Tradition

Again...more teaching to the test...I thought I finished suffering through this inductive strategy in high school...though again I find that even in graduate programs, one is still learning more for socioeconomic prestige, rather than for perhaps authentic personal and communal growth as a human being. In fact, there are times when I feel otherworldly as a human being and more and more like an enculturated zombie. Test-taking skills I'm sure are wonderful skills to have if only to achieve 'success' as is defined by popular culture, by our government, by western culture in general...though for me, as one studying, searching for what is transcendent, worldly success seems very little indeed on the hierarchy of priorities -- not that I'm completely trying to dissassociate myself from the culture, or trying to zealously reform it, but I am trying to 'see' beyond myself as it were, beyond my own needs, beyond what my conditioned and conditioning environment conveys to me.

My wife and I had a conversation the other day and were both left a little uncomfortable with some of our discussion topics. To name one, we both could not help but notice the structural inconsistencies in society, the structured evil as it were. In order to tame chaos, one must set laws and rules we both understand...

...but what about patriarchal elements in a culture where women and men are seeking equality, in a culture that structurally prevents women from achieving a fair status in the socioeconomic sphere and in the mindsets of westerners? Why are women required to take on the last names of their husbands, when the very incorporation of such identity symbolically attacks a woman's identity and worth? Tradition is generally the way we tend to refute or to defend the way things are done. And though I find tradition to be helpful in remembrance and in eschatological expectation, the culture in which we experience the world and the transcendent is vastly different from cultures past. Hanging on to traditions, perhaps outdated, may seem comfortable to human beings, where living is not in itself a comfortable task. To live is to evolve in identity as rational human beings.

For me, God did not just set things in motion as the divine clockmaker, but still creates in and through the lives of human beings, perhaps by means of the Scripturally ambiguous 3rd part of the godhead: the 'Spirit.' For the church particularly, change comes very slow over the ages due to the fear that tradition, or rather the precepts and tenets of early Christianity will be lost in the secular or the profane...for a religion that faithfully attests to the movement of the Spirit within humanity, there is a lack of faith in the power of that Spirit to move within the secularized world. In other words, instead of embodying our faith as true believers, we institutionalize it, excluding others' sacred claimes so that it will not escape us, the 'true believers.' Perhaps Christians should be flogged for their lack of faith in their omnipotent God.

...back to what I was saying before, Amy and I refuse to contribute to structured evil by taking each others' last names. Hyphenation seems a more suitable fit for our embodied values, otherwise we would be living a lie imposed upon us by our culture. For Amy and I, Christ transcends his culture -- in fact one reason he had to die was necessitated by his representation of the divine culture radically different from the one in which he lived on earth. He lived under Jewish laws and Roman laws, and was judged by them, recognizing the need for human governance, though revealed the culture's misplaced virtues and values. Again, I am working through a personal interpretation of Scripture based upon study and in conversation with others, and I could cite Scriptural references, but the ambiguity of Scripture allows for any interpretations one deems fit...in other words, you could argue with me citing evidence for an opposite point of view...the question then becomes, who is more Spirit-filled? 'I am' of course you ponder...your experience, your study, your prayer -- it all confirms this does it not? Perhaps the Spirit, like Scripture, is a bit more ambiguous than people give Her credit...

I know what you may be thinking, a symbol may not hold sway, may not make much of a difference if it is changed...but I disagree. Symbols play a large part in our society, representing our hopes, our fears, our expectations, our perceptions. When symbols become out-of-wack with human experience, with tradition, with our corporate and personal values, then perhaps the particular symbol should be critiqued as to its function, its meaning, and its significance in society. Again, this is not to be taken as perhaps replacing the Crucifix with an iconic 'Buddy Christ,' because here those valuable tenets to Roman Catholics would be violated and replaced with a cultural symbol devoid of the religion's significant values.

