“They all have husbands and wives and children and house and dogs, and, you know, they’ve all made themselves a part of something and they can talk about what they do. What am I gonna say? ‘I killed the president of Paraguay with a fork. How’ve you been?’” (Marty Blank- Grosse Pointe Blank)
This weekend I went to the 75th anniversary celebration of the Wesley Foundation Reunion for the Wesley Foundation at Texas Tech University. I was there as an undergraduate from 1992-1997 and as a graduate student from 1999-2001. I wouldn’t say that The Wesley Foundation was a huge part of my life. I was fairly active I guess. Because of the excessive use of hugging, I typically showed up later than most. But I went to the weekly worship service, participated in a bible study or two, and went on a few Wesley trips including a couple of retreats and mission trips. My wife and I actually met on a Wesley mission trip to Costa Rica while I was there as a graduate student. But in the eight total years that I was associated with the Wesley Foundation as a student I only dated a few Wesley girls which means I couldn’t have been that involved. But it was still a very meaningful part of my life and spiritual development. I have many friendships today that originated out of my time at the Wesley Foundation. Matter of fact, despite the fact that the reunion brought together many eras of the Wesley Foundation, I was able to reconnect to some degree with many of them. It really was a great weekend that I feel very fortunate to have been a part of (bad grammar, I know).
However, as a part of my psychosis, I felt the need to systematically reflect on each thought and feeling I had during the reunion. The first and most frustrating to me was that I was never diagnosed with social anxiety disorder growing up. For an hour before the start of the reunion and first couple of hours of the reunion I felt completely paralyzed with self-doubt. I eventually was able to settle into celebration, but for the first half of the evening you could find me against the back wall hoping no one saw me. I also realized that even though I desperately want to re-engage with the church I just don’t know if I can handle a worship service on a regular basis. Forgive me if that is insulting, but there were so many elements of the first night worship service that I still struggle with. And it had nothing to do with the message, worship, or intentions of those in the room. It was just how it all came together. I could go one with other reflections, but there is one that I have been left reflecting on the most. Despite having a job that relatively enjoy and that I am fairly good at, I felt completely jealous of people who were able to share the ministry they are involved in. But my point here is not to complain, but to address a real problem of my recovery in Christianity: now that the cynicism has faded, yet the concerns remain, what do I do?
James Fowler developed a Faith Development Model which might give me some direction. Like most developmental models, Fowler’s model requires that the individual deal with tensions. Tensions would be two opposing possibilities that develop out of previous developmental stages. Stage 4 of his model is called Individuative-Reflective Faith. For those in this stage the tension is between one’s identity and ones world view. According to Fowler, an individual at the stage has established some sense of identity within his/ her faith in relation to family and other inner-circles of community, but has to now relate those ideas to a broader world view. The individual must, at this stage, take responsibility for those beliefs. Additionally, the individual must question the idea of absolute and engage in critical thinking. It is a tension between identity and the world. I feel fairly confident that I have emerged from this level of faith development successfully. I have, to the best of my ability, integrated the evangelical idealogies that I was raised on that I now have many problems with into a world view that is more inclusive, dynamic, and admittedly liberal. I am not arguing, nor would Fowler, that I have successfully resolved this tension based on my beliefs, but in my ability to integrate identity with world view to develop a new understanding of myself.
Stage 5 is known as Conjunctive faith and it involves, “the integration into self and outlook of much that was suppressed or unrecognized in the interest of Stage 4's self-certainty and conscious cognitive and affective adaptation to reality. This stage develops a ‘second naiveté’ (Ricoeur) in which symbolic power is reunited with conceptual meanings. Here there must also be a new reclaiming and reworking of one's past. There must be an opening to the voices of one's ‘deeper self.’” (Joann Wolski Conn) This stage’s primary function is to loosen the rigidity of certainty essential in Stage 4. It accepts and appreciates paradoxes, uncertainties, and contradictions. It’s focus in on meaning above knowledge.
For me I am somewhere between this resolved Stage 4 faith that has integrated self and others and a faith that fully embraces contradictions. I have possibly come to appreciate contradictions, but have yet to embrace them. Because I struggle with embracing yet still appreciate them I am drawn toward a ministry in the evangelical church but am just unsure what that means for me. It won’t be until this stage is resolved that I am able to truly understand my place within the church.
This could be the answer. Or maybe there is something more psychological to it. Maybe I am just too arrogant and cynical to risk losing control? Maybe it is spiritual and just won’t let the Spirit guide me? I actually think there could be truth in both of these. But I do know for those who have moved beyond the bitterness (even if they are not beyond the cynicism) of institutionalism and long to re-engage the church with more personal integrity the tension can be overwhelming. And so can being in a room full of ministers.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROCKY- Part 2
One of the things that surprises me about the story of Jacob is the blessing. The man says, “because you have struggled with God and with men.” Why would God mention here that he struggled with man? The wrestling match was between Jacob and God. It makes me wonder if what God is saying here is that Jacob didn’t just struggled to know God more deeply that he deserves a blessing, as if Jacob is being rewarded for zealous pursuit of holiness. But that Jacob just plain struggled. Contemporary Christianity is so quick to put value in spiritual zeal than it has adopted “struggle” as a way of describing how we, as good and faithful Christians, are making ourselves better people. But that is not what is going on here with Jacob. God basically says, “Jacob, you, my friend, can’t seem to get your life straight no matter what you do. Every time you make some progress you do something or something happens to you that throws you right back on the mat. But Jacob, each time you get right back up and keep moving forward. You are no longer Jacob, the one who struggles, but Israel, the one who calls on God to help him get up and keep fighting.”
