories.

Knowledge was broken down into disciplines or fields of inquiry.

People and populations were likewise identified, reduced, and categorized, whether by race or class or the combination of both.  The occupation and exploitation of foreign lands and native populations, called “colonialism” emerged in modernity as most European countries sought to expand boundaries and secure resources.

Theology + modernity = true

In the wake of the protestant reformation, religious authority and structures became tied to emerging nation states. State sponsored churches were in many cases the forerunners of  what we now know as denominations.

Theologians systematized theology(Christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology etc) in much the same ways scientists systematized the natural world. Intelligence was given a measurable quotient.

Merchants produced and distributed goods and resources mechanistically, that is, by assembly lines in factories and via efficient, modern transportation systems. It goes without saying that those in control of the systems and structures that framed and supported modernity wielded enormous power.

What did modernity cost ?

And how are we now to live, engage and relate to a postmodern world and reality?

Read part 2 here ; Modernity, the cost?

This  parable won a competion put on by Peter Rollins and Paraclete press . The parable was written by Kester Brewin and is entitled Footprints.

There was once a man who had lived a long and difficult life. When he finally lay down, a faint smile bent the lines in his face as his eyes were shut. He had run the race; now he could rest. The curtain was pulled back, and he stumbled through the light to meet God.

‘My Master and my Friend,’ the old man hailed God as he prostrated himself before God’s feet. Hearing no reply, the man looked up and saw God shuffling awkwardly in his chair, not quite managing to fight back a blush across his cheeks.

Not wanting his moment of judgement and welcome to be spoiled, the old man gathered his courage and spoke up. ‘My Lord and my God,’ he began, nervously. ‘Is this not the time when my life and works shall be weighed in your scales and my named checked against those who have made it into the Book of Life?’ After such a tiring day it was difficult for him to remember the exact details of what was meant to be happening, but he felt certain that it should be God who should be taking the lead.

‘My child,’ said God sadly, before petering out and looking around for some way out.

Following God’s gaze, the old man took in a crumpled photo, pinned to a crowded notice board hung askew in a dark corner. His heart leapt. ‘Father,’ he said, getting up carefully like a servant in Medieval court, ‘here is a photo of footprints on a beach…’

God took it and stared at it for a while and as the man perceived his eyes glistening, his own tears came, for he knew the photo, and knew the words of comfort that came with it. ‘Tell me, Lord,’ he said, knowing already the lines that would come, ‘tell me what the footprints mean.’

And so God began.

‘Your life has been like a walk along the beach with me, many scenes from your life flashing across the sky. In each scene there are footprints in the sand, sometimes two sets, at other times only one.’

At this point God paused, and looked down, and so the old man seized the initiative, and played too his part.

‘Lord, this bothers me because I notice that during the low periods of my life, when I was suffering from anguish, sorrow or defeat, I can see only one set of footprints.’

He looked up, but saw God unmoved, so continued. ‘You promised me Lord, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life there has only been one set of footprints in the sand.
Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me?’

He bowed his head, holding back the tears, ready for the words of succour that he knew must come.

And slowly God replied, his voice shaking with emotion. ‘The years when you have seen only one set of footprints, my child, is when you carried me.’

The man frowned for a moment, paused, and then looked up. ‘Surely Lord,’ he began rather embarrassed to be correcting the Almighty, ‘you mean when you carried me.’

‘My dear child,’ God said, twisting a loose thread of cloth from his flowing robes, his face suddenly a mirror in which the old man saw the battles he had fought and the doubts he had put asunder, ‘this was the measure of your faith: when difficulties came, you gathered up this tired and arthritic God, and carried your beliefs to safety.’

A small wind blew through the old photographs and worn papers, and the two men sat in silence for a moment.

‘I have prepared a room for you,’ God said after a while, ‘though I quite understand if you don’t want me to stay.’

[© KB 2009]

Have a look at what Shane Hipps has to say about it,

Click here to view the embedded video.

Coyne says the following:

“Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

He proposes to describe God’s relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. “God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.”

He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into “an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.”

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

Richard Dawkins has a great talk with coyne which is posted on youtube. I recommend watching seven parts of this youtube series.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjjDDhE8R5k
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyyySnUqCug
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eEmnhmAwPM
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl1xmkVOyRw
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDTBW8oxug
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qPHIS3n7Lw