RoboPA

Dreams, inner work, spirituality

2012-01-20T08:53:00.000-05:00

Another fantastic post by Jean Raffa. It's called Ruling the Inner Chamber, and she deals with dreams, inner work, and the spiritual journey. I especially love this:

Contrary to popular belief, authentic spirituality is not just a function of how many souls we save or how well we know scriptures or how hard we pray or how many rules we keep or what we believe or how often we attend our place of worship or how much money we donate to the poor. Likewise, spiritual maturity is not limited to a particular religion or set of beliefs. Rather, it is a function of our willingness to further the unfolding of our capacity for full living, endless loving, and authentic being.

We’re supposed to discover our true selves and connect with the sacred Mystery within. We’re supposed to learn how to accept and love ourselves because that’s how we learn to accept and love others. Every religion has spawned mature spirit persons whose mystical experiences and intuitions taught them that God indwells the soul. This means that our spiritual growth is not just a function of searching for God outside ourselves but also of honoring the “kingdom” within.

Thanks Jean for continuing to be a friend on the journey!

Psychotherapy as Spiritual Practice, Purgation, Self, etc.

2012-01-08T09:13:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I've been a little slack with postings on Answer to Job, I apologize. So many other interesting readings have been also getting my attention lately, so this post is about one of them.

I have been reading over the past few months a book, by psychoanalyst and professor of religion and spirituality at Pacifica Graduate Institute Lionel Corbett, called "The Sacred Cauldron: Psychotherapy as a Spiritual Practice". This morning, I came across the section below, where Corbett is talking about the psychological aspects of spiritual growth. When he mentions the Self, he is referring to what Jungians refer to as the center of the total personality, which includes consciousness, the unconscious, and the ego. The Self is both the whole and the center. It is through the Self, I believe, that we interpenetrate with, and find, God. Some Jungians believe that Self=God (or the God archetype), or in other words, Self is all there is. Others, like me, believe that Self is where we make contact with that which is totally Other, or God. So, when he speaks below of the call of Self, I would offer that this call is the call of God through the organizing totally of our psyche, which is the Self.

This passage below really resonates with me, as I have been trying to find words for the journey I've been experiencing over that past 5 years or so. I would say that I'm still in the period of purgation that he describes below. Here is the passage, from pages 118-119:

Spiritual development may begin as a person gradually develops a spiritual longing; we realize there is something more within us, something more that we need besides our usual lives, a deeper source of meaning even when life seems to be proceeding well on the surface...We cannot produce this longing; it comes upon us autonomously. Sometimes such an awakening seems to happen for no apparent reason, or it may be triggered by a numinous experience that makes us aware of spiritual reality...These experiences may be seen as a call from the transpersonal Self...[to answer the call] We have to give up our existing image of ourselves and face some hard truths. A sacrifice of time, money, and energy may be necessary. It may be difficult to accept that the hegemony of the ego is over. It may be difficult to let go if one suffers from fragmentation anxiety or if status and success have been used to buttress a fragile sense of self. It is difficult to be responsive to the promptings of the Self if one is preoccupied with survival.

If one accepts the call, one has to develop a relationship with it. There follows what was traditionally referred to (in mystic writers) as "purgation", meaning the necessity to face the shadow or problematic personality traits such as self-importance, possessiveness, greed, fear, and envy...Painful feelings are not obstacles to spiritual development but signposts that indicate...the doorways into the soul's deeper places. After the awakening, the period of purgation is often experienced as a period of darkness; at times one does not have the strength to go on. This stage may last for years, during which the person may be in therapy. At these periods, one reevaluates one's values and beliefs and may either recommit to a religious tradition or leave it entirely.

I would also offer, one can recommit to a religious tradition, but with a different lens and perspective on the richness and symbolic nature of their religious tradition, which is where my leanings are right now.

Encouragement on the Journey

2011-12-27T08:35:00.002-05:00

It is always encouraging to find fellow travelers on the journey of life. Anyone who knows me knows that I do not like comparing people's experiences. It can tend to universalize an experience, and exclude those who do not share them. There is nothing wrong with learning from others though, as long as we maintain the intersubjectivity between us and respect the experiences of the other. Jean Raffa has an excellent blog post that resonates with me. My experience is similar to her's that she describes in the first few paragraphs. Take a read:

Gated Religions - Jean Raffa

I especially love this, as I could have written it myself if I could find the words:

For many years, literal belief in the doctrines of my religion (Christianity) was enough to satisfy my spiritual hunger. But the strain of containing my beliefs in a tightly enclosed, left-brained compartment labeled “Religion” while repeatedly coming up against a Mystery that encompasses the entire universe eventually wore me down. At the age of 37 my ego waved a white flag and surrendered its need to feel safe and in control. In leaving the gated community of my religion, I entered a Dark Night of the Soul that lasted nine years.

I returned from the desert with a new way of seeing and living.

For me, I am still learning what that new way of seeing and living could look like. I know what I'm letting go of (inherited God images, etc), but I only have a glimpse of a new way at this point. Depth psychology and the mystic tradition are helping to paint the picture of the future, but I'm still, daily, filling in that picture on the path of individuation.

Answer to Job - 1

2011-12-18T15:00:00.000-05:00

Jung prefaces the book with a section called LectoriBenevolo. He starts this section withthis, which lays the groundwork for the rest of the book:

…For, in whatfollows, I shall speak of the venerable objects of religious belief. Whoever talks of such matters inevitably runsthe risk of being torn to pieces by the two parties who are in moral conflictabout those very things. This conflictis due to the strange supposition that a thing is true only if it presentsitself as a physical fact…”Physical”is not the only criterion: there are also psychictruths which can neither be explained nor proved nor contested in anyphysical way. (LB, 553)

It is interesting to me that westill see this battle between two camps: literalists who claim that we can’thave faith UNLESS it is backed up by physical facts; and atheists who claimthat we can’t have faith BECAUSE it cannot be backed up by physical facts. I would not presume to think these are thetwo camps Jung had in mind, but it is something I see today. Jungcontinues to describe the psychic nature as autonomous of the physical, and thusof religious experience and language arising out of transpersonal, unconscious processes. These resultant religious statements…

are filteredthrough the medium of human consciousness…That is why whenever we speak ofreligious contents we move in a world of images that point to somethingineffable. We do not know how clear orunclear these images, metaphors, and concepts are in respect of theirtranscendental object. If, for instance,we say “God”, we give expression to an image or verbal concept which hasundergone many changes in the course of time. We are, however, unable to say with any degree of certainty…whether thesechanges affect only the images and concepts, or the Unspeakable itself…There isno doubt that there is something behind these images that transcendsconsciousness…(LB, 555).