In II Timothy 4: 7 the author writes, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” I want to be perfect, in character and in purpose. I really do. I want to live the sinless life and bring thousands to know Christ. I want to be flawless in my obedience and respected by all. And I am doing everything that I can to be those things. But if my track record is any indication on how likely it is that that will happen then I am going to die miserable. And if my spiritual identity is going to be measured by these things then I will always fail. The story of Jacob is my story. I only have one wife and two kids and I neither fear an uncle or brother killing me, but I do wrestle with God and understanding this life at a fairly constant level. I do believe that with greater maturity I will one day be able to embrace a level of contentment that is desperately needed. But at the same time I never want to stop wrestling with God until he gives me a new name in heaven. My youngest son I call the conqueror. He doesn’t wrestle with life; he tackles it, stands up putting one foot on its chest, and taunts it to try to get up. He is more like my wife. But my oldest son has faced an incredible amount of challenges in his life. He is amazing, but many of the things he does are real struggles for him. Despite his ongoing struggle, my name for him is not the failure or the loser, but the over-comer. Life dealt him a bad hand. He doesn’t let that keep him in a place of failure, but refuses to give up and eventually figures out a way to make it work. And as much as I admire how my youngest can conquer everything that he does, my oldest teaches me the most about life. He teaches me that with this life you can be defeated or keep going.
The message I grew up being taught in the church was that through Jesus we can do anything and that God wants us to succeed. I don’t disagree with that except that, like so many messages in the church, it creates a false perception of who God is in relation to us. Yes, we can do anything through Christ- anything that He wants. Yes, He wants us to be succeed- but on His measure of success. As I have emerged I have come to embrace my failures, shortcomings, and existential angst. Because I have found that it is in those places that God is most able to reveal Himself to me. It is at those places where I have to be picked up and pushed back into the ring. If you read the Old Testament you will likely find that, in fact, that is the story of Israel. The Israelites had their share of heroes who seem to be able to do anything and serve God with absolute obedience. But the majority of the stories are of people who are desperately relying on God to just make it. In fact, these characters who seem to struggle so much are the ones who capture our hearts the most. David was a great leader, but it is his struggle with Bathsheba that makes him so human. Moses was “the man”, but again, it is his insecurities that we most relate to. Even modern stories that capture us the most are the ones of heroes who don’t easily defeat every enemy, but ones who, while being pretty amazing, get knocked on their ass by an enemy that was more powerful than they expected, but get back in the fight and overcomes. The story is not about how the hero eventually wins, but how that hero deals with his/ her failures or life’s injustices and overcomes. Best case scenario is that there is a sequel with an even stronger enemy.
Modern Christianity offers victory in Jesus. But as much as I know that will come on the other side, all I really want to do now is make it through a little stronger. As of now, in my mid-thirties, I am beginning to stop wanting all my dreams to come true where I am ridiculously successful with lots of money and the perfect life. I now simply want to be my authentic self surrounded by the ones I love open to whatever destiny God has for me. I want to be able to take on the struggles that I know will come with integrity and humility. And I want for the revelation of Christ to become more real in me every day. My greatest victory is overcoming my need to be victorious in this life.
In II Timothy 4: 7 the author writes, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” I want to be perfect, in character and in purpose. I really do. I want to live the sinless life and bring thousands to know Christ. I want to be flawless in my obedience and respected by all. And I am doing everything that I can to be those things. But if my track record is any indication on how likely it is that that will happen then I am going to die miserable. And if my spiritual identity is going to be measured by these things then I will always fail. The story of Jacob is my story. I only have one wife and two kids and I neither fear an uncle or brother killing me, but I do wrestle with God and understanding this life at a fairly constant level. I do believe that with greater maturity I will one day be able to embrace a level of contentment that is desperately needed. But at the same time I never want to stop wrestling with God until he gives me a new name in heaven. My youngest son I call the conqueror. He doesn’t wrestle with life; he tackles it, stands up putting one foot on its chest, and taunts it to try to get up. He is more like my wife. But my oldest son has faced an incredible amount of challenges in his life. He is amazing, but many of the things he does are real struggles for him. Despite his ongoing struggle, my name for him is not the failure or the loser, but the over-comer. Life dealt him a bad hand. He doesn’t let that keep him in a place of failure, but refuses to give up and eventually figures out a way to make it work. And as much as I admire how my youngest can conquer everything that he does, my oldest teaches me the most about life. He teaches me that with this life you can be defeated or keep going.
The message I grew up being taught in the church was that through Jesus we can do anything and that God wants us to succeed. I don’t disagree with that except that, like so many messages in the church, it creates a false perception of who God is in relation to us. Yes, we can do anything through Christ- anything that He wants. Yes, He wants us to be succeed- but on His measure of success. As I have emerged I have come to embrace my failures, shortcomings, and existential angst. Because I have found that it is in those places that God is most able to reveal Himself to me. It is at those places where I have to be picked up and pushed back into the ring. If you read the Old Testament you will likely find that, in fact, that is the story of Israel. The Israelites had their share of heroes who seem to be able to do anything and serve God with absolute obedience. But the majority of the stories are of people who are desperately relying on God to just make it. In fact, these characters who seem to struggle so much are the ones who capture our hearts the most. David was a great leader, but it is his struggle with Bathsheba that makes him so human. Moses was “the man”, but again, it is his insecurities that we most relate to. Even modern stories that capture us the most are the ones of heroes who don’t easily defeat every enemy, but ones who, while being pretty amazing, get knocked on their ass by an enemy that was more powerful than they expected, but get back in the fight and overcomes. The story is not about how the hero eventually wins, but how that hero deals with his/ her failures or life’s injustices and overcomes. Best case scenario is that there is a sequel with an even stronger enemy.
Modern Christianity offers victory in Jesus. But as much as I know that will come on the other side, all I really want to do now is make it through a little stronger. As of now, in my mid-thirties, I am beginning to stop wanting all my dreams to come true where I am ridiculously successful with lots of money and the perfect life. I now simply want to be my authentic self surrounded by the ones I love open to whatever destiny God has for me. I want to be able to take on the struggles that I know will come with integrity and humility. And I want for the revelation of Christ to become more real in me every day. My greatest victory is overcoming my need to be victorious in this life.
