The Hermeneutics of Charity:
16 Feb 2005
The Hermeneutics of Charity: Interpretation, Selfhood, and Postmodern Faith
James K. A. Smith (Editor), Henry Isaac Venema (Editor), James H. Olthuis (Other Contributor)
An amazing book I am reading this week. Review from amazon:
—–
While many Christians assume that “postmodernism” (a rather dubious term) and “faith” are completely at odds, in this volume, a fetschrift in honour of Dr. James H. Olthuis, students and colleagues of Dr. Olthuis engage in a fruitful debate with postmodern thinkers such as Derrida, Irigaray, Kristeva, Levinas, and Lyotard. The contributors conclude that the gap between postmodernism and faith is not as large as many assume. In fact, according to Olthuis et. al., there is a correlative relationship between postmodernism and faith. While the contributors do not endorse a “wholesale” adoption of postmodernism, they suggest that postmodernism does, in fact, offer many important insights about faith and indentity.
This book serves as an excellent example of a serious and sympathetic (critical) dialogue between faith and postmodernism. A definte must-read for anyone interested in a Christian response to postmodernism.
47 comments
Trackback
Comment by Caroline
12.35 pm on 17 Feb 2005
Interesting selection of postmodern writers. Nobody from the nineties of this century! Very dated, and very restricted to post-structuralism.
several of the postmodern trjectories have moved on considerably and are worth a look.
Stick names like, Ken Gergen, john Shotter, Di Hosking, interlogics, Eastside institute, public conversations project into google and see what you come up with.
It’s not always easy reading but there’s some really creative social practice going on that Christians might well feel comfortable developing. (There’s some less comfortable stuff as well, of course)
Comment by Jason Clark
12.46 pm on 17 Feb 2005
Hi Caroline. The point of this book is for theologians from the reformed tradition to show how from Kyper inwards it is possible to engage positively with post modern philosphy when it comes to hermeneutics. So it’s not dated at, but fresh, and for people still within or on the edge of reformed groups, this is a helpful book to engage constructively IMHO :-)
Jase
Comment by Caroline
2.14 pm on 17 Feb 2005
I take your point Jase, but I still wonder if the reformed theologian/practitioner will be more helped by the way that more writers have left Hermaneutic debates behind to focus instead on performance or construction of lives.
I’m foolish getting into this debate (I’ve had it on the organicchurch site), but I just wonder if hermaneutic debates are a dead end or a never ending circle (to mix metaphors). Getting involved in them takes a ‘postmodern thinker’ and forces them to engage in a modernernist environment with modernist language tools and,
surprise surprise, means that they have less to offer.
Now get you back to your son and toy! :-)
Comment by Jason Clark
2.37 pm on 17 Feb 2005
Hi Caroline, having read this book, I don’t think these writers are using modernist langauge and tools. The are certainly post-foundationalist, and have an epistomology that is far from modern. Read the book and you’ll see what I mean. It would be too far for your average reformed theologian.
Similarly people do not want to buy in wholesale to post-modern philosphy, but want to indedity their place of beginning and understand modernity and pomo, and engage as they find helpful.
We all have a hermeneutic, and need to identify them, and uncover them. Our epistomologies, ontologies,and cosmologies, all come together to give us a hermeneutic. For me hermeneutics is where biblical theology meets systematic theology.
BTW alot of this book is using Gadamer, and and Cupto…so the authors are working hard to use postmodern thinkers :-)
Jase
Comment by DH
3.26 pm on 17 Feb 2005
Jason thank you for your last response it was so balanced. While the book might be too far like you say(I don’t know because I haven’t read it) I still value the postmodern or whatever you call because it balances me out and keep me from the extremes. I value you Jason and appreciate your site. Caroline, I could say the reverse “Getting involved takes a modern thinker and forces them to engage in a postmodern environment and tools and surprise surpise means they have less to offer.” Jason is saying that this book helps to have both camps have MORE “to offer”. We all need to work to have MORE to offer. We are the Body of Christ and “the hand can’t say to the hand I have no need of you”. We need a balance because neither is worse or greater than the other because both camps have equally bad and good points (the extremes).
Comment by susie
11.41 pm on 20 Feb 2005
look forward to reading this one…haven’t had anyone to talk Derrida, Levinas, Irigary and Kristava, with since seminary…let alone, heidegger, gadamer and beaudrillard…(not many takers in my suburban neck of the woods, and with three teens, i am putting off a PhD for a bit…) so glad to find the blogging word!
any book discussions forming?
~shalom, susie
Comment by Whitewave
6.09 pm on 21 Feb 2005
Poor susie. I feel your pain, hon. I never got to go to seminary because my stupid problems took me too far off track, however, I’ve dabbled with philosophy as much as I could while trying to survive and raise kids too. Last week I bought the biggest, fattest book ever by Ken Wilber and am now in chapt. #1. The lady who ordered it told me that a few people in town like Ken and so I think there might be someone who might talk about him with me. But for now, it’s a lonely row to hoe.
He is already speeding past postmod and into what will probably be the next “thing”. I spoke about this on Subversive Influence the other day. Pomo isn’t a “thing”. It’s an anti-”thing”. What is the next “thing”?
So, Caroline, I wonder if you’d be interested in this…
Anyhoo, the Church is still about 75 years or so behind academia when it comes to this stuff. I understand the need to help the Church where she’s at and right now she’s still clinging for dear life to the last “thing”. For now, help her to let go. She needs to do that. But give her hope that after she lets go of that – AND ONLY AFTER – there is something better to grasp coming down the road.
Comment by dh
7.29 pm on 21 Feb 2005
Who says academia has all of the answers? Don’t we have the Bible? I see so much of academia going against Christ. Why do we need to be an “anti-thing”? Can’t we be the “positive thing”? Aren’t we called to be deliverers of “Good news”? The “Anti-thing” isn’t “Good News”. Many people are coming to Christ outside of the “anti-thing”. So are we going to say they are “messed up” when people are changing and becoming closer to the Lord? Let go, I “let go” when I accepted Christ as my Savior and “let go” of the sinful flesh. That is not to say I don’t value the “other” because I still value the postmodern or whatever you call it because it balances me out and keep me from the extremes. I tend to reject extremes and reject the reaction to extremes. To me their both wrong because the reaction tends to be an overreaction which is just as bad as the original extremes. (If that makes sense) :)
Comment by Whitewave
5.15 am on 22 Feb 2005
Hi dh.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying.
