Simon & Garfunkel - Sound Of Silence

CHICKEN AND EGG

If I were to ask what the role of church is in society the responses would be prolific and quick to come. Many would argue that its role is to evangelize and increase the Kingdom of God. Others might agree that it is to increase the Kingdom of God, but that increasing the Kingdom of God is more about discipleship. Others would contend that it is about social justice and activism. Still others would be content that the role of the church is to have great worship services. Depending on how these differing opinions are demonstrated, the responses would vary just as much- if not more. But what if I were to ask who the church is responsible for? Obviously not “to”, but who is it responsible “for”? Is it responsible for Christians, non-believers, the local neighborhood, or the population of the world? The response to this would likely be less about the institutional values of the given congregation and reflect more on theological beliefs. In other words, since all these values are held by the church as relevant beliefs, the values of church may be shaped by the beliefs regarding responsibility. So if a church believes that it is responsible for the souls of mankind then it will value evangelism. If a church believes it is responsible for the homeless living on the streets around the building then it will value social justice. If it believes that it must hold all these things in balance then the actions will reflect that. These beliefs will shape the degree of value it puts in its values. The various values may be agreed upon, but what the church values more will become present as it articulates its belief regarding who it is responsible for.

There is an inherent flaw, however, allowing our values to be shaped by this belief. It has yet to adequately define who or what the church is. While many congregations may espouse the argument that the church is the people, it acts quite differently. It acts as though the church is the organization. Perhaps the reason the organization is hesitant to adopt a more formal ideology regarding the identity of the church is because there are so many levels within an organization. Regardless of the reason, the inconsistency leaves the individual solely responsible for his place within the kingdom. Or perhaps that is the benefit. If the church is the people, then the individual has the freedom to articulate his position. If this is a benefit then, a new flaw presents itself. The best way for the person with the freedom to articulate his own role within the church is to articulate his values- since there is no consistent belief to identify with. By doing this he forgoes his beliefs because he has the freedom to rearticulate his position with the church depending on desired context. But wait, maybe this too is a benefit. By allowing the individual to present his position within the church by demonstrating his values (even if those values are presented within the fluidity of context) rather than his belief, he is free to respond according to the changing nature of an undefined church. This would inherently mean that the beliefs of the follower of Christ are less significant than how he demonstrates his values. In fact, he is free to wrestle with beliefs while still identifying himself as a part of the church.

There is a practical reason for the line of thought. Easter morning my wife and I took our boys for a walk. On the walk I talked to my kids about the meaning of Easter and (since my boys are still young) I took the story from the traditional perspective of the satisfaction view of atonement. Soon my boys ran ahead of us and my wife asked me why I would teach them something that I don’t even believe. I had a difficult time articulating how I could value the traditional story of Easter while not being convinced that it is accurate. There are two parts to me: an evangelical Christian and a skeptic existentialist. Despite the inconsistency of the two dominant influences in my life, I feel quite comfortable feeling that both of them shape who I am as a follower of Christ. But in order for me to demonstrate my values (or for the sake of language- love for Christ and my neighbor) I must be willing to suspend my beliefs. It is not because my beliefs are unimportant, simply secondary to values and identity.

Puppet Gospel

FAITH BY DEFAULT

I guess that it is important as I prepare for Easter weekend that I spend time writing about how I feel about this event. I have yet to feel the motivation to match my desire to go back to church and have therefore not thought extensively about Easter. In fact, it wasn’t until this weekend that I began to think about it at all. I have spent some time during Lent to participate in some additional disciplines, but connecting it to the event of Easter has been at the back of my mind. So as I do reflect on it now I am frustrated with where my thoughts have gone. I would like to think that my little experiment in post-evangelicalism and existentialism would have allowed me to see the resurrection of Christ with new enthusiasm, but the truth is that my journey has only taken me away from reflecting on the resurrection. That is not to say that I have not spent considerable time reflecting on what the resurrection may be beyond heaven. I have, in fact, come to see the message of Christ’s resurrection and how each of us interprets that event as central to one’s faith. But the physical act of the resurrection and the eternal life that we will partake in seems to only more frustrating for me. As I have allowed myself to consider an idea of God that is less absolute and much weaker and as I have allowed myself to consider a Christo-centric yet open theology, I have also been able to reconcile my doubt in such a way that I experience the angst at a much deeper level.