Jung is drawing the distinction between theconscious expressions of unconscious God images, and the ineffable God thatthese images point to. He concludes thissection by clarifying that he is addressing these images, these metaphors thatwe see in Job, and doing so not as an objective intellectual, but as anemotionally involved subject. Heconcludes with an important statement for my theologically minded friends: “Ido not write as a biblical scholar, but as a layman and physician who has beenprivileged to see deeply into psychic life of many people”.

Answer to Job – Intro

2011-12-18T13:35:00.001-05:00

So as my first foray back into blogging after some time, Idecided to go easy on myself and blog through C.G. Jung’s Answer to Job. Actually, this will be quite a challenge(both in the material and in the blogging), and I am going to really work atbeing consistent in my writing of new posts.

A little about Answer to Job from the back cover:

Consideredone of Jung's most controversial works, Answer to Job also stands as Jung'smost extensive commentary on a biblical text. Here, he confronts the story ofthe man who challenged God, the man who experienced hell on earth and still didnot reject his faith. Job's journey parallels Jung's own experience--asreported in The Red Book: Liber Novus--of descending into the depths of his ownunconscious, confronting and reconciling the rejected aspects of his soul.

Some preparatory comments on style and language are inorder. The book is broken up by section(I, II, III, etc) and by paragraph number (557,567, etc.). When I quote the book, I will use thefollowing designation: (VII,643). Also,Jung, as a product of his culture, uses exclusively masculine pronouns. When quoting, I will use Jung’s words, withthe caveat that I personally avoid the use of such pronouns in my own writing. He also refers to God with masculinereferences. Same caveat applies for me in this case aswell.

Worth the Read

2011-05-06T08:36:00.001-04:00

Grab some friends, open some wine, and read and discuss this. I think you might find it interesting.

http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

It will take some time to read through, but it's worth it.

Great Perspective

2010-12-07T09:23:00.000-05:00

I enjoy reading the HBO website for In Treatment, where 3 psychotherapists discuss each episode. In discussing Frances' final episode, Rachel Seidel, MD has this perspective, which really resonates with me:

...if we are to live our limited-run lives well, we have little choice but to accept uncertainty and loss, and in the face of that, to find and create ethical and meaningful love where and when we can, so that we can live our lives as fully and as humanly as possible.

Vulnerability, In Treatment, etc

2010-11-15T10:08:00.000-05:00

So, as many of you know, I have an strong interest in psychology, particularly depth psychology and Jungian and post-Jungian approaches. One of my favorite shows right now is In Treatment on HBO. I've been following the blog of a Jungian analyst, who provides outstanding play by play from each episode, as well as her thoughts on it from a psychotherapy perspective. Her blog is here: http://www.jung-at-heart.com/jung_at_heart/in-treatment-season-3/

Her commentary on this week's Jesse session was interesting. She is talking about how Jesse is dealing with being adopted, and making himself "bad" to avoid the pain of the choices that were made that were out of his control (by his real parents for example), and she makes this statement: "Many of us unconsciously prefer to be bad rather than weak."

I would offer that the "bad" could be replaced with a lot of things. Many of us unconsciously prefer to be…fill in the blank…rather than weak. We prefer to be driven and active, we prefer to be the leader, we prefer to be apathetic, we prefer to be a follower, etc etc. Not that being weak means you can't be a leader or be active. I'm talking about when that gets in the way of our vulnerability. Why is being weak so disdained in our culture? I define weakness as vulnerability, as not having to live life according to an agenda…either yours or someone else's. Planning is good, being driven by agenda…not so good. It is making yourself so vulnerable in a relationship (marriage, friendship, whatever) that you give a voice to the "other". It's an egalitarian view of relationship, where there is mutuality to the voices that speak within a relationship. The voice of the other is vital as we seek what Jung called individuation: to make the unconscious conscious and integrated in to a holistic life.

Why is weakness so disdained??? Or do you disagree that it is disdained??

Lim-beck-annity

2010-09-15T14:34:00.000-04:00

Thanks Rachel for saying what I've been thinking!

http://rachelheldevans.com/beckianity

Great Post on Stage 4 Faith

2010-03-11T10:09:00.000-05:00

http://notreligious.typepad.com/notreligious/stage-4-faith.html

One of the best things I've read in awhile. Really speaks to me as a stage 4 person.

Glimpses...part 1

2010-02-18T10:35:00.000-05:00

In the first post on this deconstruction/doubt topic, I talked about how I’m in a state of deconstruction, with only glimpses of what a reconstructed faith would look like. In this post, I would like to talk about some of those glimpses, i.e. what are characteristics that we comprise a reconstructed faith. Think of it as puzzle pieces. At this point, I’m not sure how the pieces will come together and what the reconstructed faith will look like. Here are the glimpses:

A Continually Deconstructing Faith – Whatever the reconstructed faith looks like, it will always be subject to further deconstruction. Sounds oxymoronic, but it’s true. Even after my faith is reconstructed, that doesn’t mean I’ve arrived and finally have it nailed down. As I said previously, there are always human constructions that are built up around our core (relationship with God, others, self) that inhibit the full expression of love in those relationships. Some call it sin, missing the mark, whatever. To continually allow the Other (God, others, self-reflection) to challenge our core is the path towards wholeness.

A Post-Foundational Faith – Previous to my deconstruction, the Bible acted as the foundation of my faith; or stated more accurately, MY interpretation of the Bible acted as the foundation of my faith. I believed that “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”. I believed that the Bible had the last word on all matters, including science, sociology, psychology, etc. As I began to re-evaluate this, I discovered that I was operating under what philosophers call Foundationalism. It is a belief in an indubitable (beyond question and self-evident through reason) foundation that all other beliefs are built upon. I think this understanding of the Bible is a product of the Enlightenment and would be foreign to the original writers/hearers of the Scriptures. Coupled with postmodern interpretation theory and the role of community in interpretation, the indubitable foundation of the Bible and my individual interpretations is no longer valid for me. Much more could be said about the tie between Enlightenment rationality, individualism, and it’s affect on interpretation, but that will suffice for now. My foundation is God’s love (but…even that needs to continually be deconstructed….what is Love? What does it look like? How would the oppressed hear the message of God’s love?)

