Click here to view the embedded video.

It certainly could be a letter to us in the North too..

Click here to view the embedded video.

“By acknowledging that all our readings are located in a cultural context and have certain prejudices, we understand that engaging the Bible can never mean that we simply extract meaning from it, but also that we read meaning into it. In being faithful to the text we must move away from the naive attempt to read it from some neutral, heavenly height and we must attempt to read it as one who has been born of God and thus born of love: for that is the prejudice of God.

Here the ideal of scripture reading as a type of scientific objectivity is replaced by an approach that creatively interprets with love.”

–Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God

Should we always ask “what do they believe?”

Brian Mclaren has some brilliant things to say taken from the conversation above.

“When I read a book, or listen to music, I’m not always asking “What do they believe?” I’m asking, “What do they have to say to me?” I’m not requiring them to agree with me (and me to agree with them) for me to be stimulated by what they have to say. To me, there is a peculiar problem in a lot of religious readers where their approach is, “I don’t care what the person might have to say to me.

I want to know if he’s right.” And, so they go into the reading and discussion experience with an assumption that they are already right, that they already see things the way they should be. And they’re going through with a checklist. The experience of that for a writer (and for pastoring and preaching), is when you’re in the presence of those people is that it feels like an inquisition. They’re doing a kind of constant heresy hunt. My personal feeling is that there is a place for that. But maybe we could say, “those who live by the sword die by the sword,” i.e., “those who live by boundary maintenance die by boundary maintenance,…those who live by heresy hunting die by heresy hunting.” It is interesting that people read a book that way. To me, that’s a significant problem.

Regarding “provocative ambiguity,” there is some dimension of that. Soren Kierkegaard said, “It is very hard to use indirect communication when you’re talking to someone who is held in the grip of an illusion.” Because if you tell a person who is so absolutely certain, they have absolute certainty that they’re right, when they’re not right, if you tell them they’re wrong, they just assume you’re wrong. Sometimes when talking to people in an illusion, you have to use indirection. Flannery O’Connor said, “With people who can’t see very well, you have to use very large and strange characters.” I also think that in other places, I’m not trying to pass someone’s test, I’m actually trying to challenge them

to think. And sometimes the ambiguity does help with that.”

The full transcript of this interview can be found here.

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.

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?