Theological Ruminations

2003-03-19T12:38:00.000-05:00

Finally.

An article from a leftist publication that acknowledges the unwillingness of the left to acknowledge the horrors of Iraq. This war is not Vietnam, this war is as just a war as the US has been involved in since Korea (and the last Iraq war). I have leftist ideals about achieving social justice in the world, and I also support the war on Iraq.

2003-03-07T11:58:00.000-05:00

In the world of college basketball, a situation arose this week that parallels in many ways issues that are being faced within the church at large. St. Bonaventure University's basketball team came under criticism this week because of violations by the coaching staff and administration. The short version is they school pushed through an illegal junior college transfer, causing St. Bonaventure to forfeit past games and give up participation in post-season tournaments.

That isn't what was criticized, however. The criticism from the media this week has been brutal and swift against the players on the St. Bonaventure team, who decided not to play the rest of their games this season. This article epitomizes my thoughts on this perfectly: something is really out of whack. In my book, the players should be lauded, not scorned. Continuing the season would benefit a corrupt institution and a corrupt coach who screwed a team that worked hard all year.

This situation epitomizes the problems in college basketball. There is massive corruption, because it is a money-making institution for schools, coaches, and administrators. The players are pawns who receive no money but are expected to live up to a Greek mythological standard of athlete that is not applied to anyone else in the institution. The players should revolt. Their coach and college president turned their season into a mockery, and the players are just supposed to go along with it? NO. And again, NO!!!

This is how change comes - when people start to wake up to institutional flim-flam and refuse to go along with it. And the church is going to start experiencing this as well. The avalanche has begun in little ways across the country and the world, whether it is sexual indiscretions within the Catholic Church or denominational power grabs in Protestant circles. People are beginning to reject the church - I can only hope that out of the rubble will arise something beautiful.

2003-03-04T16:15:00.000-05:00

I had a brainstorm today on the age-old concept of original sin. Original sin is the xian response to where sin comes from - why is everyone always messing things up? Why can't I ever get it right?

Original sin.

You were born/made that way.

The ancient response of people like Augustine was biological - we receive something from "Adam", i.e. being human, that predisposes us to sin. In contemporary times, that answer has been criticized. For people who still hold onto original sin, there is a different concept of what sin is: broken relationships. I like the idea of sin as broken relationships. It makes more sense of the grays that exist in life. However, both responses ignore the role of nature, the role of the body, etc. in our lives.

But I realized today that there may be more to the response of the ancient church than I've been willing to give credit for. We know today that as people we are little more than a web of relationships between particles, governed and built out of the code (DNA) that operates as a form of relationship itself. Perhaps we are genetically dispossed from true relationship.

So, here's the thing. The classic argument for sin was that with sin came death. Which makes me wonder about the predictions of Ray Kurzweil, or the scientific advances we are pushing towards medically. Science would seem to agree with the original sin arguments: the body isn't really of importance to human life. Think about Kurzweil's predictions: within the next 100 years we will be able to upload our brains and exist entirely on the interent, sans body. I think it's a great idea, but I'm beginning to wonder what happens to sin in that world...

Hmm...

2003-02-25T01:30:00.000-05:00

I'm reading a book called The Wounded Heart of God by Andrew Sung Park for my Systematic Theology course right now. We were assigned this book to explore the Asian idea of han (scroll down for the han reference). Han is essentially an understanding of the collective unconscious response to sin in the world. It is the collective guilt, sorrow, and shame of sin lived out and reduplicating itself.

I am finding this concept tremendously useful, and I may have time to think about this longer. But I am really posting about this amazing statement I just read, here quoted in full from the book:

Unless we work through the individual and collective unconsciousness of the patriarchal value system, patriarchal expressions of oppression will continuously emerge in different forms. In the contemporary world, we see these expressions in anti-abortionism, autocratic behavior, and jingoism." (emphasis mine)

I guess this statement needs some background. From what I have seen so far, Park is especially concerned for the hidden ones, the voiceless, unrepresented, and ignored men and women who stand outside of the power structures withing communities. He is deeply troubled by patriarchy, infanticide, capitalism, etc. And yet...

...and yet he thinks that abortion is a good thing? That by opposing abortion myself I am bowing down to the dominant power structure? What is going on here?

I believe that in general, abortion is about power and control. Yes, there are circumstances where this is not the case, but in general, it is about power and control. The one(s) in power attempts to control the one with no voice, no power, no control. I talked some with the reg about this, and while he doesn't share my opinions on abortion, we both agree that there is at least some nuance to the issue.