Along these same lines, it is a theologically held belief (by some) that spatiotemporal events should be interpreted in light of the 'cross.' 'But what does this mean' ask the nominal Christians who think for their individual selves and in terms of their own salvation...Salvation is not what the cross signifies, first and foremost...somehow this has become a major tenet in Christianity. The cross is first and foremost an act of grace -- an attribute of the divine character to and for the glory of God -- it is Her will that we commune with him. 'Being saved' is our way of understanding what it means to be judged...when we perhaps lack what it means to judge, accepting a redacted form of Hammurabi's code or other casuistic laws of sorts. It is the only way to make sense of our own sacreds, the only way to retain the specialized feeling of an elect (the same feeling Darwin was perceived to threaten). Again, I'm going to bring up Scripture here -- Scripture uses metaphoric and analogic language in terms of casuistic laws, perhaps an influence from Hammurabi's code. There are the ten commandments and other Holy laws outlined and expounded upon in Leviticus...the point is that these regulations, these if/then or shall/shall not laws are the only linguistic ways in which Scriptural writers can convey the will of God. These linguistic barriers, however, are limits in and of themselves (only perceived and interpreted correctly with aid from the Spirit as most Christians understand it). Thus, explicitly stating that God judges in terms of these sorts of laws seems a bit limiting on the part of God. Judging for God may be the result of a gracious act so powerful, that Christ died for all of humanity so that we all may commune with God...very reminescent of Karl Barth's doctrine of universal atonement (which he never straightforwardly admitted to). Christians hate to think in terms such as this because it threatens their own egos, which yearn for their enemies to get their 'just' rewards. Perhaps this deeply embedded, sickly comforting subconscious element in the human psyche is one of humanity's most dividing and disturbing sins...

It seems very funny to me that the ways in which we institutionalize our perception of the sacred as Christians paradoxically institutionalizes our selves into imitation, rather than into creative human beings who understand tradition as a way of remembering so that we might live in jubilant expectation for the same Jesus who died on the cross to come again...

More Stormy shots from the window

After the Snow

Before the Snow

Quandary

Ever have I been glad and sad

That there was such a thing as life.

Categories, I understand,

In ontological demand,

Fill teleological strife.

Time and space, categorically construed,

Testify to lewd pairs of sorts,

Excluding some with a torch, a knife.

To use our brains, as theory suggests,

Is to keep in check our exclusiveness,

Thus our discriminates and our ends.

Use not others ‘merely as means,

But ends in themselves’ the philosopher suggests,

Not taking into account spiritual amends.

Brains and the Cross, quandary of categorical sense,

Though not for postmodern recompense,

Or for foundationalist sacred claims.

From this formula of inclusiveness, I detest,

Is more exclusiveness like the rest,

Clandestine in the wilderness.

Sacred and profane, that is the game

Of the split self, rocking on faith

Swaying with reason for fruit from a wraith.

This is the way I once did think,

On the brink of thinking what it means to think.

As thoughtful I was, I must admit

My guilt as a discriminate,

For lack of redaction on my part –

A consequence of an exclusive heart.

solstice

Left subdued

Scripture is "self-authenticating." Faith is an "intuitive knowledge." Let me try to explain this to a congregation member years from now when he comes to me with a question on faith. Should I just tell him or her that a faith chosen is not real faith, and that faith only comes by the Spirit...? Then should I proceed with a Calvinistic explanation of the 'elect,' that the Spirit only comes to some unto which salvation will be graciously given? I would rather side with Karl Barth in his theory of Jesus as the 'elect.' God as an exclusively inclusive God seems a little more difficult to explain to a congregation member coming to me for spiritual guidance.

Aren't we to proclaim truth rather than a version of truth intended to encourage believers. Proclaiming and interpreting the gospel is an act of the Spirit working through the mediating orator, and as such, proclamation should be about God...worship should be all about God...not about how the congregation feels after the word has been proclaimed and interpreted.

Again, let me begin a discussion from the foundation of any theological discourse, theological proposition:

God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Without blindly believing and having faith that this act was indeed the revelation of our maker, theology is dead -- plain and simple. Thus, Christianity is based upon this foundationalist claim that can never be falsified, and therein lies the criticism Christianity finds from outside sources. Is it relevant for those who believe in this particular monopoloy of truth to argue in the grand scheme of global conversation, when their particular argument cannot be falsified?

