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.

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.

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?

The methods change but the message doesn’t, or the message changes but the

message doesnt or the methods change and that changes the message

?

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

If you are familiar with the Emerging Church crowd, this is a must see.