A More Holistic Faith – This sort of ties to what I said above about the Bible. After studying the cultural, historical, and generic understandings of the Scriptures, I now see that the Bible is a very mysterious, sometimes paradoxical, sometimes violent, beautiful collection of stories, laws, poetry, myth, etc that details the God/human interaction throughout history and during specific cultural and historical settings. It’s not the final word on all matters of science, psychology, etc, nor was it intended as such. When I say holistic, I mean a faith that sees all truth as God’s, whether it comes from science, sociology, literary theory, etc. I’m still processing through how the Bible fits with all that. Some, like Wesley, used a quadrilateral of scripture, reason, tradition, experience…with Scripture being primary. Others, like John Franke, use terms like “norming norm” for the Scriptures in light of culture, tradition, reason, etc. Not sure where I land on this yet. If the Bible is to be primary, or the mediating source (which I’m not convinced of at this point), how is it to be so? Is it based on the story it tells, the authority of it (a whole other can of worms), something else??

A Move from Believing the Right Things to Believing in the Right Way – Stole this one from Peter Rollins, but I like it. It’s a move from rationality and mental agreement with doctrines to how what I believe affects me. Does what I believe make me more loving towards God and others? If not, then no matter what the “doctrine” is, I am not believing it in the right way. It is believing with a humble open hand instead of a dogmatic closed fist. It’s moving from either/or dualistic thinking to both/and thinking.

Four is good for now. More to come. Thoughts anyone???

Quote about questioning...

2010-02-10T08:44:00.001-05:00

I thought this quote was appropriate to these latest posts. I just received Brian McLaren's new book in the mail yesterday. While I probably won't be able to dive in to the book until some of my class reading is done, I did come across this quote at the beginning of the book. It's Brian quoting someone else:

Never accept and be content with unanalyzed assumptions, assumptions about the work, about the people, about the church or Christianity. Never be afraid to ask questions about the work we have inherited or the work we are doing. There is no question that should not be asked or that is outlawed. The day we are completely satisfied with what we have been doing; the day we have found the perfect, unchangeable system of work, the perfect answer, never in need of being corrected again, on that day we will know that we are wrong, that we have made the greatest mistake of all. - Vincent J. Donovan

Doubt part 2

2010-02-08T13:52:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to my previous post about doubt/deconstruction, I thought I would address a question I got from a trusted friend. How far is too far when it comes to deconstruction? or stated another way, is it possible to go too far?

For me, the answer is no, it's not possible to deconstruct too far. Let me qualify that though. If one's intention is to: know and love God deeper, know and love others deeper, know and love oneself (and how we were uniquely created) deeper, and know and love God's creation deeper, then no, you can not desconstruct too much.

If one believes, like I do, that our thoughts about God, others, ourselves, and creation are shaped by culture, context, history, etc, can we also agree that those thoughts are human constructions? Even if we talk about revelation, we still have to say that revelation is mediated through our humanity. No one has the God's eye view of truth. It's amazing how we can think we finally have God nailed down. The church throughout history has thought that, and I would offer that they were/are wrong. Right about things? Yes, of course. Beyond and above deconstruction? No, of course not. And, this finitude (the condition of our humanity) is not something that is a problem, but it leads to a plurality of truth (Thanks John Franke for exploring this topic!).

So if our ideas and thoughts are human constructions, my contention is that they are always open to deconstruction. And, in fact, deconstruction should be the normal way of life for someone on the path to an integrated spiritual wholeness. Deconstruction is allowing the voice of the Other (God, another person, another culture, another lens to view things, etc) to be heard and embraced.

Next post - I talked about glimpes of a reconstructed faith in the first post about doubt. So, in the absense of clarity, what are some of the characteristics that will be part of a reconstructed faith?

Doubt and the journey

2010-01-29T09:46:00.000-05:00

Scot McKnight had a great post where he responded to someone who was experiencing doubts. The post is here.

This post really speaks to me. I would say I'm going through such a stage of deconstruction and doubt. It was initiated by a lot of things, but mainly personal experiences, self study, and dialog with trusted friends/mentors. In the book Made to Stick, the authors talk about the "curse of knowledge". What they mean is that once we truly learn something, we can not really unlearn it, nor can we remember how we thought on that topic before we learned the new thing. An example for me is the Bible.

Having studied topics around textual, historical, and social criticism surrounding the Bible, as well as interpretive theories, it is difficult for me to read the Bible “pre-critically” anymore. Will that change? Maybe, but for now, this is where I’m at. I am no longer satisfied with surface readings of a text (and this is all texts, not just the Bible). I also see life more holistically and inter-disciplinary. Meaning, I see value in some of the theories of Jungian psychology for human development and spiritual formation. I see value in what sociology teaches us about cultural formation. I see value in postmodern philosophical understandings of epistemology and truth, and what that can teach us about how we know and learn spiritual things. I see value in the mystics approach to non-dual thinking. I guess what I’m saying is that I no longer see the Bible as the final arbiter of truth on all matters pertaining to life.

This has caused friction amongst those who, unlike me, do not wish to question things to a deeper degree. I’m not at all saying one way is better than another, but I am saying that there is a difference in approaches that can cause friction. What I've learned from relational psychology and spiritual formation studies is that I can no longer deny how i'm "wired", and to say that deep thinking is wrong (and I should just be like everyone else) would be to deny who I am. The friction can be beneficial, but at this stage of things, it causes more internal conflict in me than it does positive growth. I can attribute that to what McKnight talks about in the post referenced above, i.e. deconstruction/reconstruction.

I would say I’m still immersed in the deconstruction phase; questioning assumptions, re-evaluating my spiritual life, etc. I might say that I have a small glimpse of what the reconstructed faith could look like, but as of yet, nothing tangible. The lack of clarity and tangibility appears to some to be selfishness, uncertainty, indecisiveness, etc. Understood, but nothing I can do to change that at this point. It’s a tension of uncertainty and freedom that I have never felt before, but I could never go back to the place I’ve deconstructed.