Of course the scientific method, Karl Popper's theory of falsification are products of an age where predictability, rather than truth has become the significant factor in discovery. So putting Christianity under the microscope of modern-day science, and claiming that to be discovery is suggesting that induction is a categorical imperative...hmmm...I have many problems with this approach to which I will refer a bit further down.

But perhaps Scripture should not be questioned at all, taken inerrant or infallible? Again, more problems arise for me.

First of all, Scripture witnesses to the incarnation, which, if held to be true, gives it an authoritative place in theological discourse. Though one must note the limitations upon which Scripture is founded...the incarnation may have been the revelation of God, but God knows no linguistic bounds and so the language in Scripture itself is a limiting to the knowledge of true revelation. It can be argued that what gives Scripture its infallibility is the Spirit working in and through the text and the interpreter...though, as history seems to indicate, the Spirit moving in and through Christians leads Christians to redact what they believe in their various contexts. Christianity takes on the character of a self-critical religion. Who better to demonstrate the way the Spirit moves than with modern feminist theologians who suggest that the encounter with Scripture is where the Spirit works. What feminist theologians bring up is that Scripture is a text, though written by divinely inspired individuals, which is written in the context of a patriarchy. Androcentrism, perhaps a limit within the language of Scripture, needs to be reinterpreted for our own context. Christians are advocating the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who, if God, transcends time and space and any socioeconomic climate. Part of being a Christian in the modern era is interpreting Scripture, letting the Spirit move one to applying the witness of the incarnation to this time and this place with situations Scripture does not address.

In reading John Calvin's Institutes, his polemic against the Catholic church is easily recognizable, but as such he, and the other reformers lend Scripture a rather obscure authority, which can be very dangerous, as the Hitler's, etc in history have proven. Scripture "self-authenticates" itself when the Spirit is working in you and you possess and intuitive knowledge that the incarnation is the Truth -- this is where the room fell silent in discussion today during a theology class. I asked the simple, practical question of how to describe faith and the authority of Scripture to congregation members, and the eerie silence that ensued quite frankly scared the dickens out of me. The question is rhetorical...with no clear cut answer...only more questions.

Further, concerning Calvin, I expected a much more logic-oriented dogmatics, though his logic is based upon varying assumptions concerning the context in which he was writing. It just reveals to me that we take our baggage with us into our interpretations -- our own experiences, our own context and situation, our knowledge of tradition.

Using David Tracy's model again, which he writes in his book, Plurality and Ambiguity, he likens global discourse to a huge conversation. It is a very processual view. But there are different arguments that contribute to the conversation -- biologists argue a certain way, textual critics another, theologicans another, etc. What is significant is that the conversation continues. When an argument arises that kills the conversation (a truth claim, an unfalsifiable account, an exclusive argument, etc) then that argument should be thrown out. Truth is not attainable when one decision is made at the expense of another, when context plays a role in argument, while we are mortal. Does theology have a place as an argument? Tracy would suggest that it does. Every argument is somewhat foundationalist in the sense that without a firm belief, without faith in ones' argument, the argument is either arguing for arguing sake or one that would crumble under critique. Thus belief is a part of argument. Christian faith, if considering that it is an "intuitive knowledge," is thought to be much more than a choice in what to believe -- it is the work of the Spirit. Christianity has this advantage over many other arguments. However, does it kill the conversation? When one takes Scripture to be infallible, perhaps interpreting the Reformers polemic a bit beyond their context, then the conversation dies and natural revelation is hidden to those only clinging to special revelation. Other religions have much to say concerning Scripture...how is the Spirit working in communities where Scripture is unknown to them? In conversation is the only way in which we can learn about each other and come to a fuller undestanding of Truth.

If a secular culture is the only means by which the conversation can continue, then it is only logical that it should be considered an alternative. Embodying what is sacred in my life, and reading Scripture with an open heart, mind, and in community to me has been profoundly helpful and directive.

I said I'd get back to this later, but when I was speaking of science and religion (predominantly because science has become the popular mode of rational thinking within our context in the west -- it defines what is rational for many) it is helpful to look at varying models:

Science and Religion in opposition; Science and Religion, asking different questions; Science and Religion integrative; or Science and Religion in discourse...