I guess overall, my stance would be that han exists in abortion and in opposition to abortion. My pastoral experience with women who have had abortions tells me that there is something haunting about abortion. But let's be honest (as reg helpfully pointed out), our culture does not provide a safe place for women to maintain dignity and bring an illegitimate child to term. The moral issues are deep, intense, and cut both ways.

I understand that it is possible for anti-abortion to be patriarchal. But that does not make it universally so. Sometimes, abortion can be patriarchal.

So I am left again wondering why subtle, gentle, and penetrating minds (including my own - minus the subtle, gentle, and penetrating part) are constantly reduced to universal categories. Are we simply incapable of nuanced approaches to life?

2003-02-20T16:17:00.000-05:00

A funny thing is happening.

I'm taking Systematic Theology right now, the class that ostensibly relates quite clearly to something I love. And despite the history of bad Systematic Theology courses in seminaries all over the world, this one isn't that bad. I enjoy my professor, the readings are ok, but there's a problem. I can't stand the class.

I've been doing some self-diagnosis, trying to figure out what is going on here. In class, we spend a great deal of time talking about the story of xian faith, and how that relates to the doctrines of xianity. We've talked about the doctrine of God, the trinity, basic theological stuff. And it seems utterly irrelevant. I find nothing of worth in our discussions or readings. I read about the trinity, and I'm left cold. It has no relevance to my faith.

Which makes me wonder about my faith. Is the problem in me, or is it in the old ways? My tendency is to blame everything but myself, but I wonder. Nevertheless, there is a visceral reaction within me against the things we are studying - which is the exact opposite of what is happening in my Post-Nicene Fathers class. I don't know what's going on, but I am beginning to think that there is something not quite right with this class. I'll have to think about it.

2003-02-13T21:26:00.000-05:00

In response to my e-mail, Clayton sent me the following link to an article by Wendell Berry.

The article is in line with many things I've been reading lately, with Arianna Huffington at the forefront, about the need to rethink the wisdom of our policies across the board. The article doesn't change my perspective on the war - I probably lean a little more towards the war than Berry does, but our thoughts are very similar. On the other aspects of what Berry is saying, I am in complete agreement. America seems to be in a spiral of moral and political insanity, and it is really confusing to me why we are having such a difficult time reversing this trend.

As Huffington said in a recent article, this seems "blatantly obvious." And it is. So why can't we do anything about it? We have some serious moral and ethical issues that are simply brushed under the carpet. Hopefully, that won't last.

I know I'm not saying anything substantial today. Just read the article.

2003-02-11T12:58:00.000-05:00

And on a different note, an e-mail I sent to a friend...

------------------------------
From: Peter Barnes
To: Clayton.H.McClintock
CC:
Date: 02/11/03 02:54 am
Subject: [Fwd: How many people that you know will be killed?]
Attachments:

This idiocy is exactly what I am lukewarm about.

There is absolutely no nuance to this current anti-war shit. To me,
there is a sense in which this is a justified war (Saddam brutalizing
his people and other countries), and there is a sense in which this is
not a justified war (it is a war for oil and political gain). For
crying out loud, why can't these people at least have the capacity to
understand that there is more to this debate than whether or not we will
be "killing thousands of people"

sorry, just ranting.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: How many people that you know will be killed?
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:26:12 -0400
From: Kristen Ackley
To: all_drew@drew.edu

Do you think that going to war with Iraq is a horrible idea? Stand up for what you believe in along with the rest of the world at the "World Says No to War" protest on Saturday, February 15 in NYC. The rally will take place at noon on First Avenue stretching north from 49th Street. Bring your friends and take the train in.

We need to make it clear to Bush that we will not go to war and that he needs to develop a plan that will not kill thousands of people.

2003-02-11T12:36:00.000-05:00

It is interesting what happens to doctrines when they are read systematically. As the litany of perspectives on the nature of God and the manner/method/mode of divine revelation is discussed, they begin to blur. On my part, I sense a pattern that emerges from the rubble, a pattern that I never really noticed.

It really seems like the Barthian understanding of revelation (well, Brunner/Barthian) is *almost* a condescension of God to human understanding is descriptive of theological approaches to these issues. Barth’s revelation isn’t discussed too much, but I think it is similar to his views on Scripture, namely that the Bible is a witness to revelation. The key point though is that Scripture isn’t a witness by default – the witness occurs because God allows him/herself to be revealed through the Bible. Or, as McGrath describes Brunner’s beliefs: “Truth comes into being as the act of God in time and space” . What is important here is that revelation is personal, uniquely shaped to our individual perspective.