Postmodernity is not in competition with Christianity. Even if they say they are, they’re not. Lemme ’splain.
Jesus came durring a premodern world system. What that was exactly is debatable since there couldn’t be enough cohesion in the world for it to have one single system anyway – and histories don’t deal with world epistemologies. But the system in place in the Jewish world at the time was a glom of several world systems, all corrupt and all oppressive. Once Jesus did His thing, something changed. His strange pov really threatened Worldly hierarchy systems because it was not rude, condescending and oppressive, so they were very suspicious of Him and His followers.
Then came Constantine. He turned The Gospel into another World system – Authoritative Direct Revelation. Once again people were oppressed and harmed (we were just as rude and condescending as the corrupted Jewish Leaders of Jesus’ day.) NOT BECAUSE OF THE GOSPEL but because of the worldly system that grew around it.
The oppressed people fought back (as academia) and challenged Christianity at the point of entry. Epistemology. How could we know that we know anything about God and His plan? They devised a new system of knowing – Reason and Scientific Inquiry – and told us that ours – Direct Revelation – was invalid.
We fought back by ADOPTING THEIR SYSTEM OF KNOWING and then using it to prove that Christianity was true. We thought we had them. But in reality they had us. Again, we used this system to oppress and harm people!
So they (academia) fought back again! They did it the same way, though this time they went in the opposite direction. Once again they invalidated all our systems of knowing – Reason and Direct Revelation – and told us that there is now NO reliable system of knowing. At all.
YOU ARE HERE —> there is no valid system of knowing
Comment by Whitewave
5.28 am on 22 Feb 2005
One last thing.
The reason that academia is ahead of us is because it takes The Church so long to remember how she adopted the present epistemology to begin with. We always think that this is the way Jesus did it. It takes 50-100 years to figure out that we have been had and that the current challenge must be answered.
Ironically, the reason that postmodernity dragged on so long is because it has also taken academia this long to figure out that they’ve backed themselves into a corner. Indeed some of them are still unwilling to admit it. I’m convinced that they are unwilling because of how hurt and angry they are at all the harm that’s been done to them by oppressive systems of knowing and they are unwilling to submit to another form for knowledge. They are afraid. Afraid of us.
What will we do? What will we do when we take up the next form of knowing? Will we again figure out a way to use it to be rude jackasses? Hiding our vulnerability? Covering our sad, naked lack of transformation?
Comment by DH
2.34 pm on 22 Feb 2005
I agree with you that we can’t be rude. I agree that the heart is the most important thing. I know many in the “modern” camp are at the extreme and gives the rest of us a bad name. I think the Gospel can encompass modern, postmodern or whatever else comes along in the future. To me Christ transends culture. I was just saying that many people are coming to Christ in the “modern” and are being transformed. Why does modern have to always be looked at in the negative light. Modern people are not part of pre Christ system. Many people were transformed in the modern sense. I was transformed in the modern sense when I accepted Christ. I’ll end with the message of Christ,”I wish that none perish but that all come to repentence”. I think we can work together within postmodern and within modern and working together in between. I value postmodern Christianity.
Comment by dh
2.44 pm on 22 Feb 2005
To me it doesn’t matter what “camp” you are in as long as people are being transformed whether Modern or postmodern. To me they both are worldly systems or cultures and God is transforming us in both camps. I just don’t want to judge people from either camp when people are coming to Christ from both camps. “Vengence is Mine I will repay says the Lord”. At the same time I TOTALLY agree with you that the message must be said in love and in a non-rude way. This clouds the message of Christ. I value postmodern Christianity. I value you Whitewave. :)
Comment by Whitewave
3.06 am on 23 Feb 2005
OMG! I think we’ve achieved agreement. Hallelujah!
Yes, the Message transcends. Modernity is not the enemy, either. The only reason it’s being targetted is because the current culture’s protest concerns Modernity’s method of delivering the message. Many are blinded by their rage and are simply unwilling to taste food served on Modern plates. It is for this reason we should be able to let go of the old dishes and use different ones. Neither is intrinsically better except that Postmod plates satisfy the valid concerns of the current culture. That’s it.
Heck, Modernity at one time satisfied the valid concerns of a culture that was requiring anyone making Grand Claims to not be stupid and dishonest and mean about things like whether the earth was round or flat! Direct Revelation was not a real strong source of knowledge about such things. We were right to adopt the new system to make claims about the physical world and realize that it didn’t knock God off the throne. Hanging onto the old way proclaimed The Church’s simple lack of willingness to respect the questions of curious or perhaps unhappy people.
But that system is a weak source of knowledge concerning things of the heart and the Spirit. We need to let it go when we are challenged on that field. Better to let it go than be shown up as unwilling to respect the questions of others yet again. Confessing our sins of hate and shallow pretense about such things as racism, classism, sexism, rhetorical manipulation and aggression will not knock God off the throne either. If we’ve used the gun to kill, then it is reasonable to comply when asked to put down the gun and back away.
That’s it.
I value Lewis and Scheaffer and the other Mods, but the best of them saw their limitations and handled challenge with grace. The worst of them paraded arrogantly and used rhetoric to control and dominate. Many still do. I will stand in the way of people who do that. I will not allow that kind of thing to continue on my watch.
Beware my squirrelly wrath!
;-)
Comment by jason clark
10.08 am on 23 Feb 2005
dh and whitewave…great dialogue, thank you.