Monday, April 19, 2010
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROCKY- Part 1
“You ain't gonna believe this, but you used to fit right here. (taps on the inside of his hand) I'd hold you up to say to your mother, ‘this kid's gonna be the best kid in the world. This kid's gonna be somebody better than anybody I ever knew.’ And you grew up good and wonderful. It was great just watching you, every day was like a privilege. Then the time come for you to be your own man and take on the world, and you did. But somewhere along the line, you changed. You stopped being you. You let people stick a finger in your face and tell you you're no good. And when things got hard, you started looking for something to blame, like a big shadow. Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain't you! You're better than that! I'm always gonna love you no matter what. No matter what happens. You're my son and you're my blood. You're the best thing in my life. But until you start believing in yourself, ya ain't gonna have a life. Don't forget to visit your mother.” (Rocky Balboa speaking to his son in Rocky Balboa)
The saga of Rocky is probably the best series of movies ever created. The series is about a guy that has some street smarts and is a naturally good boxer, but he isn’t incredibly intelligent, necessarily that big, and doesn’t have the advantages of his opponents. But what he does have is determination and a good heart. The series follows Rocky’s life through the victories and the failures, the highs and the lows, and relationships that he builds and loses along the way. In the final installment, Rocky has comeback from losing his fortune but still lives a very meager lifestyle. His wife has died and he has lost a relationship with his son. And at the age of 60 years old is challenged to fight the current champion. He accepts for a number of reasons including his desire to prove to himself that he still can. He loses the fight, but barely. As he leaves the ring he is surrounded by an applause that rivals his victory over any previous opponent at his prime. What I love about Rocky is that he just keeps fighting no matter what. He fights to be the best that he can regardless if the world believes in him or not. And ultimately all he wants is to be a good person surrounded by the ones he loves. In the quote from the movie cited above Rocky makes his final defense for how he approaches life. N ot as a victor, but as a fighter. Not as a winner, but as an over-comer. Not as the strongest, but as the toughest.
Genesis 32
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27 The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. 28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." 29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon.
The story of Jacob, which begins in Genesis 25, mirrors the Rocky Balboa epic in many ways. Jacob has many advantages in life. He is obviously intelligent. And he is a hard worker and determined. But Jacob is also manipulative, easily taken advantage of, and prideful. The story of Jacob takes up an incredible amount of space in Genesis considering his story is largely based on his failures as a follower of God and as a father and husband. I don’t say this critically of Jacob. I tend to think that he was a good guy who just couldn’t seem to get a handle on life. He spent his whole life, in fact, seeking God for guidance and direction. He encounters God repeatedly each time marking a significant stage of growth. Jacob, despite his love for God and his desire to do the right thing, is still a very real person. But what makes Jacob so amazing is that with every personal failure or injustice he gets back up on his feet and keeps fighting. He realizes that he can’t do anything on his own and has to have God’s provision to accomplish anything, but despite whatever obstacles that come up in understanding the influence of God he is determined to fight it.
Jacob (who’s Hebrew name ya’aqob is very similar to the Hebrew word for wrestle ye’abeq) was clearly extremely nervous to return to his homeland after a quick and dramatic leaving of Laban. He expected to be killed by his brother Esau who he betrayed at the beginning of the Jacob story. He later discovered Esau, in fact, was meeting him at the border of their land with 400 men. Stuck between a figurative rock (Laban) and a hard place (Esau) Jacob sought out further direction from God. It was, after all, on God’s direction that Jacob decided to return to his homeland. As Jacob goes off on his own for further prayer he had to have been replaying the events in his life remembering that life and how God continued to remain a constant source of strength regardless if life was going well or not. He had to be recalling how unfairly he was not only treated by others but how unfairly he treated others in his attempt to get his way. Overcome, I imagine, with angst he encounters a man who for some crazy reason wants to fight him. Jacob can’t see his face so it is likely that the man was a mysterious figure in the brush. Jacob, wondering who is making so much noise, possibly fearing he is about to be robbed starts calling out, “Who is that? What do you want with me?” The mysterious man tackles Jacob in a way that must have seemed a little unfair to Jacob. The mystery man is strong, no doubt about it. But Jacob holds his ground. Ultimately it is a tie. The mystery man permanently wounds Jacob, but Jacob won’t let go putting the man in a position where he is able to insist the man reveal his identity. The man refuses to give his name but does offer a blessing. Jacobs receives a new name: Israel, or “God Perseveres.” As Jacob comes to realize that he wrestled with God his new name must have given so much strength. As Jacob battles to understand and be obedient to God Jacob’s new name must have summarized his enter life and the life of all who put their trust in the Lord and keep wrestling with God. And it is at that place were Jacob is given strength to know that he will persevere as long as he puts his trust in God that the name of Peniel is given to the location, “the face of God.” We will wrestle with God, but the reward is knowledge that through God we will persevere and where those two things intersect will always be at the face of God.
The saga of Rocky is probably the best series of movies ever created. The series is about a guy that has some street smarts and is a naturally good boxer, but he isn’t incredibly intelligent, necessarily that big, and doesn’t have the advantages of his opponents. But what he does have is determination and a good heart. The series follows Rocky’s life through the victories and the failures, the highs and the lows, and relationships that he builds and loses along the way. In the final installment, Rocky has comeback from losing his fortune but still lives a very meager lifestyle. His wife has died and he has lost a relationship with his son. And at the age of 60 years old is challenged to fight the current champion. He accepts for a number of reasons including his desire to prove to himself that he still can. He loses the fight, but barely. As he leaves the ring he is surrounded by an applause that rivals his victory over any previous opponent at his prime. What I love about Rocky is that he just keeps fighting no matter what. He fights to be the best that he can regardless if the world believes in him or not. And ultimately all he wants is to be a good person surrounded by the ones he loves. In the quote from the movie cited above Rocky makes his final defense for how he approaches life. N ot as a victor, but as a fighter. Not as a winner, but as an over-comer. Not as the strongest, but as the toughest.