In my time of meditation I have come to reflect again on what faith might actually mean. Hebrews gives us a lot of direction on this topic. In 11:1 we are given a direct definition- Confidence in what we hope for + assurance of what we can’t see. The rest of the chapter, however, gives us a stronger picture of what it looks like: acceptance of God’s power, what motivates our righteousness, what saves us from death, what elicits revelation and prophecy, identity giving, and what gives us confidence. As a fan of Hebrews, these are meaningful descriptors. However, when considering the overall message of Hebrews I find this ego-centric definition incomplete. The message of Hebrews is that Christ acts as priest giving us access to God. In other words, that it is THROUGH Christ that faith is revealed. This message is confirmed throughout scripture. In fact, Romans makes an incredible argument for how righteousness comes through faith, not the law. So despite our best efforts to DO any of the things prompting faith, we are left the need to rely on something that comes from beyond us. In I Corinthians this message is taken even further to show us that the faith that is required for holiness is a gift. So now we must rely on something beyond us to experience any degree of holiness in the form of a gift that is defined as something that is seen in the not absolute of hope and invisible. This gift is only received, apparently, depending on one’s own degree of openness.

Here is my point: everything in me that is rational, every good work that has happened in me, and everything that I now hold to be meaningful rejects the idea of the resurrection. Because of this I can’t help but feel that faith is meaningless. Religion is nothing more than a human attempt at understanding the world and giving some meaning to its meaningless existence. Obviously this means that everything is meaningless. If there is no God or no afterlife then even the most humanistic of philosophies is empty and a pathetic attempt at giving some value to a valueless existence. But at the same time, everything that I have experienced and do experience won’t allow me to reject meaning. Maybe I find it impossible to BELIEVE in God, but I can’t reject meaning. But meaning can only exist if there is something more. So perhaps faith then is ultimately about rejecting believe for the sake of faith.

This goes against everything that faith has been understood to mean for me. Faith has, despite the scriptural references to the contrary, been defined by an ultimately ego-centric ideology. Faith appears to have replaced law with the argument that beliefs are more important than actions. But faith is what spurs on both beliefs and actions, but is, in the end, neither. Faith is the suspension, ironically, of both in order to complete both.

ROCKY

LAST MINUTES WITH ODEN video- http://vimeo.com/8191217 ----- After watching the above video it got me thinking about Rocky. The following post is just me reflecting some. No great philosophical message. ----- I remember vividly bringing Rocky home for the first time. I was in elementary school and wanted a dog of my own more than I could express. My parents agreed to get me a cocker spaniel. He was perfect. He was pretty big for a cocker spaniel, but had just as much energy as any of his cousins. My parents asked me what I wanted to name him and just knew his name was Rocky from the very beginning. Later I came to call him Rocky Bow-Wow Balboa. He was my best friend. As for how the rest of the family felt about him there is some debate. My dad swore that Rocky drove him crazy and was constantly yelling at Rocky to get out from under his feet and to stay out of his closet, but everyone knew that secretly dad loved Rocky too. Dad would take him on walks almost nightly. He claimed it was for exercise, but I never believed it. I think he just liked have Rocky’s company. ----- Once my junior high years came I went through an extended period of awkwardness. I had a few good friends, but for the most part I was a lonely and quiet kid. It was during those years that I came to really appreciate the friend that I had in Rocky. He was always there and always knew just what I needed. He would play when I needed a buddy or cheering up. And he would sit beside me when I needed a comforter. As I moved into high school I slowly (very slowly) moved out of those awkward years and began to be a little too busy to give Rocky the attention he needed. He never seemed to resent me for it and was always present when I had time to give him. I would occasionally forget how important he was to me. It was during those times that he might get out and a little lost. He would always turn up- dirty. But it was just enough to remind me how much he meant to me. ----- When I left for college Rocky stayed with my parents. He was obviously getting older and needed that little bit of stability. Then one day I went over to my parents’ house to hang out for a little while. My mom had just cleaned up an accident that Rocky had had in the back room. Mom and I talked about how old Rocky was getting and started to discuss if we should end his suffering. When I was about to leave (and you are going to think that I am making this up, but I assure you it happened exactly this way) Rocky wanted to go out for what we assumed was another potty break. But just before my mom let him out as I was standing at the door way about to leave he walked back and looked at me. I could tell he was telling me goodbye. A few minutes later my mom called me to tell me that Rocky had went behind the shed and laid down and died. ----- I have had a couple of dogs since Rocky. Parker was my next dog and just as great. Currently I have Lucy who is also a really good dog. But Rocky was more than good dog. He is what I needed for when I had him. He had a purpose in my life and I will always be grateful for him.