Comment by dh
3.40 pm on 23 Feb 2005
You were getting on track until your 3rd paragragh. I believe modernity among Christians is not a weak source of knowledge regarding things of the heart and Spirit. I think we can respect the questions of others but at the same time realize that there are Truths in God’s Word that are definitive. I believe the message of modern Christians is not wrong but HOW it is delivered is where the problem arises. If the message is said in a harsh or controlling tone then even if the message is correct people will reject. I do have a problem with some postmodern things in that some of the foundational truths are rejected just because it is so called modern. Also, there are many things in this culture that are not compatible with the Christian Faith. This is where we need to share the love of Christ and accept the person but reject the sin (I know this is loaded phrase and I mean this in the humble way :) ). Even Jesus hated sin and told those after he healed to, “…go and sin no more.” I do understand we should judge so there is a balance between the two. This is where people react to the extremes and throw the baby out with the bath water (postmodern vs. the foundational truths, modern vs. the questions)(I know oversimplistic). I hope this makes sense Whitewave. There is a balance between both of us that is correct, I hope you can see that, because you have some great things to say. I do value you and am sorry that people on my side have hurt people. Many could have heard the message and received Truth if it would have been delivered in a better tone. Many in this culture are wanting definitive Truths and as a Christian I want to be the facilitator of that. Through the Holy Spirit this can take place. Many more people are interested in “moral issues” and many are not Christians. This is where the modern can help the post-modern. I hope you can see the Truth that modern Christians have and build off of that rather than revert to the Deconstructionism of this culture. There is a balance between us that I believe, hope and pray that you and I will see. :)
Comment by Whitewave
9.12 pm on 23 Feb 2005
*sigh*
That didn’t last long. But this is an important point:
“Many in this culture are wanting definitive Truths and as a Christian I want to be the facilitator of that. Through the Holy Spirit this can take place. Many more people are interested in “moral issues” and many are not Christians. This is where the modern can help the post-modern.”
Truth and Morals are going to be part of the next thing. There is no need to go backwards, indeed the train only goes in one direction anyway. We can’t put the Genie back in the bottle.
Comment by dh
9.40 pm on 23 Feb 2005
Can’t Modern Christianity and postmodern Christianity work together by taking the good of each and rejecting the bad of each and applying that to our lives since neither are perfect frameworks? That is the nature of the quote of mine you referenced. If not then the overreaction is just as bad as thing we are reacting to. If we can then to me this is truly moving forward. I have heard other people indirectly refer to this and I suggest this can be called post-post modern.
Comment by Whitewave
10.37 pm on 23 Feb 2005
“taking the good of each and rejecting the bad of each and applying that to our lives”
That’s some of what the next thing is about and more. There is more. Can’t there be more?
Postmod is a course correction. And for a time course corections are right on. But one doesn’t get to where one is going by merely avoiding obstacles. One must figure out where the destination is, then where the best path is, even if it is not yet mapped out, and then steer in a direction. It’s not just about balance or driving down the middle. It’s also about destination. There is more down the road than just where we’ve been and where we don’t wanna be anymore.
Comment by dh
2.32 pm on 24 Feb 2005
Sometimes course directions are overreactions and this many times causes more harm than the thing we are reacting from. Can’t we do both so we can avoid the obstacles while at the same time figuring out the destination as well? I’m not saying we should drive down the middle. Heck, the Falwell group do and with a Mack(c) truck. I feel we can figure out the destination (which to me is obvious) AND learn from the past by taking the good and rejecting the bad because I’m starting to see some bad and recognize the obvious good in BOTH camps.
Comment by DH
4.50 pm on 24 Feb 2005
Just totally disregard that sentence in the previous post. I’m not saying Falwell is middle of the road. What I said was very ambiguous. I apologize. I didn’t understand what I was writing.
Comment by Whitewave
5.42 pm on 24 Feb 2005
It’s all good. I actually didn’t understand the Falwell ref either.
We’re saying almost the exact same thing.
“for a time course corections are right on. But one doesn’t get to where one is going by merely avoiding obstacles.”
“Sometimes course directions are overreactions and this many times causes more harm than the thing we are reacting from.”
“One must figure out where the destination is, then where the best path is, even if it is not yet mapped out, and then steer in a direction.”
“Can’t we do both so we can avoid the obstacles while at the same time figuring out the destination as well?”
Do you see how it is possible for me to believe that you are not listening to me? To my concerns? We have the same goal, but I’m trying to draw attention to the idea that there is an alternative method for achieving besides what has already been presented. The Past is not the only place to find ideas for methods. It’s okay to create something new. We have all the experience and ability to judge what went wrong on our side now. We can do better. Even if it’s tricky and still largely unknown, we can figure it out. That’s the whole reason God gave us the Holy Spirit. So we can be Holy by the seat of our pants. We needn’t be limited only to the known and be forced to pick and choose merely from the best of what has already been.
“There is more. Can’t there be more?…”
Comment by dh
6.33 pm on 24 Feb 2005
I’m sorry that you feel that I’m not listening to you. I get scared when I see alternative methods. Many times the alternative methods and the something new may seem to be a answer when it is actually a detrimate. I was only addressing indirectly some of the few problems within postmodern Christianity. I agree there is more. Sometimes we proceed from our own flesh rather than the Spirit. We need to always make sure that we all are operating from the power of the Holy Spirit and rightly discern this as well within both camps. That is what the Berean’s did in Acts. I see modern Christianity operating the same way as the Berean’s in Acts. There is more and we can work together to get there in the most “safe” way possible so the hurts from modern Christianity won’t cloud the wonderful message they had.
What if we go down this path and it is found wanting or is from the flesh when originally we thought it was from the Spirit? I have seen some of this when our responses to certain issues seem to go against Scripture. This goes for both camps.
Comment by Whitewave
6.50 pm on 24 Feb 2005
lol
dh, if you’re gonna be with us on the road, then I think it highly unlikely that we’re gonna deviate from Scripture! You have to be part of the Solution, dude, or it’s not a solution!
I know mistakes have been made before. I see the fear you speak of all the time. I am loath to tell someone that their fear is a sin. This fear is a concern which Modernity honored and respected. But tall towers of doctrine have been built on the foundation of this fear. Just like it’s possible to build skyscrapers upon the anger of Post-modernity, we can stop this reactionary (or “extreme”, as you put it) process now and say, “Lets see if we can find something better to build on besides fear and anger, shall we? God gave us a different Spirit, let’s see if we can figure out how to really put it to work.”