Genesis 32
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27 The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. 28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." 29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon.
The story of Jacob, which begins in Genesis 25, mirrors the Rocky Balboa epic in many ways. Jacob has many advantages in life. He is obviously intelligent. And he is a hard worker and determined. But Jacob is also manipulative, easily taken advantage of, and prideful. The story of Jacob takes up an incredible amount of space in Genesis considering his story is largely based on his failures as a follower of God and as a father and husband. I don’t say this critically of Jacob. I tend to think that he was a good guy who just couldn’t seem to get a handle on life. He spent his whole life, in fact, seeking God for guidance and direction. He encounters God repeatedly each time marking a significant stage of growth. Jacob, despite his love for God and his desire to do the right thing, is still a very real person. But what makes Jacob so amazing is that with every personal failure or injustice he gets back up on his feet and keeps fighting. He realizes that he can’t do anything on his own and has to have God’s provision to accomplish anything, but despite whatever obstacles that come up in understanding the influence of God he is determined to fight it.
Jacob (who’s Hebrew name ya’aqob is very similar to the Hebrew word for wrestle ye’abeq) was clearly extremely nervous to return to his homeland after a quick and dramatic leaving of Laban. He expected to be killed by his brother Esau who he betrayed at the beginning of the Jacob story. He later discovered Esau, in fact, was meeting him at the border of their land with 400 men. Stuck between a figurative rock (Laban) and a hard place (Esau) Jacob sought out further direction from God. It was, after all, on God’s direction that Jacob decided to return to his homeland. As Jacob goes off on his own for further prayer he had to have been replaying the events in his life remembering that life and how God continued to remain a constant source of strength regardless if life was going well or not. He had to be recalling how unfairly he was not only treated by others but how unfairly he treated others in his attempt to get his way. Overcome, I imagine, with angst he encounters a man who for some crazy reason wants to fight him. Jacob can’t see his face so it is likely that the man was a mysterious figure in the brush. Jacob, wondering who is making so much noise, possibly fearing he is about to be robbed starts calling out, “Who is that? What do you want with me?” The mysterious man tackles Jacob in a way that must have seemed a little unfair to Jacob. The mystery man is strong, no doubt about it. But Jacob holds his ground. Ultimately it is a tie. The mystery man permanently wounds Jacob, but Jacob won’t let go putting the man in a position where he is able to insist the man reveal his identity. The man refuses to give his name but does offer a blessing. Jacobs receives a new name: Israel, or “God Perseveres.” As Jacob comes to realize that he wrestled with God his new name must have given so much strength. As Jacob battles to understand and be obedient to God Jacob’s new name must have summarized his enter life and the life of all who put their trust in the Lord and keep wrestling with God. And it is at that place were Jacob is given strength to know that he will persevere as long as he puts his trust in God that the name of Peniel is given to the location, “the face of God.” We will wrestle with God, but the reward is knowledge that through God we will persevere and where those two things intersect will always be at the face of God.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
DECONSTRUCTION OF A RELATIONSHIP
“Deconstruction insists not that truth is illusory but that it is institutional.” (Terry Eagleton)
Before I begin I feel that I need to make it clear that, while some of my entries reflect on matters that I have had much time to meditate on, it will be increasingly the case that I am writing on issues that I am currently working through. This is such an entry. Over the past year I have spent quite a bit of time considering the deconstructive elements of my faith development. Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher whose greatest work came in the middle and late 20th century. He is often regarded as the founder of deconstruction philosophy. Derrida didn’t write on spirituality or faith development even though there were many times when these elements intersected with his work. It is difficult to determine Derrida’s true feelings about faith from his writings, but many Christian theologians and philosophers have come to see his work as an opportunity to create a more relational theology. Derrida’s thoughts regarding the experiential meaning of life were core to his defense of deconstruction to the “point of genesis”. For postmodern Christians, deconstruction helps create a “religion without religion” and a “theology without theology” as Caputo and Vattimo put it. Despite the criticism (and occasional praise) that Derrida experienced about his potentially nihilistic approach to meaning, Derrida was instrumental in the development of postmodern philosophy.
John Caputo, in his book “After the Death of God”, utilizes Derrida’s work to promote a Christianity that is less objective. He contextualizes this approach by claiming that postmodernism is the “philosophy of the event”. He explains, “in thinking of radical theology as a theology of the event, the stress is on the event as an irreducible possibility, a potentiality that can assume various forms of expression and instantiation.” For Caputo, deconstruction is relevant to those issues that support the event, surround the event, and explain the event, but not the event itself. The event, according to Caputo, refers most closely to the promise of Christ.
I find this very helpful in developing a shift in my understanding about whom God is and my relation to Him. However, there are philosophical problems that need to be addressed. For Derrida, metaphysics would be an outdated philosophical discipline. If the experience is core to meaning and reduction of language and empirical data defines the experience then knowledge can’t be accurately defined. If the “event” is relational whereas we must deconstruct barriers for that relationship then relying on method is problematic. Kant developed two accounts of metaphysics that might help bridge the gap between knowledge and experience. Rationalism has the source of knowledge as reason while Empiricism holds that experience is the source of knowledge. Typical metaphysics and subsequently, the scientific method, would ascribe to Kant’s Rationalism while many Postmoderns would ascribe to Kant’s Empiricism as the source of knowledge. But perhaps that is where deconstruction is most valid. For Kant, these two accounts are both sources of knowledge. Hume (while disagreeing with Kant on what kind of knowledge can be created) is able to support this differentiation through his explanation of the mind as having two parts: (1) Ideas derived from experiences and (2) Relations of ideas expressed through mathematics. Hume believed that Ideas are developed through Relations. Kant contributes by arguing that ultimately, regardless of how the knowledge is formed, knowledge is understood through perception, or intuition.