This is important, first because it gives the lie to Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity, namely that God is simply the externalization of human ideals, the eternal expansion of the “experience of the self”. Under my reading of Barth/Brunner, God is like Anselm’s proof of God – greater than we can conceive – but allows us to conceive divinity in personally meaningful ways. This reading makes Feuerbach’s critique (a powerful one, I might add) powerless because Feuerbach is looking at the human expression of revelation, rather than the underlying structure of revelation itself.

What am I saying? This may not be a Barthian argument per se, but basically I stand somewhere between process theology and orthodoxy – God doesn’t change, but our apprehension of God changes. What Aquinas said in the 1200’s holds little relevance for us now (of course he is grossly misrepresented by McGrath), yet still makes sense for some. It is both true and not true. Similarly, a feminist argument for the suffering in God is both true and not true. Does God suffer? I think so. But more importantly, sometimes we need God to suffer, so that revelation can match reality. God is more than a suffering God, but God is also a suffering God. Thus the use of feminine and suffering metaphors in the Old Testament – they point to a truth about God, but they certainly do not encapsulate THE TRUTH about God. I think Keller makes this point most clearly, when she says that “Christianity has always borrowed current cosmologies”. This statement requires a historical, systematic view of theology, but makes sense. A cosmology is a worldview, an understanding of the development and formation of the world. God is greater than our cosmologies, but the cosmologies also help us to make sense of God.

What I like most about this view of revelation is that it releases Christianity somewhat from the bonds of philosophy. McGrath spends a great deal of time talking about the philosophy that undergirds so much of Christian thought about God, but in its own unique way, philosophy narrows the scope of theological discussion. For 2000 years, theology has been responding to philosophical concerns, rather than addressing theological concerns. These philosophical concerns (Plato, Aristotle, Berkeley, Wittgenstein, Derrida) are relevant, but their focus is on the shadows of God’s reality. Jesus is the logos, but he is also so much more than that. But personal existential revelation is not concerned with the sum of all sums of revelation, just the one that makes God a living reality for me, and my church, and my faith community.

2003-01-29T12:25:00.000-05:00

I spent this week reading Frederick Buechner's Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale. I've always like Buechner stuff - he was formative in helping me to develop a nuanced faith that lives and breathes in the world. But some of his later material was just dull - too cute and too established to be relevant. But in the older material like Telling the Truth Buechner's passion for life and God jumps off the page.

The power in Telling the Truth comes from Buechner's awareness of the foundational connection between life and faith. I think it is easy to lose sight of this - life can become too busy, or faith can become too structured. In the middle of the tragedies of life, during the awareness of the unbelievable comedy of trying to make sense of things, the true fairy tale that is faith has meaning, and provides meaning.

I think it is the fairy tale that most connects with me, and not surprisingly with the culture at large. The best fairy tales have always been true, have always required a leap of faith, have always brought forth tears and laughter, heartache and wonder. When my faith loses these things, it becomes irrelevant. Without the romance, my faith is something I do, rather than something I am.

Telling the Truth is Buechner's attempt to reawaken the emotions that came with faith. And for me, it works.

2003-01-14T09:44:00.000-05:00

I started re-reading an old favorite last night. James Loder wrote a book in the 80's called The Transforming Moment. This book begins with the story of Loder's personal transformational moment, a near-death experience on the New York Thruway in the 70's. It then moves into a philosophical, theological, and psychological justification of these transformational experiences in spiritual renewal.

As I read last night, I had mixed emotions. For Loder, this transformational moment changed his perspective on life. All of the silly constructions that we make to justify our existence were swept away for him, and his life gained new purpose. This seems exciting, this seems to be where it is at. I don't want to care about the unimportant things in my life...

But I don't know. I don't know if this is a relic from my more conservative past, or a reminder of the way things are meant to be. I guess I'll just have to revisit this down the road.

2003-01-07T03:28:00.000-05:00

I don't know what it is, but my obsessions seem to be taking over my life. In a good way.

Decided to get off my butt and design a fan website for Iron & Wine. So I did. Did I mention I designed a website, which I have decided to call Muddy Hymnal, that is about Iron & Wine?

Hmm... I guess you'll just have to check it out...

2003-01-06T10:46:00.000-05:00

Ah, the layoff is over.

I have something new to obsess about. Iron & Wine is a new band (on the Subpop label) that I am really, really enjoying right now. Sam Beam is the man behind the scenes here, and it could be that I just like him for his beard. Who knows.

There isn't a fan site that I can find, so I might try to throw something together. I'll let you know if it happens.