...must go...taking my wife to lunch...

Scripture

Yesterday, it seemed that I was criticizing Scripture a bit too harshly, though I do understand it to have a special place among Christians and the inhabitants of this planet. But as you can see, there is so much that is plastic in the interpretation of Scriptural analogy, which refines and occassional destroys interpretations, even some that traditionally have been held in high regard...

My point concerning Scripture is to read constantly, humbly, personally and communally. Stories take on new meanings and one always finds something new to discuss....

...more later...must get to shuttle bus...

Revelation

Deeply disturbed the other day, I cannot shake what was said by a professor of mine in a systematic theology class. The topic of the week was revelation, and in talking about it, one first had to set clear a definition of 'faith.' And what is faith, you might ask. Faith is not living a certain lifestyle; it is not making the choice to believe a certain way; it arrives out of an intuitive knowledge...

This is about the time when I tuned out in class and began thinking about how I was going to explain to future Christian congregations about the intuitive knowledge they are supposed to be experiencing within their lives. Pragmatically, the liberation theology approach presented in class was completely alien to me...in other words, my personal experience conflicted with the professor's. Perhaps explaining intuitive knowledge works in theory, or in terms of perhaps an artistically ambiguous metaphor, but realistically...the concept can be attributed to anyone's view of the sacred, not something inherently Christian...

Though theological discourse and evaluation is helpful for me as a Christian, and provides the ground upon which I stand, argue, and tread through life...it is not the only kind of discourse worldwide that discusses ontological, epistemological, and teleological questions...

Do I have an intuitive knowledge that I would call faith? Let's talk about it...

John Calvin suggests that naturally, human beings all have an intuitive knowledge of inferiority in that we cannot live without making mistakes and sinning. Schleiermacher suggests that every individual person has an a priori dependency on God. Karl Barth echoes such. However, in reading this dogma in the canon of tradition that is often referred to in theological discourse, I find a theocentric foundation tainting interpretation of the human condition based upon the canon of Scripture that bears witness to the special revelation that is Jesus Christ. Thus, faith, and the intuitive knowledge that feeds one's existential perception of self, arrives partially from a tradition whose interpretation has remained close to various core Christian tenets. In the history of Christianity, the story is not quite so frictionless.

First, Scripture is an issue I still struggle with...Just how much authority should Christians place in it? It is a human document, though I might add it could be divinely inspired, but nevertheless written by human beings...and not all at one time. In fact, we have no original manuscripts of Scripture texts...we have scribal renditions that were perhaps copies in which scribes were only learning to copy the sacred texts. The oldest text scholars have has scratch-outs and comments made in margins scorning other scribes for making a few alterations. But how many alterations have been made since the original. Throughout history, the Scriptural documents have been copied countless times moving farther and farther away from what the original probably said. How then are we reading the word of God, when the word of God has been redacted to fit the socioeconomic paradigms of early Christian communities? How can we get back to the original text, as textual critics, to the actual word of God that witnesses to Jesus Christ. Also, problematic to my interpretation is the degrees of freedom in which canon translators have operated. There are trinitarian references that seem not to belong, there is inclusive language that does not follow, especially in Paul's letters. His use of the greek term, 'adelphos', referring to 'brothers', is now translated as 'brothers and sisters' in various biblical translations. But further, in learning Greek and Hebrew there are countless Greek terms that translators are unsure of and so make redaction decisions to fill in the blank...

There is definitely more to Scripture than receives attention, and for many Christians to ignore such, and rather take the comfort in ignorance of the text merely stating its divine status seems a bit scary to me...Based on my experience in study, in prayer and reflection, in worship, in day-to-day activities, Christianity is a self-reflective, self-critical religion. When experience does not agree with Scripture and tradition, then perhaps Scriptural tenets need to be reinterpreted for the context in which they are being applied. Here I think feminist theologians have been very helpful in noting the significance of personal experience.

I critically reflect upon my faith commitment every day of my life...who knows I might learn something. But that faith commitment is based upon the tradition, family, and other conditioning devices that have influenced my life. If all were to die tomorrow from an asteroid crashing into earth, would future humanity embrace traditional Christian tenets? What would humanity do without the sacred texts referring to Christ? Would Christians still be Christian without it? Sometimes I think Scripture itself becomes an idol, something I don't think God really intented.