Perhaps Kant thoughts on Metaphysics are Derrida’s best defensive for deconstruction and Caputo’s best defense for his definition of postmodernism as an event. When we come to see that our faith has been shaped by both reason and experience, often conflicting with each other more than supporting each other, then we can approach our understanding of meaning as one part, the deconstruction of rationalism and second part, our development of Empiricism. Our knowledge of our identity and relationship with others and God then becomes united.
So is this just to dazzle you with my proficiency in postmodern philosophy? Actually this idea of a new form of metaphysics based on experiences gives me a lot of area for dealing with my struggles in faith development. The Christian culture where most of my faith development occurred stressed a literal translation of scripture, West Texas individualism, political and religious conservatism, and cultural conformity that discouraged tension between intellectual and experiential knowledge. Whenever questions were raised concerning this disequilibrium, rhetoric and distraction were sure to follow. What was considered intellectual rigor was not much more than fundamental dogma. I feel confident that the reason for discouraging a personal or corporate exploration of these issues wasn’t in the fact that people (at least the people that helped shaped my own faith) were afraid of what they would discover or the inability to explore these issues, but in the fears that arose from the tension itself between the intellectual and the experiential. Tension is a developmental necessity, but one which requires a step into the unknown and the potentially life altering. To encourage spiritual tension from the pulpit to the small group might disrupt the institutional nature of the church: that nature which promotes consistency, stability, predictable growth, and yes, even control. In West Texas it would have the added danger of disrupting the cultural stability which is instrumental in the greatness of the area as well as the source of my greatest frustration with it. But by seeing my faith as one in which can be simultaneously deconstructed in relation to Rational areas and reconstructed in Empirical area gives me freedom to embrace a faith that I can struggle with while anchoring to at the same time. The contemporary church often prides itself on being authentic, but for me, I won’t feel comfortable calling myself authentic until I fully embrace the tension which is required for real maturity to occur.
Before I begin I feel that I need to make it clear that, while some of my entries reflect on matters that I have had much time to meditate on, it will be increasingly the case that I am writing on issues that I am currently working through. This is such an entry. Over the past year I have spent quite a bit of time considering the deconstructive elements of my faith development. Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher whose greatest work came in the middle and late 20th century. He is often regarded as the founder of deconstruction philosophy. Derrida didn’t write on spirituality or faith development even though there were many times when these elements intersected with his work. It is difficult to determine Derrida’s true feelings about faith from his writings, but many Christian theologians and philosophers have come to see his work as an opportunity to create a more relational theology. Derrida’s thoughts regarding the experiential meaning of life were core to his defense of deconstruction to the “point of genesis”. For postmodern Christians, deconstruction helps create a “religion without religion” and a “theology without theology” as Caputo and Vattimo put it. Despite the criticism (and occasional praise) that Derrida experienced about his potentially nihilistic approach to meaning, Derrida was instrumental in the development of postmodern philosophy.
John Caputo, in his book “After the Death of God”, utilizes Derrida’s work to promote a Christianity that is less objective. He contextualizes this approach by claiming that postmodernism is the “philosophy of the event”. He explains, “in thinking of radical theology as a theology of the event, the stress is on the event as an irreducible possibility, a potentiality that can assume various forms of expression and instantiation.” For Caputo, deconstruction is relevant to those issues that support the event, surround the event, and explain the event, but not the event itself. The event, according to Caputo, refers most closely to the promise of Christ.
I find this very helpful in developing a shift in my understanding about whom God is and my relation to Him. However, there are philosophical problems that need to be addressed. For Derrida, metaphysics would be an outdated philosophical discipline. If the experience is core to meaning and reduction of language and empirical data defines the experience then knowledge can’t be accurately defined. If the “event” is relational whereas we must deconstruct barriers for that relationship then relying on method is problematic. Kant developed two accounts of metaphysics that might help bridge the gap between knowledge and experience. Rationalism has the source of knowledge as reason while Empiricism holds that experience is the source of knowledge. Typical metaphysics and subsequently, the scientific method, would ascribe to Kant’s Rationalism while many Postmoderns would ascribe to Kant’s Empiricism as the source of knowledge. But perhaps that is where deconstruction is most valid. For Kant, these two accounts are both sources of knowledge. Hume (while disagreeing with Kant on what kind of knowledge can be created) is able to support this differentiation through his explanation of the mind as having two parts: (1) Ideas derived from experiences and (2) Relations of ideas expressed through mathematics. Hume believed that Ideas are developed through Relations. Kant contributes by arguing that ultimately, regardless of how the knowledge is formed, knowledge is understood through perception, or intuition.
Perhaps Kant thoughts on Metaphysics are Derrida’s best defensive for deconstruction and Caputo’s best defense for his definition of postmodernism as an event. When we come to see that our faith has been shaped by both reason and experience, often conflicting with each other more than supporting each other, then we can approach our understanding of meaning as one part, the deconstruction of rationalism and second part, our development of Empiricism. Our knowledge of our identity and relationship with others and God then becomes united.