The unfortunate thing is that while the album The Creek Drank the Cradle is quite good, my favorite song of theirs, "Sea and the Rhythm" isn't published, as far as I can tell. Thank goodness for filesharing.

If nothing else, my obsession with Iron & Wine, the Mountain Goats, and Ryan Adams has started me to think about writing and playing music again. I feel like it should be so easy, but its amazing how much easier poetry is than music lyrics. Let's see if I can keep the obsession up long enough to actually get stuff done.

2002-12-17T13:02:00.000-05:00

I'm no activist - at least not yet - but I can't help but cringe when I read about the oil spill off the coast of Spain, or see pictures from the wreckage like this one (yes, that is a bird).

What are we doing to ourselves? At a party on Saturday, I met a young man going into graduate school to work on alternative fuel sources, mainly hydrogen fuel power. Granted, the technology isn't quite there yet, but let's get there. How can xians not care about this?

2002-12-15T01:24:00.000-05:00

I'm psyched and saddened. Researching for the paper I am writing on negative theology, I came across the name of a man I have been trying to remember for a long, long time.

When I was in Oxford, I had the privilege of sharing several pints of Guiness with him at The Bear , one of if not the oldest pub in Oxford. We talked politics, Aquinas, and we talked about this book: God Matters.

Herbert McCabe was a member of the Blackfriars, but died in 2001. One of my dreams had been to return to Oxford to study under him, but that won't happen.

I have never met anyone like him. He was an amazing man.

2002-12-11T21:50:00.000-05:00

Well, I just read an article that I agree with completely. It's about marriage.

Dust and Forgiveness

2002-12-11T00:26:00.000-05:00

Alright, I know I teased you and then never got back to marriage. So let's do this.

What are the spiritual reasons for marriage? What do we believe happens in marriage?

I think that within our culture there is the misguided notion that marriage exists for mutual happiness, or for the reproduction of children. I see it a little differently. I look at marriage from a utilitarian perspective: assuming the faith we have in an active and living God, there must be a reason for marriage outside of anthropology necessity or simple human emotion. So there's a point, a reason, to the madness that we call marriage.

Let's dig into theology. The trinity is an obscure doctrine, but I really believe the heart of the trinity is relationship (this idea isn't new with me). The relationship b/w God, Jesus, Holy Spirit forms a unique interpersonal relationship. I really believe that for us to be made in the image of God has something to do with relationship - no matter how introverted we are, life is always better in relationship.

I can remember the times, especially in Switzerland, that I longed to not only enjoy the splendour of what I saw, but to share it with someone. Relationship. Am I good at it? No. I am terrible at starting, growing, or maintaining relationships. But I long for them.

My belief is that marriage is where we learn to relate. If life is about becoming more like God (and maybe it isn't, but I think it is), then we need to learn how to relate. How can we relate to something that is PURE relationship, pure love, if we can't relate or love those around us? I think that marriage is the place where we are forced to relate, we are forced to deal with our personal inadequacies, forced to deal with the things we don't like. You can run away from friendships (and I have), but marriage you cannot run away from. You have to fight it out. Where does the HAVE come in? Well, to me, because we give our word, we make a vow. But some people don't view oaths as strongly as I do.

So, in a nutshell, that's why I think marriage is important. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I don't think I am.

2002-12-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

Are you kidding me? Give me more of this, please...

2002-12-04T10:23:00.000-05:00

I haven't had much time to post lately, mainly because of laziness and work: it's the end of the semester. I have a paper due today on hymns. I hate most hymns. Pretentious shit.

Music is like poetry and philosophy (and lots of other things I suppose): only the really good stuff stands the test of time. Unfortunately, almost none of the music we sing in the church that is old is any good. It should have been thrown out when the people died. Instead, we created our own class of pretentious snobs who really have nothing to be pretentious about.

Oh well. On a different (and non-theological, perhaps) musical note, the new Beth Orton album Daybreakers is great. I have heard her stuff, and told myself it was bad. I've argued with friends that she stinks. So now I'm eating my words. She's really good. Check her out.

2002-11-27T15:09:00.000-05:00

There has been very little intellectual stimulation in my life lately (unless you count lots and lots of new music), so I want to write out thoughts that I have stored away for a while on marriage. I've shared these with some people, but never written them down. So, here goes...

The subject of marriage has always bothered me. In some ways, it is hard not to buy into the cultural belief that marriage is essentially irrelevant. Anthropologically and sociologically, this is easy to understand. We live in a transient society, and marriage really only made sense culturally within stable, unmoving societies. But, religion has always added an extra component to marriage that is not there without religion: telos. Religious beliefs have always held that marriage exists not just for the good of the individuals or society, but for spiritual reasons as well.