Great Post!

2009-12-04T15:52:00.000-05:00

So, I've been encouraged by a few folks to start blogging again. Mostly because they are probably tired of hearing me talk about all my unformulated crazy thoughts :-) Anyway...I'm giving some thoughts to getting back to writing. In the mean time, this post was priceless, and I agree 100%.

Just had to post this link...

2009-11-20T14:36:00.000-05:00

http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/religious-right-insanity-evangel.html

Good job pointing out this lunancy Brian. I totally agree with Frank Schaeffer.

Blogging, Trends, Blah Blah

2009-03-24T13:45:00.000-04:00

http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2009/03/23/why-i-dont-blog-anymore/

This guy's posting was very timely for me to read. As you can obviously tell, I haven't blogged anything in forever, and those of you who know me on Facebook know that I haven't been there in awhile either. While I don't agree with everything the blogger said, the heart of what he is saying has given a small voice to some of the stuff that has been swirling in me lately about blogging, Facebook, and trends in general. I was actually going to blog about it, but then thought...why? what is the point? I will say this: He makes a great point about voices, and about how this media is starting to propogate the same power structures that exist in culture...stamping out the voice of the margins. I ask...what happen to discernment? What happened to thinking through an issue instead of believing in the latest trend because it's cool? Do people really care about what I (or others) are doing 24X7? And if they do...why?? Anyway, before this turns into a posting about trends, I'll stop. Not sure whether I'll blog anymore. Maybe...maybe not.

Back in school...again

2008-09-19T11:02:00.000-04:00

So, since the Lehigh thing fell through, I'm taking a class at Biblical. The class is Theology, Ethnicity, and Gender. It's taught by John Franke. I'm absolutely loving the class so far. It is challenging some things in me, in a good way. More on that later. As far as the Culture, Starbucks, etc. postings....haven't had a chance to work on them, but maybe in the next few months I will.

Starbucks, Culture, Paradigms - 2

2008-07-22T12:32:00.000-04:00

Let me begin by talking about the “old” paradigm that I see Horace operating under. To be fair, I myself operated under this paradigm for the first 12 years of being a Christian; I also am not saying this is a wrong paradigm. It arose in a particular context (Post-Enlightenment Modernity), and spoke well to that context. There are many characteristics that I could talk about for this paradigm, but I want to focus on just two: viewing faith solely as a belief system to be agreed with and defended against (this post), and an understanding that the Gospel is only about dealing with my individual sin so that I can go to heaven when I die (next post).

The tendency in this way of thinking is to view the Christian faith solely (key word there) as a system of beliefs/doctrines, the mental agreement of which constitutes one’s entrance into the body of Christ. Evangelism, or sharing one’s faith, usually entails employing a logical argument for why one needs to “accept Christ”. The “Roman’s Road” for example attempts to reduce the Gospel into a systematic and logical argument using 4 steps. After hearing the argument, the sinner’s prayer (a one-time event) shows one’s agreement with said argument, and secures one’s entrance into heaven.

Now, I realize I’m speaking in generalities here. However, I believe it to be the majority mode of evangelism and understanding of the faith in this paradigm, one that I shared, and one that I still see in operation in a lot of blogs, books, churches, dialogs, etc. One is now part of this new belief system. Those on the “outside” do not hold these beliefs yet, so the goal becomes convincing others, through the method of logic and rational argument, why they need to also subscribe to this set of beliefs. More could be said about this, especially how this is tied so much to Enlightenment rationalism, and its inherent belief that “knowing” involves mastery of facts by an objective knower…but that will suffice for now. So, if Christianity is a system of beliefs, and believing the right things is essential to defining who is and who isn’t a Christian, it makes sense to me why Horace reacted the way he did. When the perception is that the system of beliefs is challenged by Starbucks, Sponge Bob, or whoever, it is viewed as those on the “outside” degrading a belief system. The belief system, according to this view, is what constitutes faith, so any challenge to that must be viewed as an assault on Christian faith. If nothing is done to fight against this, so the thinking goes, Christianity is in jeopardy of compromise, of allowing the “competing” system of beliefs to go unchallenged. So the battle is between competing belief systems.

Until next time....stay cool, drive less, and enjoy the fruit of the vine.

Starbucks, Culture, Paradigms - 1

2008-07-02T15:52:00.000-04:00

I’m not sure if anyone saw a recent article about Starbucks new “retro” logo; it’s black and white and features a mermaid. I would link to the article, but I’m sure the link would break in a few months anyway, as usually happens with news sites. Anyway, the article was about how a Christian group was outraged at Starbucks for this. The exact quote from one such member of the San Diego based Christian group was: [the retro-logo] “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute. Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks." I do find it interesting that the group immediately arrived at this interpretation of the image; the reasons for which are for another post and another time.

I sent the link to the article to some friends of mine, with my accompanying words to the effect of “when are Christians going to get past this stuff and start being concerned about other things.” One particular response from a friend was very interesting to me. If you’re reading this, know that I still love you as a fellow believer, but I adamantly disagree with you! The response of my friend (I’ll call him Horace to protect his identity) was something to the effect of “I hope we never get past this. Why must we always push the limits of decency? Is there no absolute standard anymore, is everything relative? We are becoming saltless (sic) salt”. I responded with thoughts around his definition of salt and light, the so-called “culture war” that I don’t believe we were ever called to initiate nor participate in, Jesus’ approach to the culture, and why he felt the need to hold Starbucks to his (and others who share his view) moral standards? There is more I could have said, especially in regards to the social and cultural construction of certain standards (i.e. what is decent in one culture is not necessary decent in another, and why should the Religious Right dictate that definition of decency and expect others to live by it??) but then I realized something…which is really why I wanted to write these posts.

I realized that engaging in dialog with Horace about this will be unfruitful, and will end up with us talking past one another. I want to talk about why I think this happens in such cases. I believe it comes down to a difference in presuppositions and paradigms (or ways of thinking and processing the world around us), and how it is difficult to have meaningful dialogs when we (Horace and I) are coming from two different paradigms. When we think about our two paradigms, it makes sense why there is a struggle for common understanding.