So is this just to dazzle you with my proficiency in postmodern philosophy? Actually this idea of a new form of metaphysics based on experiences gives me a lot of area for dealing with my struggles in faith development. The Christian culture where most of my faith development occurred stressed a literal translation of scripture, West Texas individualism, political and religious conservatism, and cultural conformity that discouraged tension between intellectual and experiential knowledge. Whenever questions were raised concerning this disequilibrium, rhetoric and distraction were sure to follow. What was considered intellectual rigor was not much more than fundamental dogma. I feel confident that the reason for discouraging a personal or corporate exploration of these issues wasn’t in the fact that people (at least the people that helped shaped my own faith) were afraid of what they would discover or the inability to explore these issues, but in the fears that arose from the tension itself between the intellectual and the experiential. Tension is a developmental necessity, but one which requires a step into the unknown and the potentially life altering. To encourage spiritual tension from the pulpit to the small group might disrupt the institutional nature of the church: that nature which promotes consistency, stability, predictable growth, and yes, even control. In West Texas it would have the added danger of disrupting the cultural stability which is instrumental in the greatness of the area as well as the source of my greatest frustration with it. But by seeing my faith as one in which can be simultaneously deconstructed in relation to Rational areas and reconstructed in Empirical area gives me freedom to embrace a faith that I can struggle with while anchoring to at the same time. The contemporary church often prides itself on being authentic, but for me, I won’t feel comfortable calling myself authentic until I fully embrace the tension which is required for real maturity to occur.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
MAKING THE UNBEAUTIFUL ACCEPTABLE- Part 2
So maybe it is not the intention of God to rid the world of all things that are less than desirable, hard to accept, and ugly. Maybe, at times, He wants them to remain. For what reasons I would not dare to attempt to understand, but I believe that it has something to do with what makes this temporal existence meaningful, even when seemingly unbearable. The human experience in all its pain, hurt, injustice, greed, and even death are where God intersects with us. The complete human experience, not just those things that we enjoy, is the environment of grace and mercy. The unbeautiful in this world should force us to see that because it is a part of the human experience that there is beauty even in the unbeautiful, even those places that reside within us. The point being that we don’t have to make the unbeautiful beautiful, we just have to see where the beauty is within it.
Scripture demonstrates this in John 9:
1As he (Jesus) went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Jesus went on to cure this man. It might be argued that the reason the man was born blind was because God used him as a plant for a miracle of Jesus. That he was destined to walk the earth blind for his whole life so that God could do a pretty cool miracle. I don’t think this is what was going on. He was blind because he was blind. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a son with special needs who for the first couple of years faced numerous obstacles. Why was he born with these challenges? The answer is simple, because he was born that way. Now if you want to ask why God allowed him to be born with these challenges the answer is very different. But the “why” he was born with challenges is easy. To analyze anymore than that has some value medically and at certain instances it might provide valuable insight how to treat him, but ultimately to find a reason he has challenges defines him by his challenges and that is something I just won’t do. But why God allowed it is just as simple, “this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
John 9 shows us that the unbeautiful has a very clear purpose: that the work of God might be displayed in it. How the work of God is displayed in the ugly is not explained here. The problem with answering this question makes broad assumptions that are often as unfair as the dismissal of the unbeautiful. For example, I know that the answer to how God is revealed in people’s lives isn’t so that God can bring physical, emotional, or even spiritual healing because not only are there plenty of people who never experience those things but it would then again make that ugliness something bad needing “fixing”. However, 1 Corinthians 12: 22-24 gives us some insight as to how God displays His work in the unbeautiful in the role of the Body of Christ.
22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it.”
As I read a number of commentaries on this passage I was shocked by the overwhelming disdain toward those “parts” that lack honor. For some this passage related to how other Christians (more honorable) were suppose to take care of each other (those less honorable). Some argue that these verses, because in context it speaks of the ministry of the Church, means that everyone can do ministry and has value within the work of the Church, but that would imply that this passage speaks of the honor levels as if those who are beautiful are doing the honorable work, but that God just as much appreciates the cute little tasks that the un-honorable do as well. I don’t deny that as a Body we are called to take care of one another or that each person within the Body has a valuable role, but to put those truths in the context of this passage is insulting to those elements of the human experience that are less desirable, broken, or ugly. It is also insulting to those who lack the honorable and beautiful positions within the Body. This passage says nothing of how the less honored are lifted up, used more effectively, or given greater blessings. Simply that God “has given greater honor to the parts lacking it.” God demonstrates His ability to see the ugliness within the ugly without attempting to fix it or redefine it, but by simply accepting it. He demonstrates His ability to see ugliness not as a symptom of the broken world, but as something that is incredibly underrated. God looks at everything that makes this life what this life is and declares, even when it is beyond our understanding, it is good.
As I am attempting to break out of the rigid doctrine of the institutional church into a better ministry of Christ one of the most important tasks that I must take on is ridding myself of assumptions that have been created by me regarding what is and is not beautiful in the eyes of God. Honor will not come with success. Beauty will not come with honor. And value will not come with beauty. When I begin to see that God has allowed all things, not just the impressive, for the purpose of glorifying Him then I can come to see everything within the human experience as having value. But more importantly, when I stop defining value by beauty then I can approach people more authentically, engaging them in truth and life. I can approach people without an agenda or without the need to shape them into something that I find valuable. I can them allow God to work through me as a conduit for His grace and mercy to reveal His purpose. And finally I will be able to participate in true intimacy and community.
Scripture demonstrates this in John 9:
1As he (Jesus) went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Jesus went on to cure this man. It might be argued that the reason the man was born blind was because God used him as a plant for a miracle of Jesus. That he was destined to walk the earth blind for his whole life so that God could do a pretty cool miracle. I don’t think this is what was going on. He was blind because he was blind. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a son with special needs who for the first couple of years faced numerous obstacles. Why was he born with these challenges? The answer is simple, because he was born that way. Now if you want to ask why God allowed him to be born with these challenges the answer is very different. But the “why” he was born with challenges is easy. To analyze anymore than that has some value medically and at certain instances it might provide valuable insight how to treat him, but ultimately to find a reason he has challenges defines him by his challenges and that is something I just won’t do. But why God allowed it is just as simple, “this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
John 9 shows us that the unbeautiful has a very clear purpose: that the work of God might be displayed in it. How the work of God is displayed in the ugly is not explained here. The problem with answering this question makes broad assumptions that are often as unfair as the dismissal of the unbeautiful. For example, I know that the answer to how God is revealed in people’s lives isn’t so that God can bring physical, emotional, or even spiritual healing because not only are there plenty of people who never experience those things but it would then again make that ugliness something bad needing “fixing”. However, 1 Corinthians 12: 22-24 gives us some insight as to how God displays His work in the unbeautiful in the role of the Body of Christ.