So, like much of my understanding of morality, my beliefs on marriage have developed out of this understanding: marriage is important in our lives for spiritual reasons, not (just?) cultural reasons.

What are these spiritual reasons? Well, I need to go, so I'll leave that until my next post.

Happy Thanksgiving.

2002-11-22T10:35:00.000-05:00

Wednesday was my group project for Leonard Sweet's class on "Worship as Evangelism". I have conflicted feelings about our lab. Basically, we ran a worship service, but divided the participants up into groups - with each group planning their own segment.

There is a sense in which this is taking a cue from the software community - open source worship. There is structure to the whole, but there isn't control over the product. But, by relinquishing control, something really good came out of it. The service was great, and it was completely owned by the participants.

Is this the future? I don't know. I think that it isn't a stretch to have the future of church resemble Mozilla and Netscape. Netscape spun out the code for their browser to the open source community, renaming that Mozilla. Then, as the community developed a browser (allowing Netscape not to have to put all its resources into development), Netscape came along and put out new browsers based on Mozilla code. BUT, the Mozilla community is also putting out their own browsers.

There is an organic feel to this, but there are two approaches. Mozilla appeals to the people who want to personalize their experience, while Netscape appeals to those who want the safety of a large company and the support that company provides.

I can easily see this developing within the church (especially as many churches begin to fail and fade). There will be churches that are entirely organic, where every week is new and creative and experimental. Out of this, there will also be other churches that use the ideas and innovations of the "open source" church to compile services that appeal to people less interested in being personally involved.

Within community, within relationships, the open source model is really appealing. It allows you to really get a feel for the other people around you, reaching into their lives and your lives in ways that you never experienced before.

Will it work? I hope so.

2002-11-20T01:25:00.000-05:00

If you're not reading the news from wired.com then you aren't seeing the incrementally huge changes that are sweeping through our world. What do I mean?

In today's (Tuesday's) edition, there were three (3!!!) specific articles that were relevant to the spiritual and cultural changes going on around us:

Ray Kurzweil plans on living forever

A computer as smart as you are - literally

The cover story in the latest issue of Wired Magazine, on the convergence b/w science and religion

Oh, and btw, did I mention that this latest issue is on the convergence b/w science and religion? They're like adolescents, where the boy always picked on the girl, and vice-versa, and then they both suddenly realized that the only reason they were so hard on each other was because they really like each other. Weird.

I grew up in a xian culture that was afaid of science, afraid of knowledge, afraid of the future. And now, we are the future, and we don't even know it. Everyone else has figured it out, and xians are left standing on the sideline arguing points that no one cares about.

Where is God in this? Paul said that God makes him/her/itself known to all people. Really, that means God will make be revealed to the world whether xians want it to happen or not. I just think there is so much power, so much true spiritual hunger in the hearts of people around us, and I keep thinking that we can break though.

I remember sitting at Dartmouth watching people, and just wishing that I could communicate to them how much they are loved, how relevant their lives are to God, how important they are in the world. But I think that is the problem. Because we don't know how to tell the others how much we love them, there is no way for us to communicate how much God loves them. The two must go hand in hand.

2002-11-18T11:25:00.000-05:00

Here's a fascinating article that deals with the theological implications of digital physics. The tagline on the article is "holytech". Amazing. The world is way ahead of us.

The most interesting point in the article is this: "What we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes/no questions." This statement by John Archibald Wheeler is fascinating - it deconstructs reality, and what is left is nothing more than a spiritual reality.

If life is a question, what is our answer?

2002-11-13T10:05:00.000-05:00

Ugh. Part of me hates being so negative, but it is one of those modern legacies that I haven't been able to shake yet. They trained me too well...

One of my professors today claimed that unless a church has prayers that can be and are being memorized by the church body, there isn't genuine spiritual community there. And don't think I'm making that sound worse than it does just because I can't quote her exact words. That is what she said - xian community only exists with prayers that are being memorized by the whole community.

#1 - no way. absolutely no way. i am sick and tired, absolutely sick and tired of being told what is and isn't genuine spirituality.
#2 - of all things to claim, this is ridiculous. perhaps she was just throwing it off the top of her head, but she is wrong, dead wrong. this is yet another example of the myopic xian view of "standards". these standards don't exist. ok, they exist, but only in the heads of people trying to perpetuate their myths, not in reality (and i know, there isn't "reality" - but isn't that the point?).

Anyways, I'm wondering more and more what genuine community COULD look like. I'm wondering if it isn't time to get off my butt and do something around here. I'm drifting towards the edges of my faith, and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

2002-11-12T22:21:00.000-05:00

What is the task of the theologian?