Comment by DH
7.21 pm on 24 Feb 2005
We are both on this road whether we like it or not being Believers. :) I not fearful but mistakes have been made with “responses to certain issues going against Scripture”. When people says certain things are not sin or another Gospel or another way of Salvation and the Bible says the opposite that is when I seperate from the pack (still on the road but seperate from the pack). I know modern Christianity overstated this so far as being perceived as Pharisees and this is wrong and an overreaction on the part of modern Christianity but yet still foundationally they were correct. At the same time I want to move forward beyond the foundations as a Believer. This is where Discipleship comes in. Many postmodern Christians have addressed this. This is not something new because modern Christianity used to do this successfully. How would you like to see this happen and what would be the destination? :)
Comment by Whitewave
3.13 am on 25 Feb 2005
The kinds of things I will “seperate from the pack” for will be different than yours.
Most of the kinds of stuff you mention is just too hot right now, and I would rather stay engaged and take an attitude of hopeful puzzling toward them. Homosexuality, for example. Staying engaged has been very rewarding because when I keep holding these issues in the place of mystery and wonder, more understanding renders to the surface. I can go deeper into the issue instead of treating it as a simple case and having a knee-jerk reaction. Simplicity is arrogance with a very thin veil of indifference. I respect the complexity. It is a deep issue. If Jesus were to converse with people who I know about it, I seriously doubt He would be simplistic. I believe He would respect the complexity and help people look deeper, beyond the obvious polemic. I think He would struggle with people and not force their thoughts. Not dismiss them and leave them to struggle alone as many usually do. I don’t presume to force conclusions for people who aren’t there yet and may not get there in this lifetime. That’s just not the right way to do it. But that is how Modernity has taught us to do it, and it has not been successful. The backlash is out of control. It’s too hard to even begin a conversation about such things now. That is a sad failure. No, I will not pull away for that.
I will pull away for historical criticism, syncretism and some other liberal philosophical compromises. And alot of that is because of emotional baggage on my part. I just don’t have the patience to stay engaged for that. Thank God for N.T. Wright.
I will also pull away for the conservative rudeness. But you know that. I have little patience for that too. Same deal.
I wish I could remain engaged for those things. Truly I don’t want to react simplistically about anything, but sometimes I don’t have the strength. I would love to hang tight for as long as I would imagine Jesus doing so. And I believe He would stay with someone as long as they were willing to stay with it. That would be my picture of ‘discipleship”. Fancy word. Basic relational skill.
Destination for me is only partially visible at this point. But I envision open conversation about anything and the will to stay with it and dive deeper until the human being opens up to the solution. That doesn’t always happen right off, nor does it look the same for everyone. The journey towards understanding is 4/5 of the destination. I love talking to real people who are on deep journeys of any kind. Sexual, philosophical, proffesional, marrital, medical, anything. Quick judgements close this down hard and the journey is taken elsewhere. Christians, of all people, should be trustworthy with people’s journeys. But often we’re not. One form of truth which was simply ignored during the Mod period is personal honesty. As long as people can do personal honesty, they will go forward. Forward is the right direction. I’m all for that. I don’t want to do anything that will shut down that process. Trying to offer a short-cut with the Bible “the Bible sais it’s a sin, so you don’t have to wonder anymore…” dishonors the journey.
Comment by dh
2.36 pm on 25 Feb 2005
I have learned alot from you. I think there is a time to state certain actions after a conversation that certain actions are sin by the power of the Holy Spirit but like you said it requires care. I don’t see what the Bible says as a “short cut”. I see relativism as the short cut. People don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. That goes for both sides. I think we can in love without rudeness state in kind of a “Dr. Phil” (i hate to say it but for analogy sake) way how people can move beyond these obvious sins. In fact Jesus after He healed people stated “go and sin no more”. He never once stated that particular sins are not sin but waited for the right time for that. I have learned this from you :). For me personal honesty is how we deal with sin. I through the power of the Holy Spirit want to be as pure as I can for my Savior. I love what Paul says, “I press toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus”. This doesn’t dishonor the journey, this IS the journey. If we can’t make it in this lifetime we will not make it at all, “it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement”. This gives me a sadness for non-believer and helps me to do what you have said to stay engaged to help like Jesus did. :)
LOL your great!!!
Comment by Whitewave
6.36 pm on 25 Feb 2005
I love the story of the woman taken in adultery too. It shows how Jesus did not go beyond what the woman was able to take in. She had already arrived (being dragged there by the hypocrites) at condemnation, she was grateful to take a step back into judgement. It was okay. Mere judgement was Good News for her at that point on her journey. He delivered it as the other side of the coin of escaping condemnation, “GO and sin no more.”
Another story I like is the Woman at the Well. Women’s stories are important for a reason I’ll get to in a moment. Jesus started a conversation with someone He should never have been talking to at all. But He included the Samaritan people, and this woman of questionable repute no less. After a bit of fun with spiritual intrigue, He baited her with a request. “Go, call your husband and come back.”
Personal honesty is what He was after. And He got it. And then what? Did He bring the hammer down? No. In one breath, He revealed to her how much He really knew about her and respected her honesty and honored her journey. Not one word of judgement. Not one. She probably wasn’t ready.
Because He showed so much respect for her honesty and didn’t follow the usual script of judgment and condemnation, she remained engaged. Because she remained engaged, Jesus was invited to stay with the Samaritans for two days and “many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Him because of the woman’s testimony”! What was her testimony? “He told me everything I ever did wrong and told me that He could save me from my sins!” No. “He told me everything I ever did.” Period. That was enough for saving faith.
My Bible uses a different phrase to describe what He did there than what He usually did when he spoke to people. It does not say “teach” as it does in other parts of John’s gospel, or “preach”. It merely says, “And because of His words many more became believers.” My guess is that the Samaritans were used to hearing judgmental pronouncements from the “official” Jewish folk and their ears were no longer open for business. In order to get them to open their ears, He had to honor their journey as it was – that of an oppressed and rejected people. They believed that He was “The Savior of the World” because of how He came to them. Gently. Respectfully. Their claim about Jesus stands as one of the most honoring and exultant of all.
Now the stories of women are special because women were much more dependent as a people group than men. Jesus cut a whole lot more slack for people who were dependent, and was quick to judge those who had all the power. I wrote about this in my review for the movie “Vera Drake” on my blog. The poor, the crippled, the demon-possessed and the outcast all got gobs of mercy from Him. The wealthy, strong, clear-headed and prominant were always held accountable from the start for the power that they had. What are you doing with all that knowledge and experience that you have, Mister? Using it to condemn people? Well, I guess that means you can take what you dish out then….