What are those two different paradigms??? Stay tuned.

Until then....stay clear of unexploded fireworks!

Culture, Starbucks, etc.

2008-05-30T15:26:00.000-04:00

I'm currently working on a series of posts addressing a Christian groups protest of Starbucks new retro logo, the one with a mermaid. These posts came out of a discussion that I had with a friend of mine. He sees the protest as justified, I see it as another example of missing the point. The posts will address the two different paradigms at work in this discussion. There is a lot to say about that topic, so that's why the posts are taking some time for me to formulate. In the interim, here's a link to an excellent article by Miroslav Volf, talking about the relationship between church and culture in 1Peter. I think you'll find it an interesting read, and related to the topic of Starbucks, culture, etc.

This paragraph is excellent (emphasis is mine):

We get no sense from 1 Peter, however, that the church should strive to regulate all domains of social life and reshape society in the image of the heavenly Jerusalem. One could argue, of course, that it would be anachronistic to expect such a thought even to occur in the Petrine community. Were they not discriminated against, a minority living in premodern times? Does that invalidate or compromise their stance, however? Why would it? Whatever the reason, the Petrine community was no aggressive sect in the sense of Ernst Troeltsch. It did not wish to impose itself or the kingdom of God on the world, but to live in faithfulness to God and to the values of God's kingdom, inviting others to do the same. It had no desire to do for others what they did not want done for them. They had no covert totalitarian agenda. Rather, the community was to live an alternative way of life in the present social setting, transforming it, as it could, from within. In any case, the community did not seek to exert social or political pressure, but to give public witness to a new way of life.

Coursework Stuff - 3

2008-04-04T08:38:00.000-04:00

These are questions based on the book Speaking of God by Jerry Camery-Hoggatt. You don't have to be familiar with the book though to follow the questions and my responses.

Question: Camery-Hoggatt challenges the idea that the primary function of language is to convey information. What does he mean by this? Do you think he is correct? If you agree, do you think that the language of the Bible is any different in this regard? If you think this is also true of the Bible, what might be some of the other purposes of biblical language beyond simply conveying information?

I am not sure that Camery-Hoggatt is challenging that idea, at least not explicitly. Rather, what he is trying to do is show us the many uses of the tool that is human language. One use of that tool is to communicate information, as he states on page 51, but he says that language also persuades, alienates, tells a story, etc. I agree with him in that respect. As a tool, language must match the intended need. For example, if someone asks me for directions to a restaurant, I am going to use the tool of language to provide them information as to where they need to go. On the other hand, if I wish to express joy, or persuade someone, my use of language will serve a different function.

The language of the Bible is no different. Language, whether spoken, written, or read is one of the primary means that we as humans employ in our attempt to express the inexpressible (God). Therefore, the writers of the Bible were constrained to use the same tool of communication that everyone throughout time and history has used. The various types of Biblical language, such as poetry, narrative, historical account, apocalyptic, etc. are all used in an attempt to express the interaction of God and His people throughout history. Our Enlightenment conditioned minds have tended to view the language of the Bible as solely informational. The resulting effect has been an approach towards the Biblical text that resembles the scientist or the researcher, gleaning the scientific textbook for valuable factual information. We sometimes fail to interpret or understand the Biblical text because we do not see that the language being used may be trying to serve a different purpose than our presuppositions tell us it does. The Psalms are a great example of poetic texts. If we approach the Psalms in an attempt to gather information, we have failed to appreciate the richness of the text. If however we approach them as poetry, which relies heavily on the imagination, we begin to get a glimpse of the human struggle with understanding God and His mission. The questions we may have brought to the text may very well remain; we are no longer approaching it in the attempt to master what we thought was information, but instead seek to be transformed by the richness and mystery of it.

Question: Camery-Hoggatt argues that human language is inherently ambiguous? What does he mean by this? Do you agree or disagree? Why? Does this leave open the door to interpretive relativism (or subjectivism)? What implications could this have for the way we interpret Scripture or for the results of our interpretation? Does this indicate any change in the way you view the Bible?

Camery-Hoggatt suggests that human language is inherently ambiguous because sometimes words can carry multiple meanings. I agree with him. I believe that most, if not all, language is culturally and contextually understood, i.e. gets meaning based on agreements of communities, whether local or global, as well as context and other factors. For example, if I told you that I thought your car was “hot”, do I mean: sporty and neat, possessing a high internal temperature, or stolen? All are valid meanings of the word “hot” as determined by our cultural understanding. In this case, we need context to help us. Another example is something like the word “red”. There is nothing inherent in the word “red” that tell us what it looks like; rather we understand and associate a particular color with the word “red”, because that is what the agreement already is, and that is how we were taught.

Camery-Hoggatt provides tools that guard against relativism in reference to language. Bottom-up and top-down constraints (one of which I already mentioned, context) act as the “guard rails” upon which we can disambiguate language, and in our case the Biblical text. Not every meaning that we assign to a word, nor every interpretation of a passage, is valid. This is especially the case in reading the Biblical text. We are reading a text that was translated from original languages, employed in cultural and historical contexts far removed from our own. We can not assign words meanings based on our understanding and use of those words, when in fact the historical context may not allow it. To do so is to read with our biases and presuppositions. We all approach the text with them, but seeing them and owning up to them will allow us to better appreciate the task of interpretation.

This has affected my view of the Bible in a positive way. I used to approach the Scriptures with the idea that my interpretation, which I believed was free from bias, was the only correct one. It also helped me to see the depth of the text that I glossed over before. An example from Rob Bell is helpful here: I had always read how, at Jesus’ words of “come follow me”, the disciples dropped everything and went. My interpretation, based on what I was taught, was that the disciples knew this was the Messiah, so that is why they came so eagerly. However, as Rob Bell points out, a historical and cultural understanding of Judaism at the time of Christ gives us a better understanding of what may have been going on there. Rabbis at that time would ask their best students to “Come, follow me”, which was among the highest honor reserved for only the most gifted students. By calling fisherman, tax collectors, etc to follow Him, Jesus was saying in effect “you can do it, you can be my disciple, come follow me, learn of me”. I do not know how true this is, but it makes better sense of the passage, and it accounts for the historical context.