For a while now I've claimed this title as something I aspire to, but really its a desire to think and write and focus my life around the issues of faith. But I'm wondering now what exactly it is to do theology.

Let's be honest here, the only "theologians" I've ever met...

OK, let's be honest here, I've never met a "theologian." In our world, it is no longer a noble calling to be a theologian. I've met and studied under philosophers, psychologists, historians, writers, etc. But I've never met anyone who claimed to be a theologian.

So what if I was a theologian? Ostensibly, that would mean I wrote theology. I would write articles, publish books, and give lectures that were theological. I would talk about God, about what it means to know God, understand God, live life for God. But I'm not sure that you can really talk about God, or know God, let alone understand God. And what *does* it mean to live for God? Does anyone know?

The best that I've been able to come up with on the last point is really just a moral code of sorts. Many contemporary theologians are little more than that: ethicists with a religious background. But is that all there is?

Do I even care enough to write the pretentious bullshit that is published in academia today? If you want to be taken seriously, you need the write pedigree (read: degrees from good institutions and respected "mentors") and you need to write in a certain way (read and appreciate someone else, then tear them down). I don't know that I want to have a pedigree, and I'm not really interested in read-and-response writing. I've been doing that since junior high school (they were called book reports then).

I don't know what to say. In class today it was mentioned that the task of the theologian is to help men and women break through our idolatries of God so that we can be in right relationship with Him/Her/It. That sounds more like the role of the Old Testatment prophets.

Perhaps that is what it will mean to be a theologian. Perhaps in the future theology will begin to address the actual concerns of our world again, to make faith relevant to life.

2002-11-12T21:34:00.000-05:00

I've added a feature that allows you to comment on what I've written. Theoretically, if I don't like your comment, I can get rid of it. But I probably won't do that. Unless you're mean. Just click on the comment link at the end of each post.

2002-11-11T18:40:00.000-05:00

I was reading an attempted Derridean interpretation of capitalism over the weekend, and I realized something that really hadn't occured to me before. I tend to prefer to ignore political/economic discussions, partially because they seem irrelevant, and partially because there is no correlation between data and interpretation. But Walter Lowe was talking about his main complaint against capitalism, a complaint that is given greater voice by Levinas and his emphasis on The Other. Essentially, the complaint against capitalism is that it is unmoral - it devalues the intrinsic value of The Other in order to emphasis The Object.

Here is what Lowe says: "The advent of capitalism undoubtedly introduces a certain kind of freedom; but it entails this darker side as well, in that nothing is valued for its own sake, nothing has significance in its own right. All values are reduced to exchange value and in this sense every object becomes, at least potentially, a commodity."

Is this so bad? I guess the argument here is that some things are more than a commodity. Believers in capitalism might argue that this is a bastardization of their economic system, that there is an inherent morality within capitalism that puts the highest value on that which humans value highest. The theological argument, of course, is that this isn't good enough, that intrinsic value is not the same thing as personal value - because humans are messed up.

Mind you, this isn't an argument for marxism, or socialism, or any other system that's out there. But we have an idolatry of capitalism here in America, and it would be wise for us to begin to understand our lack of vision. If we can begin to understand our biases, perhaps we can begin to change them.

2002-11-07T19:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry I haven't put anything up this week. Last week blogger was having problems, this week I had my hands full doing legitimate "theological" stuff. I might as well tell you about it.

Tuesday, there was a presentation for my Derrida class. I was presenting on a section of Kevin Hart's book The Trespass Of The Sign: Deconstruction, Theology and Philosophy. The meat of my presentation was on whether or not it is possible for negative theology to escape the metaphysical critique of deconstruction (which one may or may not consider to be damning of most positive theologies). Negative theology is theological thought that usually comes out of the mystical tradition from writers such as Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, the Areopagite, etc. These mystics/writers attempted to step back from trying to name God, acknowledging that any attempt on our part to ascribe characteristics to God is doomed to failure by the "radical otherness" of God. Our words are never enough. Essentially, we can't really know anything of God. Mystery.

Hart's claim is that there is a space for negative theology, a negative theology that is not metaphysical. He doesn't elucidate this negative theology, but I'm not at all convinced that he's right on this issue. Two things, which would take more time and energy than I have for today to explicate, so I'll just say it and leave you hanging: I'm not convinced that negative theology truly escapes deconstruction, and I'm definitely not convinced that it matters. I guess the real question that I have to ask is this: WHY ARE WE RUNNING AWAY FROM METAPHYSICS?