22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it.”
As I read a number of commentaries on this passage I was shocked by the overwhelming disdain toward those “parts” that lack honor. For some this passage related to how other Christians (more honorable) were suppose to take care of each other (those less honorable). Some argue that these verses, because in context it speaks of the ministry of the Church, means that everyone can do ministry and has value within the work of the Church, but that would imply that this passage speaks of the honor levels as if those who are beautiful are doing the honorable work, but that God just as much appreciates the cute little tasks that the un-honorable do as well. I don’t deny that as a Body we are called to take care of one another or that each person within the Body has a valuable role, but to put those truths in the context of this passage is insulting to those elements of the human experience that are less desirable, broken, or ugly. It is also insulting to those who lack the honorable and beautiful positions within the Body. This passage says nothing of how the less honored are lifted up, used more effectively, or given greater blessings. Simply that God “has given greater honor to the parts lacking it.” God demonstrates His ability to see the ugliness within the ugly without attempting to fix it or redefine it, but by simply accepting it. He demonstrates His ability to see ugliness not as a symptom of the broken world, but as something that is incredibly underrated. God looks at everything that makes this life what this life is and declares, even when it is beyond our understanding, it is good.
As I am attempting to break out of the rigid doctrine of the institutional church into a better ministry of Christ one of the most important tasks that I must take on is ridding myself of assumptions that have been created by me regarding what is and is not beautiful in the eyes of God. Honor will not come with success. Beauty will not come with honor. And value will not come with beauty. When I begin to see that God has allowed all things, not just the impressive, for the purpose of glorifying Him then I can come to see everything within the human experience as having value. But more importantly, when I stop defining value by beauty then I can approach people more authentically, engaging them in truth and life. I can approach people without an agenda or without the need to shape them into something that I find valuable. I can them allow God to work through me as a conduit for His grace and mercy to reveal His purpose. And finally I will be able to participate in true intimacy and community.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
MAKING THE UNBEAUTIFUL ACCEPTABLE- Part 1
“I have found that all ugly things are made by those who strive to make something beautiful, and that all beautiful things are made by those who strive to make something useful.” (Oscar Wilde)
At the risk of sounding haughty, I am significantly influenced by post-structuralism. There are many parts of post-structuralism that I would say I connect with. For example, I high value the naturalistic and community approach to truth. But there is another aspect that I also really connect with to a much greater extent: that being that language is ultimately flawed. To explain it as simply as I am able to: I have to put a thought that I am have into words that despite my best efforts don’t completely fit what I am thinking. I then have to find some way to convey those thoughts. I may choose to speak them or in a case such as this blog, I may choose to write them down. You, the listener or reader has to filter through the various external forces that affect your ability to understand my thoughts such as cultural barriers, prejudices, and context, and then take what you hear and give your own meaning to it. You then develop your own original thought concerning what you think I am trying to convey. Despite the most deliberate attempts at communicating effectively, it is almost impossible for one person to use words alone to convey a thought. Anyone who has ever written an email that was misinterpreted should understand this. Language inherently has many degrees of separation from meaning to meaning. In The Concept of Anxiety, for example, Kierkegaard argues that there is a natural tension and interdependence on sin and our understanding of sin. In order for us to label an act sinful we have to have some understanding of why that might be sinful. In a sense, the idea and the language are used to define each other.
One of the greatest misrepresentations in this life (which have been largely shaped by language) is what is or is not beautiful. The human experience is filled with things, people, and ideas that are unbeautiful. But what makes it unbeautiful is uncertain. Please don’t misunderstand my point. I am not arguing that those things that are unbeautiful are in fact beautiful. Many of those unbeautiful things may in fact be beautiful, but just as many of them are definitely ugly. There is no doubt that sin, greed, and hate easily fit into the ugly category. The world hates things that are unbeautiful. It prizes its understanding and interpretation of beauty to the extent that anything that is less than perfect often falls into the ugly category regardless of how valuable it may actually be. But the church is rarely much different in its disdain and discomfort with things that don’t align with its definition of beauty. However, the church responds to its disdain and discomfort in a very different way than the world usually does. The church, as I have experienced it, wants to somehow redeem the unbeautiful. In cases such as poverty, many churches feel the moral responsibility to abolish such an injustice. In instances where the church can’t make the unbeautiful beautiful it attempts to convince that which is unbeautiful that it is actually beautiful. To be less generic consider poverty: Christians will often tell the homeless individual that they are beautiful to God despite their homelessness. I believe in social justice and attempting to see the beauty in everything and I believe that the Church should advocate relentlessly for those who can’t speak for themselves, but I also believe that there will always be a degree of ugliness within the human experience and that it is that ugliness that defines the human experience just as much as that which is beautiful. Our fixation on beauty is understandable, but the great injustice is that when the church dismisses the value of all that is unbeautiful it dismisses a significant part of the human experience. As Christians advocating for God’s perspective in the natural world we cannot dismiss all that makes the natural real. In other words, we can’t ignore, dismiss, or gloss over those elements within this life that make us feel uncomfortable. Nor should we always try to fix, replace, or redeem that which is ugly. We must accept that there are, in fact, things in this would that are ugly that are our responsibility to work with God on redeeming, but there are also many things which are just as ugly that we must learn to accept as part of this life that have value despite how uncomfortable or powerless it may make us feel.