Coursework Stuff - 2

2008-04-04T08:32:00.000-04:00

What role does culture play in doing theology?

In order to discuss the role of culture in the work of theology, I need to define how I understand culture. Based on all the definitions I found, my working definition of culture is: the behavior patterns, symbols, beliefs, and rituals that define, describe, and shape the way of life of a given society. That society can be a community, a church, a state, a country, etc.

Given that definition, I believe that culture is the context in which the work of theology and the proclamation of the Gospel take place in. If we believe, as I do, that the Gospel never comes to us in a “pure”, i.e. a-historical and a-cultural form, then it follows that the expression of that Gospel is embodied within a particular time and place. The Gospel needs to speak, and we need to do theology, at the place where culture and the Kingdom of God as modeled in Scripture, meet. It is important for our Christian witness and ministry in the lives of others to understand the cultural ideas, values, and symbols that shape a given society, and the people within it, so that the Gospel can confront and transform them (the people and the culture) where necessary. In my first class in Seminary, the prof gave us a definition of ministry that should shape the way we think of the task of ministry (and I would say even theology): Being used by God to help people move from where they are to where God wants them to be. We talked about “where people are” as being the cultural situation that we find ourselves in. Building a bridge to where people are involves understanding the values, symbols, practices, etc that shape their lives. We can see this at work in the life of Paul in Acts 17. At the beginning of the chapter, we see Paul at the Jewish synagogue reasoning from the Scriptures. At the end of the chapter, we see Paul at Mar’s Hill, in dialog with those influenced by Greek philosophy, using the cultural symbols of the day (Greek poets, an inscription in the Pagan temple) as a bridge to point people to God. Why the different approach? I believe it was dictated based on the cultural situation that shaped his audience: Jews steeped in the Old Testament in one case, Greeks steeped in Greek philosophy in the other.

There are two extremes that can happen in reference to culture and the Gospel. On the one side is the extreme of separation from culture. During my formative years as a Christian (from 18 years old until about 3 years ago), I viewed culture as evil, and something that needed to be fought against, resisted, and separated from. I lived in what is now the often overused, but still somewhat valid, term called a Christian “subculture”. I listened only to Christian music, only hung around with people who were Christians, watched Christian TV, etc. Looking back, I realize that while I was “separating” myself from culture, I also had no real context for the proclamation of the Gospel. I also was influenced by my culture more than I realized (a point I will get to later). The other extreme is accommodation to culture, or allowing culture to shape the Gospel. Our role as God’s representatives on earth is to transform culture by living within the culture in a counter-cultural (i.e. Kingdom of God) way (lotsa “cultures” in that sentence!). In other words, we are to live as a people of God shaped by the Gospel of Christ within the culture that we are situated.

I believe culture does shape our understanding of the Gospel. We saw this in Gonzalez’s book (Christian Thought Revisited). As I said above, my view of the Gospel was shaped by modernity, even though I thought I was “separate” from cultural influence. Modernity influenced me in that I had a very self-centered, individualistic, and consumer driven faith. So, the big question that I struggle with is: If God speaks through culture to some extent (as I believe He does), how do we discern whether our theological formulations (which in themselves are human constructions based on cultural influence and other factors) are bad or good? For example, Gonzalez talks about Anselm’s Germanic law influence in his formulation of the “satisfaction” theory of atonement. Is it not possible that God used a cultural influence (law understanding) to provide one picture of the work of Christ in the atonement? I think walking the tension between living counter-culturally within culture and being shaped by culture (I don't see separation from culture as a valid option anymore) is the challenge that we as missional Christians must walk in.

Coursework Stuff - 1

2008-04-04T08:25:00.000-04:00

This is a response I wrote for the question (in italics) below:

Respond to this idea from Karl Barth: "As Christians we ought to speak of God. We are human, however, and so cannot speak of God. We ought therefore to recognize both our obligation and our inability and by that very recognition give God the glory."

I believe what Barth is trying to address is the (in)ability of a fallen, finite human being to adequately and fully speak about the infinite God. As Christians, we have been given the privilege of partnering with God in His mission to redeem His creation. That entails modeling the life of Jesus, in deed, as well as in words. Thus, we are obligated as followers of Jesus Christ and part of the historic orthodox community of Christians to speak about God.

We are also human (finite), have a fallen nature, and make use of the very limited tool of language to use when we speak of God. Language itself is neither a-historical nor a-cultural, but rather takes it shape in the context of communal agreements passed down throughout history. There is no place that we as humans can stand that would provide us with an objective view of reality, and the tool of language is no different. Even though it is inspired, the language of the Bible is not special or different, speaking outside of culture and historical situations. The truth revealed in the Scriptures does have universal depth, but it is expressed in particular local contexts. Thus, all of our words and constructions about God come shaped by the culture and historical context that we are situated in. No one person or one community can claim to have the totality of God’s revelation, as it is beyond our grasp. Dangers could arise (and have arisen) when the nature of human beings causes them to speak of God in such a way as to wield power over another. This is usually couched in the belief that our understanding and expression of God equals the totality of God.

God has revealed Himself to humanity in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. He has also given us the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth. However, even in the revelation of God in Christ and the Scriptures, there still remains a sense of the hidden and the mysterious. Peter Rollins speaks of “revelation as concealment”, that even in revelation, the abundance of God’s presence is impossible to grasp. He uses the example of a piece of art. The piece of art is the revelation of the creator of the art, but the total and complete depth of meaning in that art can not be fully grasped by observers, and what we do see is shaped by the presuppositions we bring to it. How much more is this true when we are speaking and reflecting on the revelation of the infinite God? We do have a sense of the intention of the creator of the revelation, in this case God through the Holy Spirit. However, the giving of the Holy Spirit does not transform our humanity into the divine, thus we still maintain our human condition in regards to the limitation of language, as well as our finitude and finite nature.