I also had to preach a sermon this week, and rather than rewrite it for you, I'll just put up a couple of paragraphs for you. I'm tired.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Jesus saying? I believe He’s saying that if we truly follow Him we will enter into a journey of becoming - becoming the people we were meant to be. That might mean greatness, it might mean obscurity, it might mean wealth, it might mean poverty. But above all else, it means living in reality, God’s reality.

We are easily swayed by the world around us, by the allure of power and greatness, by fame and fortune. But I believe that Jesus calls us to a radical reality - of freedom from the shallow virtues of the world around us - into the true depths of spiritual, emotional, and physical wholeness.

2002-11-02T12:25:00.000-05:00

I ran into an old friend last night at the Dartmouth bonfire. I'm struck by the numbing pain of missing him for so long. We both talked about how often we think of each other, the things that have gone in our lives, and I realized how much of his life I have missed. It struck me that this is where true spirituality lies - within community, and that if the church can help people to maintain this connection, wonderful things can happen.

Of course, this friend wasn't and isn't a xian, and that brings up the question of what true spiritual community is. For too long xians have been fed the lie that true spiritual fellowship can only happen b/w xians . I'm not convinced.

2002-10-29T23:33:00.000-05:00

Sorry I haven't been posting as much. There have been problems with the blogger site lately, and I've actually lost several posts. I'm being more careful now, and I assume that sometime in the near future I'll have to switch to my own site.

So I've been thinking alot about this issue of church and spirituality, or why the church seems to lack a core spirituality. Granted, there are churches that are alive, that crackle with the presence of God. But even the best of them lack the spiritual depth that I've managed to find in other places in my life. This bothers me. Not because I think there's something wrong with me, but because I wonder what it is that allows our culture to be more in tune with spiritual matters than the church is.

Two of the most spiritual experiences in my life were at rock concerts (U2 and Radiohead). I know that for some this makes the definition of spirituality somewhat vague - but I simply believe that it is a connection with the Other. This connection doesn't have to be made directly with God in order for it to be spiritual. In fact, I believe that we connect with God when we connect with others; sort of an enneagram spirituality. Don't get me wrong, I also think that we do and can connect with God. But church usually isn't the place for this.

I guess deep down within me there is a mystic waiting to be freed. I've been trained and brainwashed by modernity to push back mysticism, to try to avoid the mystical connection with God because it isn't real. But our society is filled with mystics. I really believe that a large part of the church's irrelevance is the lack of true mystics within the church. Most of the people I have met who have truly deep relationships with God are more comfortable outside the church than they are inside. That is troublesome.

I guess I am beginning to believe that the church will remain irrelevant within our culture as long as it continues to value reason over relationship, belief over mysticism, content over substance. And I begin to wonder if we will ever be able to connect with God in church.

2002-10-26T00:56:00.000-04:00

Well, this week I went to chapel at Drew for the first time since being here.

Well, ok, the second time. The first time I went was my first week here; it doesn't really count though, because I took one look at the order of worship and left. Several people have tried to convince me to go to chapel. But I'm realizing that I just don't care.

The apathy extends deeper than just chapel, though. I've realized that I really don't care about going to church either. I find church to be completely irrelevant to my life - and a little over a month ago I was preaching in church.

To be honest, I did find ::epynos:: to be relevant. It was a place of safety, of community, of fresh, almost primitive spirituality; and it was ours. But it is hard to recreate: the people who like church like it the way it is; the people who don't like church really can't be bothered to try to bring life into church.

And I don't really blame them. In fact, I'm joining their camp. We are seeing new waves spirituality springing up throughout our culture, but more and more the church is disconnected from this (or any) spirituality. Oh, the rituals are there. The music is there. I know and am comfortable living within those things. But comfort is not all that we need from life. It isn't all that I need from life.

I need, I long, for a connection with my God that is real, that breathes life into my veins and redeems my soul. I desire to connect with other people who desire the same reality, who know that there is something sadly missing in our lives and want to do something about that. I want a spiritual community to be passionate about. But does one even exist?

I really think that my malaise is bigger than myself; of course I do, we all believe that we aren't alone. Perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps there is something wrong with me, that drives me away from the church.

Or perhaps there is something sick, something flawed, something that leaves even the "best" churches filled with the same emptiness that I find consuming the world around me.

What is to be done?

2002-10-23T00:26:00.000-04:00

One of the things that has become a weakness for the church is the communal blindness to the rest of the world. I was reading articles today in the latest Utne Reader about some of the changes that will be coming to our energy situation: hydrogen cells, solar power, wind power, and what this means for fossil fuels. I was struck less by the content of the articles (all stuff that I knew already), but rather by my awareness that these really aren't issues that you will see highlighted in churches. Why is this?