TOWARD DEATH

I am currently reading Being and Time by Martin Heidegger. Even though Heidegger’s made up words can make it a little difficult to follow at times, there is something to it that really connects with me. The central premise centers around Da-sein (there-being) which is the knowing of one’s own being. This Da-sein is the self knowing that shapes an existential identity. Da-sein can be authentic or inauthentic depending on the realization of one’s own possibilities. This, therefore, shapes an ontic (existential) and ontological (deliberate) identity structures. However, it is the temporality of existence that shapes one’s Da-sein. There are many things (or categories) that determine one’s Da-sein including, but not limited to, objective presence and obtrusiveness. A few existential determinants include, but are not limited to, temporality, spaciality, and significance. Ultimately, Heideggar believed that truth is the disclosedness of Da-sein, or that it is related to one’s being in the world. However, this determines that knowing of oneself by being in the world requires that one’s Da-sein is closed in on itself to ensure existential meaning. Additionally, being in the world requires being with others. This causes a certain degree of angst because we not only experience others, but experience ourselves through relating to others who are experiencing themselves who are experiencing us.

The work of Heideggar, while having many critics, is fundamental in the development of existentialism and deconstruction. But it is the underlying message of his work that is most appealing to me. While the identity development is interesting to me because of my own areas of interest, it is his perspective that intrigues me the most. Heideggar’s work seems to be that identity is shaped by how one relates to the reality of moving toward death. In Being and Time Heideggar seems to be arguing that it when we experience the possibility of death (through the death of others or the possibility for one’s self) that it reshapes our own possibilities and understanding of our temporality which in turns shapes our experience with being in the world. However, I am left with questions of spirituality that are frustrating. For example, I believe that existentialism encourages Christians to experience life with minimal concern for what occurs after death. Does that mean, then, that the possibilities of the limitations of life or possibilities of what occurs after death shape our current reality in such a way as to shape the experience? Is that possible without a sacrifice of being in the world? And death of what kind? Is that only physical death or can it include metaphorical death too? As a follower of Christ, I believe that I have already gone through a form of death and that I am in a constant state of death for the purpose of experiencing new life. Does the ever present experience of death open new possibilities or just create new limitations? And when and if we experience the spiritual death of others, then does this create potentially with new spiritual life or do we experience the new possibilities and limitations in ourselves?

“I have been crucified with Christ and no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” “I am a new creation, the old is gone and the new has come.” These were the first two verse I memorized. If Heiddegar is correct in his assertion, then our spiritual death that creates new spiritual life isn’t just some supernatural event or paradigm shift, but a part of a process of personal, spiritual, and communal deconstruction that shapes a reality of new possibilities. But it also means that these same things create an ongoing frustration. Existentialism challenges an old perspective of heaven and hell as a reality there and makes it a reality here. It challenges the traditional idea that contentment and replaces it with angst. Da-sein challenges the consumerism of American Christianity and replaces it with an unfixed process. “What am I suppose to do?” is replaced with “Who am I and who is that in relation to self, others, and God?” We are all shaped by our movement toward death- and a death in the most literal of senses. However, we also have the opportunity and burden in Christ to be shaped by the movement of death in the most figurative of senses.