Read the story of the Rich Young Ruler that way. It’s very illuminating. I think he was very sincere, but Jesus didn’t give him too much time to come out with it. He was pretty rough. And the young man did not remain engaged. He left. Jesus would have hung in there, but He had pushed him hard.
Comment by dh
7.58 pm on 25 Feb 2005
I really liked what you have to say. I think there is a balance and you and I are getting somewhere with this last post. :) I think there is a balance. You may disagree with this but your analysis is very post-postmodern and I like that. I’m trying to be this way. There seems to be a similarity with our goals. In one moment Jesus revealed her of her sin. He didn’t judge her but he did reveal her sin. I believe the “told all that I ever did” is indirectly this convction of sin. Jesus did this in the perfect balance like between modern Christianity and postmodern Christianity. He never once said that sin was not sin or else he wouldn’t need to say go and sin no more. Many in the postmodern camp wouldn’t say,”go and sin no more” they wouldn’t even mention sin at all. Perfect balance between modern Christianity and postmodern Chriatianity. At the same time he took the time to be with her and speak with her. Many in the modern camp wouldn’t have done this. Again perfect balance between modern Christianity and postmodern Christianity. What do you think? Please look at these final few sentences in their entirety to get the balance. With regard to the Gospel, I always refer to the Great Commision as well as the conversion of Nicodemus. Your great Whitewave!! That last post was true Discipleship. I hope you feel the same with mine. :)
Comment by Whitewave
12.08 am on 26 Feb 2005
One of the things that distinguishes John’s writing is his dropping in as a narrator now and then to ’splain. 11:13, 12:33, 13:1, 21:19 and probably a few more times. Since John is, after all, one of the Sons of Thunder, he can’t be all psychic. Some of it is probably hindsight. But even beyond that, John became uniquely intimate to Jesus. Seeing beyond time to His deep purpose and intent, much more so than the other disciples. 12:41 Even Matthew did not presume such deep comprehension when dropping in references to the OT.
I’ve heard the Woman at the Well preached with a sort of *wink,wink,nudge,nudge*. Indirectly daring her and everybody else not to see it as sin. But I think it’s possible that John could have written that down if that was intended. In fact, he drops in to ’splain a few things in this story more than once. But not there. No, that part of the narrative is nekid. Just the facts, Ma’am. No additives, no preservatives. If you see an indirect reference to sin, you are putting that into the text yourself.
Now. One of the wonderful gifts of Postmod is the psychological insight that we “see” the dualities that actually war within each of us as going on outside of us. It’s called “projection” and it’s very real. I see one thing in the text, you see another. Both of those things indicate what is going on inside of us as indeviduals at least as much as what is going on in the actual narrative. The Postmod idea about that is: Good. Bring it out. Lets talk about it. That’s important too. Personal honesty always is.
Moderns such as the Word of Faith folks would never confess this, even though it was going on fast and furiously. That is partly why there have been so many mistakes made durring the Modern Paradigm. The sane as well as the squirrely made the same claims that they were “only reading the text as it was, adding nothing…” Bull crap. They won’t be able to get away with that for much longer because we’re gonna clean up the mess that Luther left us (by opening the text up to the indevidual without the aid of Church and tradition) by requiring personal honesty – or face the firing squad of deconstruction.
But Jesus was Premodern. He didn’t obey the rules of Mod or Postmod but instead obeyed the rules of the Jewish rabbinical tradition of His time and space and simply His own style. As God, He was free to do what He wanted, and He delivered His Message with respect to the culture He was embedded in. He gives us this same job in the Great Commission. ” Go …all nations,… surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” He is with us. We can go forward to the end of this age without worry. We don’t need to hang on to the forms of the last age because He is the stabilizing factor.
My son gave me his cold. I’ve gotta go rest now… wrung out.
Comment by DH
2.29 pm on 28 Feb 2005
Why would He say go and sin no more if wasn’t sin? She obviously sinned. He did cleanse her by her heart and that is what God wants our heart. “If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..” The Great Commission includes Baptism. How can a person who supports a good portion, not all, of Luther be dishonest? God wants us our hearts as individuals. He went to the woman at the well, Nicodemus, etc. Heck Nicodemus was just him alone. Postmoderns overlook all of the many times Jesus spoke to individuals and in those times He told a message of how their hearts can be transformed which included dealing with there sin. The rich young ruler was a perfect example of this. Jesus could easily have brought up all of the times he hurt his parents or didn’t worship God as he should but he got to the heart his idol was monry. That is what it is all about before we are Cristians confessing our sins and believing in our heart all that Jesus has done on the cross.
Comment by dh
2.46 pm on 28 Feb 2005
I forgot the Great Comission includes preaching and Baptising all nations. We are called to share the Gospel with as many as we can under the Holy Spirit. Included with that sharing is also healing under that power. If we have bad attitudes or are rude we are not under that Power and do a disservice to Christ.
Comment by Whitewave
9.10 pm on 28 Feb 2005
…very ill… will get to this asap…
Comment by Henry Venema
10.11 pm on 1 Mar 2005
Wow, it good to know that my book is actually being read and that it has sparked such interesting and passionate debate.
Henry Venema
Messiah College
Comment by Whitewave
12.45 am on 2 Mar 2005
lol
I just pushed the button to send an email to my best friend telling her how I’m a worthless piece of crap. I’m experiencing a low point right now. Sick… Ex-husband is getting married this weekend… Going through hell…
Henry, your generous impulse to send a word out made all the difference in this woman’s life today. I’m glad this is interesting. I’m gonna try and be coherant enough to continue now. Bless you.
____
dh, you’re confusing the Bible stories. The “Go and sin no more” bit was The Woman Taken in Adultery. The story without the “sin” word or reference was The Woman At the Well.
I didn’t understand the Baptism reference at all. You got a little too disjointed there.