Before I speculate, the question that bothers me even more is why aren't xians even more involved in helping to create a sustainable life on this planet than anyone else. Come to think of it, when was the last time that you heard of great xian scientists, philosophers, or thinkers? xians used to be at the forefront of cultural and intellectual development, and now we just aren't.

So what is my speculation? My speculation is that we don't care. All the churches I have attended care more about the status quo, or rather status quo issues, than they do about anything else. Xians are very interested in heaven, but forgot that Jesus wants to bring about a new earth. But let's be honest: that's must be a literal statement, not a metaphor. The Bible is never metaphorical. A new earth must mean an entire new planet, right? It would never mean that God helps us to live with the earth the way we were supposed to live. Heaven forbid.

Can we change this? I think we have to change it. More and more, the true xians will not be found in churches. And if that's not scary enough to bring about change, I don't know what is.

2002-10-19T10:48:00.000-04:00

I've been doing alot of thinking lately about the future: the future of life, the future of the church.

Specifically, I'm trying to accustom myself to the sense of the future that Ray Kurzweil has. A future in which computer and humans become more and more inseparable, until computer are humans, and humans are computers. This is mind-bending stuff, and it leaves me wondering how we can face this within the church.

I guess one of the things I have become more aware of is that this age we are in now, call it what you will (post-modern, post-post-modern, post-anything and everything) is really an age of transition, or turmoil. In the past, the church has done much to provide stability within turmoil, but often it has done just as much to create the turmoil. I guess I really wonder what it could mean for us to provide stability within this era.

What does stability look like these days? Economically, stability is fleeting. Academically, stability is mocked. Intellectually, stability isn't really tangible. Emotionally, well, who do YOU really know that is emotionally stable? And spiritually, it seems that the only "stable" ones are the fundamentalists (the liberals and the conservatives - you know they're BOTH fundies). The reality is that anytime anyone begins to feel stable, eventually they're going to feel like they're watching themselves watch themselves on TV. It's a surreal experience, and one that produces a bit of vertigo.

I used to experience this at the barbershop in California where I always had my hair cut. There was a mirror in front of me, and a mirror on the wall behind me. If you look into the mirror, all you see is images of yourself looking back at yourself receding back into infinity. Weird stuff.

Can we escape the vertigo? I think that stability today probably doesn't look stable to modern mindsets. It probably means embracing that vertigo, accepting it as part of life. Who is really willing to accept that vertigo? Within the computer industry, the status quo never really exists. Perhaps that is what we need - a realization that there is no longer a status quo. Who knows?

2002-10-17T00:49:00.000-04:00

Just a quick thought tonight.

I've been wondering today why it is that I don't and haven't liked prayer for so long. I don't pray, I don't like to be prayed for, and I really try to avoid it as much as possible. Ignoring the theology and philosophy and anthropology and whatever else that one can argue about regarding the value or lack thereof that prayer has, I am realizing that there is something much deeper within myself that doesn't want to believe.

This is deeper than just prayer, obviously. But prayer is part of the issue. I've realized that I don't want to believe that I need anyone - other people and God. My belief extends only so far.

Was I raised this way? Was this a crummy childhood? Or is this the last vestiges of modernity refusing to die within me? Probably a little of everything, and certainly just my pride.

2002-10-15T11:54:00.000-04:00

A morning spent reading Derrida.

Impossible to synopsize, but I think that I'm beginning to understand. The books are dead, not because people have stopped reading, but because people are realizing that there is something before...

Have you ever had that sensation that a certain moment in your life seemed scripted, as if it was a movie? That perfect moment for the kiss, or the day when everything seemed to move in slow motion? Or maybe you've done what I do so often, allowing music to become a soundtrack for your life - the musical mood perfectly complements your own.

That my friends, is the story that exists before the story. If you still don't understand, just think of DNA. You exist within a language of chemical combinations, a book that is written within your body, smaller than you can see, but governing the expanses of your life, mind, body, soul.

These are not idle murmurings, either. Our interactions with the world, our existence in the world, our very being is written within a book that we cannot escape from or change. God?

Perhaps.

2002-10-14T15:45:00.000-04:00

Just getting started.

In case you don't know, I am currently attending Drew Theological School, attempting to make sense of being unaffiliated in the midst of a mass of Methodists.

All I know is that the world is changing, but that *[church/theology/religion]* isn't changing with it. And what are we going to do about that?

I wish I knew.