Also in class, I have a real problem in talking about the Spirit of God...many suggest that the Spirit moves us to do things, clandestinely whispering in our ears its sustaining manna. And I can follow this for a while...but where then can the line be drawn? I'm sure Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others would suggest to be moved by the Spirit to act as they did. Should one go into the ministry when the community in which they worship believes that person to be unfit? Referring to the Spirit working in my life is something I will always cringe to at times given my unfit condition in which to judge how the Spirit so acts.

Getting back to what I originally was concerned about, the intuitive knowledge that is spoken of in conjunction with faith, can be an interpretion of an a priori human epistemological faculty that particular communities ascribe different dennotative and connotative characteristics in conjunction with the sacred. In other words, the sense of God, natural revelation, universally felt by all (according to John Calvin), is an interpretation of the mysterious human condition, out of which the sacred is born and takes on a life of its own...

Eschatology, Progress, and Postmodernism

Physicists, Philosophers, Theologians all wrestle with what it means to live in an arena of space and time. Do they both exist? Do they constitute reality? Are they imposed categories? What does our exploration of these linguistic abstractions inform us about human epistemic reality, human ontology, (or perhaps human teleology) and the future of human questioning? Having lived and breathed the academic arena for so long, it is becoming apparent to me that postmodernism has had a profound influence on methodology in various disciplines and subdisciplines. Philosophers and scientists have come to rethink, and re-assess former categories and methodology within particular fields of study because of the thin boundaries long imposed between them. There are no clear boundaries between varying fields of study, only the rigid culturally defined bounds of human experience. So what then is knowledge in a postmodern world, where epistemically, the west is founded upon rigid categorical statutes deemed either dead or only part of a broader "conversation" in modern methodology?

Given the dangers of pure relativity within a postmodern world, where can human beings find ground on which to stand, on which to make an argument? Based on this question, it seems nay impossible to stand without faith in something foundational. Though I am not speaking about foundationalism in the philosophical sense -- approaching all argument from an assumption subjects that argument to trifling criticism for its lack of logic. There is no way to refute what that person has to say. But postmodernism opens the door for dialogue among varying points of view, so long as one argument doesn't kill the conversation. Thus, a theologian will always suffer criticism, because there is no way of escaping the ultimate claim that governs theological reflection -- i.e. God revealed in Jesus Christ to reveal true human nature and eschatological hope. But do theologians have merit in the categories of the world withThomas Kuhn blasting disciplinary boundaries wide open with a methodological, and perhaps sociological revolutionary theory?

What category is without merit in a postmodern world? Notably, since it was found that Baconian induction served well as a measure for predicting phenomena, progress has become that entity to be worshipped in rebellion against religion's foundationalism of sorts. Though disguised under an umbrella of objectivity, progress is nothing more than another foundation upon which to make an argument that prevents one from refuting that argument. What does it mean to think of the future in terms of progress? It means to impose cultural, scientific, and other paradigmatic categories as limits upon the future. Christians are no different. Revelation of the foundational element in Christendom as witnessed in their sacred document, their tradition, suggests a linear future and progressive chaos (thought by some currently to be the chaos resulting from the destruction of the categories and institutions that contain the sacred, a limited embodiment of unlimited possibilities, which, if let loose has been historically and culturally known to be highly destructive). Perhaps the trick is to figure out some way to embody what is sacred in our lives, rather than trying to contain it in institutions, in methodological discourse, in progress, in postmodernism, or any other category. If not, then I am afraid the future is very grave indeed...

Enough convoluted bunny trails and incomprehensive folly...the futuristic has been given another hightened status in society with the re-evaluation of space and time: what of time travel? Is it a scientific possibility? If so, what does this mean for the ontology of the universe? What I fear is the sacrifice of humility and compassion in the competitive drive for domination among the powers of the world, those who believe their arguments constitute the global epistemological conversation as ends.

I'll stop rambling...must get to studying before the superbowl...