Surely you’re not saying that once a person understands and supports Luther one becomes incapable of being dishonest? You didn’t follow up that thought either. But maybe I should be clearer too. Which reminds me…
You passed up a really good opportunity to call me on a possible hypocrisy. I’m just goin’ along (even though I was sick and when I’m sick I tend to get really sensitive and volatile anyway…) talking about the wonderful ideal of not being rude and not using polemic, and I go and make this statment in some relation to the Word of Faith branch of Christianity:
“They won’t be able to get away with that for much longer because we’re gonna clean up the mess that Luther left us (by opening the text up to the indevidual without the aid of Church and tradition) by requiring personal honesty – or face the firing squad of deconstruction.”
This is polemic, dh. If a WOF person were reading along, they probably checked out at that point. The potential for destructiveness when discussing conflicts in doctrine is enormous and no one is immune from making mistakes. Not even those with the most idyllic intentions. I’m gonna guess that you missed it when I did it because you’re not used to looking for it.
This is exactly where honesty is to be applied and the benefit from deconstruction can be gained.
You could challenge me by saying, “See here! Suppose I’m a Word of Faith Pastor and you just took a pot shot at my denomination! Why would you count me as not deserving the same gracious conversation that you seem to think others are?” And my response would be important. Even good Luther respectors might offer some rebuff and dismiss you as being overly sensitive or tell you that they were only speaking hypothetically and not to take it literally or some other such redirection. Then I could slink away and privately tell myself to be more careful with my image in the future because I want to maintain the integrity necessary to have influence… blah blah blah.
That would be dishonest. That is not coming clean about what was really going on with me that would make me say such a thing. I would be more concerned with the image that I’m respectful than having the actual character quality itself. I would be falling prey to Baudrillard’s law of degradation… That we begin with real things with real value, then we designate signs to represent that value, then we transfer the value into the signs, then the real things disappear, then the value disappears, and we end up with worthless signs signifying nothing. Words lose their value and meaning in this way all the time. Words like “integrity” or “sin”. I don’t want to do that. And I am willing to make a fool of myself right now to prove this point.
Ask the pointed questions. Pull my covers. And if I refuse to get real, then deconstruct me. Don’t let me get away with it.
That’s the point I’m trying to make about that. And the idol of the Rich Young Ruler was not money but it is about transformation. Read my review for “Vera Drake” or at least skip to that portion to see what I mean. Go ahead. Click on my name. It won’t bite.
Comment by Whitewave
6.29 am on 2 Mar 2005
Weird. I know I elaborated on the Rich Young Ruler someplace, but I guess it wasn’t in that review. I’m a dork. Sorry. …wish I could remember where I put that…
Comment by Jason Clark
6.34 am on 2 Mar 2005
Henry, so cool to have the editor drop by :-)
Comment by dh
11.53 pm on 6 Mar 2005
I didn’t get the stories mixed up. I was making a point that Jesus even though He didn’t directly mention to the woman at the wells sin, He did indirectly by having her admit it. I agree He wants a relationship but to have that relationship involves dealing with the sin nature. I was also using the Baptism in relation to the cleaning of sin. The great commision by the call for us to preach and Baptise all nations. The symbolism of Baptism is the cleaning of sin. Being in the Kingdom involves a relationship with Christ and giving our lives to Him and a portion of that includes dealing with our sin. If we don’t have the latter then how can we be clean in the sight of God. “If we confess our sins….and cleanse us of all unrighteuosness”. All of those stories of Jesus involved people who dealt with their sin. Jesus mentioned to the Rich ruler to go sell all he had because He knew that was the one thing keeping him from a relationship with Christ. He went away sad because he wanted a relationship but not strong enough to get rid of those things keeping him from Christ. That was what I meant to say and it came out a little off. Also, I’m not the type of person to point out hypocisy in people. I do know in today’s society they are quick to point this out. Yet also in today’s society they are quick to say “we shouldn’t judge”. Is pointing out hypocrisy judging? (just kidding trying to make a point) :) On the Luther comment, I was just reacting to your statement about the supporters of Luther being dishonest. To me there are honest and dishonest people on all sides. I choose not to throw it all out just because a few are dishonest about it. That is what postmodern Christians do. They see one inconsitency and throw the baby out with the bath water. We have the same goal but you choose to deconstruct. To me when you do this you lose something that God gave as truth. You throw out the baby with the bath water. I choose to utilize contruction and in the end something new from the Holy Spirit arises. I belive we can through “construction” accomplish this. In “construction” we will reject the “materials” that hurt the foundations or prevented the buiding from having an “impact” for Christ and accept as “materials” those
that Christ intends which are the word and the revelatation by the power of the Holy Spirit consistent with that Word. Much of those “materials” were given by Christ to the apostles and this was done at Pentacost by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This “impartation” gave us much of Bible we have today. Revelation can also help us in this “construction” being that the foundation is solid the Word of God. Many times this revelation may appear inconsistent with Scripture. This is where discernment from the Holy Spirit and from Scripture comes in in relation to those apparent inconsistencies.
Comment by Whitewave
2.40 am on 8 Mar 2005
Is there some reason that you’re blatantly ignoring my point about the “sin” issue? NO ONE MADE MENTION OF SIN IN THAT STORY! Stop trying to put it in the text, it’s not there!
I’m not going to go into the Baptism issue because it will only confuse things.
This is crucial:
“”If we confess our sins….and cleanse us of all unrighteuosness”"
Sometimes awareness of our responsibility emerges slowly, but the beginning of this revelation is the willingness to openly discuss what really happened. Jesus begins with us where we’re at, not dragging us up to the Judgement seat before we can see our culpability. Like a chain necklace that is tangled. You can’t untangle it while holding it in the air with your hands. You have to lay it down on a flat surface and tease it apart with several sharp objects. If gravity is maintaining tension on the knot at all, then it will not come apart. It must be relaxed.
Pointing out hypocrisy is nothing new and Jesus did it all the time. Yes, pointing out hypocrisy is making a judgment. We are not supposed to completely avoid making judgements, that’s impossible and that’s definitly not something you yourself would agree to.
My point about Luther was not about his supporters being dishonest. That’s not what I said.
“That is partly why there have been so many mistakes made durring the Modern Paradigm. The sane as well as the squirrely made the same claims that they were “only reading the text as it was, adding nothing…” Bull crap. They won’t be able to get away with that for much longer because we’re gonna clean up the mess that Luther left us (by opening the text up to the indevidual without the aid of Church and tradition) by requiring personal honesty – or face the firing squad of deconstruction.”
