The immediate answer to resolving this dilemma is scripture. As much as I agree with the value of utilizing scripture to shape our understanding of truth I do fear that by relying completely on scripture alone demonstrates to what extent we are shaped by culture. Scripture wasn’t written as a playbook as many argue. It was written as the narrative of God and His love for us. It contains absolute truth, but it is uniquely American to believe that all the answers can be found in the Bible if you just look hard enough. Prayer is another option. Again, a good option. But the answers we receive in prayer have a strange proclivity to support what we fundamentally believe already. Maybe the answer is in tradition? There is no doubt that theology and traditions have given much direction to the Church in profoundly meaningful ways. But tradition has also been a stumbling block to progress and revelation. It could be found in fasting, service, or other disciplines. True. Maybe it comes from passively moving with society and trusting that God will be faithful and will keep things in control.
However, I don’t think that the pursuit of truth can be formulated. In fact, I wonder if we are designed to live only in a shadow of truth, always seeking it but never finding it. That perhaps truth, as we want to know it, is not only far too complex for us to understand it or too intense for us to know it, but that it is in the seeking alone that we discover God. Knowing the right answers isn’t the goal, but knowing God. Obedience in all its raw and clumsy character is when we find what is actually most important. It isn’t in having the right answer or defense, but in knowing the heart of God. I spent my college years actively engaged in a group of Christians that were zealous about apologetics. We argued publically about faith and theology on campus, in bars, and in homes. It was a great part of my life that I will always treasure. God revealed a lot to me and I believe occasionally was able to use me. But what I know now is that none of the arguments brought me any closer to knowing God. Having the right answer never brought me any real comfort. And being able to defend my beliefs never grew me spiritually. As I continue to emerge from an old paradigm learning to let go of knowing the answers has been one of the most difficult challenges I have faced.
The real question I am left with as a post-evangelical Christian is what is truth in light of the politically charged western theology of the 21st century? As I emerge into a world-view that is open to corporate understanding of truth, how can hold to an absolute truth that is neither rigid nor fundamental? How do I balance social ethics with personal morality?
I don’t know. In all truth I feel that this is the greatest challenge for the 21st century Church. However, despite the opportunity we have to engage these issues for the first time with a true global perspective, it appears that the reaction that is occurring is to regress to more rigid beliefs systems and to rely on the rhetoric of ideology. While many places throughout the world are welcoming new dialogue, western Christianity is retreating to the security of consistency even thought the risks of such choices outweigh the benefits. Where do I stand in the midst of the ideological battlefield? Again I turn to the words of Martin Luther King, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”
“The conscious of the state.”
“Prophetic zeal.”
Post-evangelical Christians are a prophetic voice in the 21st century church. This doesn’t mean they possess an insight into God unavailable to others, but that they continue to say what they feel they have no other choice but to say. Likewise, they must seek each other out to refine these questions. And they must engage the church with love realizing that they will likely be rejected by the church for it. They must seek to understand the world without becoming conspirators with it. And finally, post-evangelicals must move beyond the ideologies of the church and question the motivations. It is in this quest that truth will be found, but it will be a truth revealed that comes with great sacrifices.
Craig, again what wonderful thoughts you have expressed. I especially appreciate your take on scripture and providing answers vs knowing God.
ReplyDeleteTradition, is of course, grossly misunderstood. We generally think of tradition in terms of style, but really tradition as a source for theology stems from the early church's reliance upon the 'universality' of faith as was handed down from the apostles. This was later formulated in the 'Vincentian Canon' as 'that which has been believe in all times, in all places, by all Christians' (Jon's paraphrase). Why such an insistence upon tradition? Because the early church wrestled with multiple persuasions and convictions regarding faith, scripture, living out our beliefs, and their discernment needed some guiding. It wasn't until the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire that theology as such was homogenized so neatly (then bifurcated by protestants in the age or reason). Today we live in an interpretive matrix similar to the earliest days of Christianity, and once again the issues are becoming hermeneutic (i.e. 'how' do we read scripture) rather than the 'fact' of relying on it or asserting its authority. "Tradition" then comes to the fore as a major factor in post-modern Christianity. It is not surprising to find many considering this coming century as the 'century of orthodoxy'. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, have you read much of Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, or Alastair MacIntyre?
Thank you Jon, I always appreciate your insight. As for the century of orthodoxy- I see that already occurring and I don't quite get it to be honest. I understand and appreciate the rationale, but it feels a little reactionary to me. I could be WAY off. I am not involved in communities that are going this direction so thoughts on where I am wrong would be appreciated, but that mentality feels less like embracing a love for the collective wisdom of thousands of years of tradition and millions of individual journeys and more like a reaction to the flaws of sensational and fundamental theology. I get that I am a post-modern by most definitions, but this identity developed out of rebellion that is a part of post-modernity is very frustrating to me and I don't quite know how to process it. I also fear that with many "movements" in the church that are born our of creativity, revelation, and enlightenment that it won't take long for it to be nothing more than stylistic. Stylistically, I don't think that I have changed in what appeals to me much at all over the past 2o years of my life, but my theology has gone through major revisions that naturally are played out in what I feel is valid style. Feel free Jon (or anyone lese) to offer me direction on this one if you wish.
ReplyDeleteBTW- (1) I have read MacIntyre, but not the others. I will check them out. However, speaking of hermeneutics, I have been reading a lot of John Caputo lately. He has a very interesting perspective. (2) I have read your blog as well. B/c I think it is mostly for your church I have elected to not comment on it, but I enjoy it.