This leads us back to Barth’s quote. Understanding our obligation to speak of God based on our calling as missional followers of Jesus Christ, coupled with our inability to fully and adequately speak of Him due to the limitations of language and human nature, should create a sense of awe, wonder, and humility in us. God, in the midst of our situated condition, has chosen to reveal Himself to us within that situated context. We speak of God based on our context, and that is the best we can do. We can give Him glory and thanks for His revelation, and we can develop a humility that understands that our point of view is a view from a point, and that point is our situated context. It is easy to fall to one side or the other concerning the ability to speak of God. As previously mentioned, we can assume that our speech about God equals the totality of God, and it can cause us to exert a will to power over others. The other extreme is that because of our limitations as humans, we should not even attempt to speak of God. Walking in the tension between those two extremes is much more difficult, but I believe that is what we have been called to.

Stuff from past coursework

2008-04-04T08:24:00.000-04:00

So I figured that I'll post some stuff that I wrote from prior Seminary coursework. Maybe it will stir some discussion, maybe not. We'll see.

Update

2008-04-01T14:49:00.000-04:00

Okay, so it has been forever since I updated this blog. Real life got in the way. So what's been happening?? Well, after a few classes into my third attempt at seminary, I have finally concluded that it is just not what I should be doing right now (or ever). There are various reasons that have led my wife and I to that conclusion, which I won't spell out here. Needless to say though, my desire to read and learn and converse about theology, spirituality, postmodern thought, etc will not stop.

I sent my application in to Lehigh University a few weeks ago. I believe my next step is grad school, and if accepted to Lehigh I will pursue a Master's in Sociology. I love cultural studies, and I want to teach someday (in what setting I'm still not sure). A Master's degree in Sociology is a first step towards making a shift in career/focus for me. I'll keep you posted about that.

Back to School

2007-12-18T11:15:00.001-05:00

So, after much discussion with my wife and myself, I've decided to return to Biblical Seminary and finish up my Master's in Missional Theology degree. I'll start back in January with the following two classs:

Reading the Old Testament Missionally
Missional Church I

I may drop Missional Church I though depending on the workload. It's good to be back and focused again.

What's Happening Here?

2007-09-14T10:44:00.000-04:00

The dates on all these posts are very recent (even though they are very old posts), but that is because i'm in the process of moving my stuff from an old blog. Bear with me.

What is the Gospel?

2007-09-12T10:13:00.001-04:00

Great question, which I think we sometimes give very simplistic answers to. Check out Scot McKnight's article about it...it's awesome stuff: Article Link

Left Behind, raptured??

2007-09-12T10:08:00.000-04:00

I used to believe this doctrine (rapture of the church), but I don't anymore. Check this out, it's an article from the faculty of Austin Seminary about dispensationalism, the rapture, etc. I know it's long, but it's worth the time to read the first 14 pages or so.

Article link: Austin Seminary writings on the rapture, dispensationialism, etc.

Extreme hyperbole, or innocent phrase?

2007-09-12T10:04:00.000-04:00

“If you were the only person on earth, God would have sent Jesus for you”. For some reason, this phrase came to my mind this morning in the shower. How many times have I heard this when someone is trying to “win someone to Christ”?? (I really dislike that “win someone” phrase, but that’s a subject for another posting).

Some thoughts began to resonate within my spirit and mind as I was pondering that statement….”If you were the only person…” First, let me say this: I think I can understand the intention of the person using the phrase. They are most likely trying to communicate to the person that they are talking to how much God loves them, and how important they are to His Kingdom. With this I have no disagreement. God loves humanity, and they all have a part in His Kingdom. My only contention is this (and some may say that I’m being overly critical…maybe, maybe not): what type of message does this send to someone?? Words have power, and carry contextual meaning, to those we are communicating to. What are we communicating by that phrase?

I don’t believe that it’s a necessary hyperbole to use. The person you are talking to is not the only person on the earth (obviously), so why use such extreme hyperbole? I believe that such a phrase is a product of one aspect of our American culture: rugged individualism. The United States was founded on this type of rugged individualism: “pick yourself up by the bootstraps”, “do it on your own”, “it’s all about me”, “with hard work, YOU can do anything”, etc. While I’m not here to say whether that was bad or good, I do believe that this type of thinking has informed some of our language in reference to Christ. By using the phrase “if you were the only person on earth, God would have sent Jesus for you”, are we encouraging an individualistic, selfish journey with Christ? Are we saying, albeit maybe very subtly, “it’s all about you and God only”? I know that in my journey, it was phrases like that, from well meaning brothers and sisters in Christ that led me to a place where I thought that I could be a “Lone Ranger Christian”. Just me, my bible, and God, that’s all I needed.I don’t find that type of language in the Scriptures.

Just to take two examples, let’s look at Mark 12:28-31 and John 17:20-22.

Mark 12:28-31 - One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one” answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." (emphasis mine).

John 17:20-22 – “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (emphasis mine)

Those two passages (and there are tons of others) say to me that God’s intention is for the whole world, not just the individual. If I was the only one on earth, how would I love my neighbor, how would I show the world the unity of the body of Christ (something we all need to work on)? What are fruits for? They are for others, not for the bearer of the fruit. The fruit of the spirit that is born out of our lives is for others, not us. Don’t misunderstand me here…alone time with God in prayer, meditation, and spiritual disciplines are key to our growth and spiritual formation. However, there’s a purpose for having “Christ formed in me”, and that is to love others with Christ in me.

So, what am I saying? I think we should examine our use of language when we are having conversations about the Kingdom to others, because as I stated above, words have power and carry meaning to the hearers. If we can start people off in their journey with God with a missional, community mindset, instead of a consumer, individualistic one, I think we are taking a great step forward in advancing His Kingdom.

Marketing/Auctioning of Christ?

2007-09-12T10:03:00.000-04:00

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about evangelism and ministry in general, and what the usual approach is that I’ve witnessed. Something struck me recently as I was shopping with my wife for something (exactly what it was escapes me now, but that’s not important). Sellers and marketers have a product for everyone, and they market those products specifically to target audiences, i.e. pre-teens, teens, fans of Star Wars, etc etc. I wonder….do we do the same thing with Christ? Do we make Him into a product, and then target market Him to different audiences under the auspices of ‘ministries’???