My point was that since Biblical interpretation is no longer subject to Traditional and Ecclisiastical agreement, the indevidual can make up any meanings that they might want for any reason or motivation whatsoever and there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY. This lack of accountability made a mess of things in American Religion. All the Christianesque cults popped up here and the main reason was Luther’s permissiveness and our “pioneering spirit”! Yee-haw! I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. That’s what Luther did! That’s reactionary. But I affirm that there is a mess and it needs to be cleaned up. You yourself have come across quite strongly against the idea of bad theology, I don’t understand why you don’t understand this.
This is just wrong:
“I choose not to throw it all out just because a few are dishonest about it. That is what postmodern Christians do. They see one inconsitency and throw the baby out with the bath water.”
Please don’t lump us all up together like that and make some generalization. Postmodern Christians come in many stripes and colors, but one thing seems to be consistent. Take what works from all the expressions. That is hardly throwing the baby out.
This is not entirely true either:
“We have the same goal but you choose to deconstruct.”
I see utility in the process of deconstruction as long as it is used responsibly. The same goes for Truth. If someone drives the car of Universal Truth around town in a responsible manner and they don’t get drunk with power and kill people, then they may retain the privalege of driving. It is a privalege, not a right! On the other hand, if they get drunk every week at the local Holy Waterin’ Hole and then drive around runnin’ folks down with the Gospel, then they should have their license cut in two, be told to get out of the vehicle and hand over the keys. The first time, they should be warned. The second time they should be held accountable. Then on the 3rd strike, they’re out – but the vehicle is not harmed.
That is how I see deconstruction. It is a process of separating a person from their percieved “right” to drive the Truth. I don’t think it has to completely dismantle Truth. How can people with finite perceptions and impure motives be trusted to determine if something so powerful is a sham? No. That’s the absurd part of Postmod. There are several absurdities when they are taken to the point of being Universals themselves. The useful parts are all we need to apropriate.
I would never take apart the core of the Gospel, but I would agree with taking away our licence to drive it sometimes. That to me, should always be up for question. It is not a right. we must earn it.
Revelation is key! But we have to earn the privalege to drive it. “Constructing a firm foundation” has often been the early signs of finding a place of leverage so that we can control. I will always remind Christians that this is not the way Jesus did it, nor did He call us to this kind of power play. I believe in Construction, but of a different sort. I believe that personal honesty is part of this.
Comment by DH
2.32 pm on 8 Mar 2005
you mat be srprised but I agree with alot of what you have to say. This last post was a very good clarification of your previous posts. I just have a problem with people being afraid to judge people but those same people are free to point out hypocrisy which is judging as well. To me this is hypocrisy. Paul in the Epistles pointed out what sin is in a context of a relationship with Christ. Much of what people say is judging is not judging. Do people do this “runnin’ folks down with the Gospel”? yes but the message is correct the attitude and rudeness is incorrect. You mention honesty. I am very honest with what I’m saying and other modern Christians are saying it is just that some moderns are messed up and give other Moderns a bad name when, in my opinion, the message is the same. I don’t understand this “power” thing. Construction doesn’t have to be a “power play”. We can work together with this and include Moderns and postmoderns in this construction. However, there might be a disagreement of what God thinks of certain actions.
Comment by Whitewave
9.59 pm on 8 Mar 2005
Okay, good.
Yeah, the judgement issue is a booger. The Church neutered herself on this point when the poop hit the fan about Authority. I believe it can be overcome with the Personal Honesty deal. As an example, one of my favorite poet/songwriters, Andrew Schwab of Project86, patiently established a foundation from which he can judge the actions of others in a limited way. I think this is the way we all can and should establish this privilege. Here is why I think he has the Authority to judge me when I’m getting off track:
______
My failure is so evident
I cannot hide the torment
Face first to the earth
Plagued by the earthly mindset
I cannot escape my basement
Face first to the earth
Hands around my neck
I might as well bow in shame
Overmatched, outwitted
Defeat is my only name
I believe everything you tell me
You’ve got me convinced I’m guilty
I’d better close my eyes and sleep
Run away ’cause tomorrow’s a better day
But this is your hour
When Darkness Reigns
Across the channels and mediums I feel the loss
Face to face with the possible death of dreams
Mental purity fades to the obscene
Hence the search for another crutch
another void fill
Another cane to serve as much
And we’ll mourn for the death of the brother lost
And we’ll toast to the death of another farce
Have I lost the battle?
But have I lost the war?
Do I have what it takes to endure the setbacks
Ignore the scars?
You’d have me adopt that suicide
You’d have me succumb without reply
But you’ve forgot the thousand deaths I’ve died
You’d have me continue this pace
Because you’d like me to join your race
But that grave will be nothing but an empty space
Arise from the dead O Sleeper!
Prepare for the Battle Cry!
Cause this is the Hour
When Truth divides
When Truth divides it’s done
Revive the sick the surge of blood
Grab a torch and we’ll light and burn
Ignite offensives to claim the loss of sight
Wipe the sleep from your eyes
Release the fate of soul demise
And it’s clear for you to understand
The smoke will clear and fill the land
And now the claims are made
Downcast eyes accompany shame
The Chaos
Amassed against
Will redirect
To find a home anew
To face the depths…
You’ve lost my Enemy!
Now taste defeat!
Now taste your own saliva!
‘Cause you’ll never quench the heat!
ARISE FROM THE DEAD AND WAKE!
_______
He has grounded himself with his own confession… agreeing with the Adversary on the way, the coming Judgment is prooved moot and Jesus’ Blood covers the doorpost averting Condemnation. You’ve lost my Enemy!
So, what danger is there for us to thoroughly explore any character problems that we may have in ourselves, and who better to help us explore than someone who has the same flaws? His ability to help is limited to his own experience with that flaw. His loss becomes our gain because we need him to be flawed as we are flawed. What a serious trump on the Enemy!!! Colected, only the confessed flaws of the Church can help root out the flaws of the Church. Authority is bought with humility – no other currency is valid.
This is all in agreement with Scripture.