Perhaps that is why Christ didn’t make everything “right” in the world during His ministry. There is no doubt that he could have. That is what people expected of the Messiah. I have heard that the reason that Jesus didn’t fix the world’s injustices is because He was giving that calling to the church. I am not denying that humanity has in it the potential to end hunger and all forms of hate, but for God to say it is our problem takes a tone of Deism that contradicts the passion of Christ. But this train of thought is getting us off the topic of the unbeautiful and entering the realm of the presence of evil. But isn’t that how the church typically approaches things that are unbeautiful. The argument is typically approached something like, God is beautiful. Therefore things that are unbeautiful are not of God. Therefore things that are unbeautiful are evil. Therefore, not only is poverty evil, but so are those that live in poverty. “Wait a second,” says the church, “those that live in poverty are the result of what is evil, not evil themselves.” The natural argument would then dictate that those then that have wealth are the result of what is good, not good by proxy. But wealth is no more righteous than poverty, unless we value beauty more than we think. The problem is that when we attach sin to the unbeautiful, despite our best efforts, we are attaching the people associated with that sin as sinful. To remedy this we might conclude that poverty then might not be evil, rather a condition of the world that is uncomfortable and undesirable. Poverty, therefore, is just ugly, not sinful.
At the risk of sounding haughty, I am significantly influenced by post-structuralism. There are many parts of post-structuralism that I would say I connect with. For example, I high value the naturalistic and community approach to truth. But there is another aspect that I also really connect with to a much greater extent: that being that language is ultimately flawed. To explain it as simply as I am able to: I have to put a thought that I am have into words that despite my best efforts don’t completely fit what I am thinking. I then have to find some way to convey those thoughts. I may choose to speak them or in a case such as this blog, I may choose to write them down. You, the listener or reader has to filter through the various external forces that affect your ability to understand my thoughts such as cultural barriers, prejudices, and context, and then take what you hear and give your own meaning to it. You then develop your own original thought concerning what you think I am trying to convey. Despite the most deliberate attempts at communicating effectively, it is almost impossible for one person to use words alone to convey a thought. Anyone who has ever written an email that was misinterpreted should understand this. Language inherently has many degrees of separation from meaning to meaning. In The Concept of Anxiety, for example, Kierkegaard argues that there is a natural tension and interdependence on sin and our understanding of sin. In order for us to label an act sinful we have to have some understanding of why that might be sinful. In a sense, the idea and the language are used to define each other.
One of the greatest misrepresentations in this life (which have been largely shaped by language) is what is or is not beautiful. The human experience is filled with things, people, and ideas that are unbeautiful. But what makes it unbeautiful is uncertain. Please don’t misunderstand my point. I am not arguing that those things that are unbeautiful are in fact beautiful. Many of those unbeautiful things may in fact be beautiful, but just as many of them are definitely ugly. There is no doubt that sin, greed, and hate easily fit into the ugly category. The world hates things that are unbeautiful. It prizes its understanding and interpretation of beauty to the extent that anything that is less than perfect often falls into the ugly category regardless of how valuable it may actually be. But the church is rarely much different in its disdain and discomfort with things that don’t align with its definition of beauty. However, the church responds to its disdain and discomfort in a very different way than the world usually does. The church, as I have experienced it, wants to somehow redeem the unbeautiful. In cases such as poverty, many churches feel the moral responsibility to abolish such an injustice. In instances where the church can’t make the unbeautiful beautiful it attempts to convince that which is unbeautiful that it is actually beautiful. To be less generic consider poverty: Christians will often tell the homeless individual that they are beautiful to God despite their homelessness. I believe in social justice and attempting to see the beauty in everything and I believe that the Church should advocate relentlessly for those who can’t speak for themselves, but I also believe that there will always be a degree of ugliness within the human experience and that it is that ugliness that defines the human experience just as much as that which is beautiful. Our fixation on beauty is understandable, but the great injustice is that when the church dismisses the value of all that is unbeautiful it dismisses a significant part of the human experience. As Christians advocating for God’s perspective in the natural world we cannot dismiss all that makes the natural real. In other words, we can’t ignore, dismiss, or gloss over those elements within this life that make us feel uncomfortable. Nor should we always try to fix, replace, or redeem that which is ugly. We must accept that there are, in fact, things in this would that are ugly that are our responsibility to work with God on redeeming, but there are also many things which are just as ugly that we must learn to accept as part of this life that have value despite how uncomfortable or powerless it may make us feel.
Perhaps that is why Christ didn’t make everything “right” in the world during His ministry. There is no doubt that he could have. That is what people expected of the Messiah. I have heard that the reason that Jesus didn’t fix the world’s injustices is because He was giving that calling to the church. I am not denying that humanity has in it the potential to end hunger and all forms of hate, but for God to say it is our problem takes a tone of Deism that contradicts the passion of Christ. But this train of thought is getting us off the topic of the unbeautiful and entering the realm of the presence of evil. But isn’t that how the church typically approaches things that are unbeautiful. The argument is typically approached something like, God is beautiful. Therefore things that are unbeautiful are not of God. Therefore things that are unbeautiful are evil. Therefore, not only is poverty evil, but so are those that live in poverty. “Wait a second,” says the church, “those that live in poverty are the result of what is evil, not evil themselves.” The natural argument would then dictate that those then that have wealth are the result of what is good, not good by proxy. But wealth is no more righteous than poverty, unless we value beauty more than we think. The problem is that when we attach sin to the unbeautiful, despite our best efforts, we are attaching the people associated with that sin as sinful. To remedy this we might conclude that poverty then might not be evil, rather a condition of the world that is uncomfortable and undesirable. Poverty, therefore, is just ugly, not sinful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)