What do I mean? Well, most churches these days have “singles’ ministry”, “young adult ministry”, “single mom’s ministry”, “older married couples ministry”. Are we segregating and creating marketing niches like the consumerist culture we live amongst? Here’s a thought: singles and married couples working together…is that such a bad thing? Does not everyone in our church and community have something to offer everyone else? Do only singles have gifts to share with other singles? Are we fostering a segregation mentality? When a church operates as WalMart, providing goods and services to consumer Christians, these types of “ministries” are vital, as they serve US. I think, we should start becoming less consumers, and more servants to our community….taking all the knowledge that we’ve “consumed” and actually, in Love, serve others. I think one of the key things that leads to this type of consumer mentality is the altar call (stepping on toes here I realize). I've seen it done in what I call the "auctioneering of Christ" method…."I see one hand, do I have another hand. I'll ask one more time, anyone want to receive Christ, I see another hand." To me, that's downright shameful. Christ gave gentle invitations to those around Him…"Come, follow me". Anyway, I'll stop there for now.I apologize if my thoughts are random here…I’ll add more to this later as it processes in my heart and mind.

Some pics from the honeymoon in Hawaii

2007-09-12T09:56:00.000-04:00

The view from our room at the Ritz in Kapalua, Maui.
Sunset at a restuarant we ate at in Wailea

The Seven Sacred Pools in Hana, Maui

Out our hotel window in Honolulu

Looking at a sunset out of the lounge balcony at the Ritz.

Sunrise over the Haleakala Crater in Maui

A waterfall on the road to Hana

My thoughts on Crumbs from Your Table

2007-09-12T09:46:00.000-04:00

From the brightest star
Comes the blackest hole
You had so much to offer
Why did you offer your soul?
I was there for you baby
When you needed my help
Would you deny for others
What you demand for yourself?

So billows Bono in Crumbs from Your Table on “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb”, U2’s latest album. The beauty of art is that it’s open to interpretation by the beholder. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that my thoughts are what Bono had in mind when he wrote this song, but I would offer they are probably pretty close. The whole album is powerful lyrically and musically, but this song really spoke to my heart as a follower of Christ.

I believe Bono is writing from the perspective of the poor, the oppressed, those held captive by sin, those blinded by consumerism/materialism, etc. (you know, those same people that Jesus talked about in Luke 4). He’s writing to us, the Church. I believe Bono is part of the Church, but his use of first person here speaks volumes to me. Some would say this is an indictment against the whole Church for it’s lack of outreach to the world, and I may agree, but that’s not where I’m going with this. I saw it as God speaking to my heart, calling me to look inside myself and see where I’m lacking. Jesus doesn’t condemn His followers; He lovingly instructs and guides us. He has lovingly instructed and guided me through this song.

The song starts out (as shown above) with an interesting paradox. I am a Light in the world, the church is a city shining on a hill, yet in my life, I sometimes feel like I am the blackest hole to those around me. I have so much to offer those in bondage, but yet I sometimes offer my soul to the bondage that is this world system. I come to look just like the world…caught up in consumerism, schedules, etc. instead of a light shining in darkness. I demand freedom from that bondage, but deny it for others by not inviting them to come to “the banquet table” that Jesus offers….the Kingdom of God among us.

You speak of signs and wonders
I need something other
I would believe if I was able
But I'm waiting on the crumbs from your table

God has really changed my heart in this area. I used to make it my mission to “prove” from the Bible that everyone needs to speak in tongues, that the age of miracles is still here, that God wants everyone materialistically wealthy, etc etc. I still believe some of those things (maybe one out of the three listed there), but is that what those in bondage really care about? I would offer no, they don’t. They want crumbs from the banquet table. Just a ‘crumb’ of Father’s love, given through our hands to someone else, is worth more than my need to win a debate about the merits of tongues and miracles. Praise God that I’m waking up, as are a lot in the church.

With a mouth full of teethYou ate all your friends

This goes along with my thoughts above. I, and others, have lowered the value of the Kingdom to those around us by allowing them to see us fighting with each other over non-essential doctrines, whether to use PowerPoint slides in sermons, whether women can wear jeans, etc. I am starting to view the Scriptures more for transformation and less for information to win arguments with. How will the world know we are His disciples? Of course by the thickness of the Bible we carry, and how much doctrine we can quote. No Rob, by our LOVE for one another.

Those are some thoughts that I’ve had in processing through this song. It may sound negative, but it was very positive for me. Positive in that God loves me, and you, so much that He never lets us settle with where we are in His journey.

Into the unknown fellow journeyers…….

Post Wedding Update

2007-09-12T09:45:00.000-04:00

So, a little about the wedding and honeymoon. Wedding day was absolutely beautiful weather-wise. Everything went great. Honeymoon: we landed in Honolulu after a 10 hour or so direct flight from Newark. It afforded me the chance to get some good reading done, and spend some quality time with my new wife. We spent a night in Honolulu, went to Pearl Harbor the next morning, and then left for Maui that afternoon. We spent the remaining time (6 nights) in Maui. Food was great, biking down a volcano was cool, weather was great, etc etc.

So, one of the books I got to start and nearly finish while away (I've since finished it) was Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. Wow, what a book. I would encourage anyone who is seeking to understand just what it means to be a follower of Christ in the time we find ourselves in to read it. It will challenge you, frustrate you, and give you a great sense of hope for what lies ahead.

Salvation

2007-09-12T09:44:00.000-04:00

So I've been doing some thinking lately about the nature of salvation, i.e. one time thing, process?? I came across something from Brian McLaren where he talks about the American church idea of the altar call (something I've always had issues with). He mentioned something about birth. That's when it hit me....John 3:3 talks about the new birth. Birth is a process....a gestation period if you will. I think alot of what we (the church) have tried to do in the past was to conceive and birth a new life in someone all at once at the end of a church service. Is it possible that this is why there are so many who fall away so fast? Pre-mature birth? Or, as a friend of mine likes to say, "we're in the business of sowing seeds, not trying to plant fully mature trees". Anyway.....

Why am I doing this?

2007-09-12T09:43:00.000-04:00

To those who are wondering why I did this...I guess I'm not really sure. Those who know me know that I have already questioned the point of these things. I mean, who honestly scans the web for blogs, and then once finding them cares what someone had for dinner, or any other thing they read on someone's blog. I guess for me it's more of a catharsis, but not in the purgation of the digestive system (thanks Websters) sense, but more of a dumping of thoughts so that I can see where they are headed. Feel free to read or comment, but I honestly don't expect anyone to actually read this stuff.