Comment by dh
11.25 pm on 8 Mar 2005
I hope you understand what I’m saying. I think there is a balance. I have no problem loving and having Grace for the sinner but for me it there has to be repentance. That is what Jesus wants a relationship with repentence as well. If we try to have a relationship without repentence then we never have the accountability and we “continue in sin that Grace may abound” that Paul mentions. I know there is a balance and on behalf of all who have been offended by the modern Christians I apologize. At the same time I believe the message from these people is correct but with a wrong attitude. At the same time we ALL must address our sin or we prevent ourselves from experiencing all that we can have in Christ. With love we can help people to “go and sin no more” (I know it is the lady who was an adulterer). For me I see many post-modern Christians failing to address repentence. This to me is the foundation of discipleship. This is where Modern Christians can help post-modern Christians because many post-modern Christians are wanting to go to the discipleship framework. Whitewave, can we work and come together on this? I want so much to be able to use the strengths and knowledge God has given me within the modern Christian framework in this post-modern world. Many post-modern people are wanting desperately absolute Truths. If we don’t share the Gospel which is absolute Truth (in a loving non-rude way) then people will look elsewhere or we are not fulfilling the Great Commission that Christ proclaimed before His Ascension. Can’t we work and come together on this? I feel I have and many Evangelicals have a lot to offer but many post-modern Christians don’t give us the time of day or they lump us with Jerry and his kids. While foundationally Jerry is correct his attitude is wrong. Am I off base? Do we have to throw the baby out with the bath water all of the time?
Comment by Whitewave
2.15 am on 9 Mar 2005
You have no idea how much I agree about repentence…
I myself am a victim of people who seemingly do not have the ability to repent. I have been run over so many times this week by people who see no reason why someone should be held accountable and have to apologize to me, that I feel like a piece of freakin’, dried-out, squirrel jerky, Road Kill! You have no idea!!!
And yet, rather than say that God does not forgive them UNTIL they repent to the sin which I unbendingly define, I would rather say that God responds to them progressivley as they go deeper and more honestly into their role in the situation. Also His Spirit is a witness as they come to some sort of agreement with me about the definition of the offense. Matthew 18. I’m all for gently working through people’s denial systems and I see Jesus doing the same. As long as people are alive, they have time. Certainly, it behooves us to get on with it, but under normal circumstances, I will not push…
…unless I have been pushed beyond my limit to endure. In my case, their strategy seems to be that if there is no agreement, and they don’t acknowledge any culpability, then there is no charge and therefore no crime. If they successfully ignore me, then they get off Scott free. But their days of avoiding responsibility are numbered, as God has told us that at the End, all will be brought up and their deeds will be judged.
Believe me, I understand the significance of confession and repentence.
If there are Postmods who are truly avoiding confession and repentence, then I am sorry. I have not personaly read or met any. The ones that I’ve read have been concerned about it, but reign in the Judgement and condemnation in light of past abuses and due to the high walls of denial and cultural conditioning which inevitably face them should they take a hard line. Getting to the confession is no rush job. I don’t understand why it should be treated as if it is unless we’re on some power trip because it makes us feel right and gives us a number to tally up.
Which postmods do you read that discredit the need for repentence?
As far as it being the foundation of discipleship, you and I are saying the same thing only I’m using the term “Personal Honesty” to stand in for “Confession and Repentence”. You’re right about the hunger for Universals and Absolutes, but not if the price they have to pay is power-plays. That’s why I’m proposing a new approach. There is Truth. There is a way to aprehend it. But we have to deliver it differently. I wish you could trust the Holy Spirit enough to let the Future unfold.
Just to let you know… I am having some success in delivering it up in a very philosophically progressive atmosphere. I’ll talk about that later. I have to go…
Comment by DH
2.34 pm on 9 Mar 2005
I think we are onto something. :) When I say discredit repentence I mean not holding accountible and not saying certain actions are sin because it might be judging. I have a thought, maybe if the modern Christian camp delivered the same message they have in the past without rudeness and with respect yet gave up the power plays then maybe people would see the value of the absolute Truth that many modern Christians have found. We sometimes forget that the Word of God is Spirit and is “sharper than any two edged sword”. Modern Christians with all of their faults which we have addressed have a strong knowledge of the Bible that Post modern Christians can tap. We need to come together with just as much energy Word and a Revelation that is consistant with that same Word. You are right God responds progressively but I probably disagree here because I do believe “that God does not forgive them UNTIL they repent”. That is why God mentions in His Word about “if we confess our sin He is …. forgive our sins…”. Your great Whitewave. I’m sorry your having it tough lately. “The ones that I’ve read have been concerned about it, but reign in the Judgement and condemnation in light of past abuses and due to the high walls of denial and cultural conditioning which inevitably face them should they take a hard line”. Postmoderns need to not fear this. That is where the overreaction is just as bad as what you are reacting from. It is all about the attitude and heart and postmoderns need to help us moderns not to change the message (which many try to do) but to help us have pure motives and pure hearts. Changing the Message is where I seperate from the pack. Love you in the Lord. We are seperated by distance but in the End we won’t. Look forward to seeing ya in heaven. :) Great conversation!! :)
Comment by Whitewave
7.40 pm on 12 Mar 2005
Hi. Thanks for the concern about my probs. I hate that they drag me away from helping people. …so tired of having to serve myself. God!
Remember the car analogy? Remember, the “car” in this case is a particular Knowledge and/or Truth. For my part of our discussion, this is the car:
“God does not forgive them UNTIL they repent”
This would be me running people over with the car:
“[I] say that God does not forgive them UNTIL they repent to the sin which I unbendingly define”
This is me driving the car more carefully and with respect to the fragile bodies walking so close by:
“rather than say that God does not forgive … I would rather say that God responds to them progressivley as they go deeper and more honestly into their role in the situation.”
All that I’ve done is steer the car more carefully.
This bit here:
“I would rather say..”
is only me telling you what I would tell someone else who is in the position of the Woman at the well. It is not me telling you about a new and different car. I have not changed the car in any way.
This is you driving the car:
“I probably disagree here because I do believe “that God does not forgive them UNTIL they repent”. That is why God mentions in His Word about “if we confess our sin He is …. forgive our sins…”. ”
I hope that if that woman were sitting in front of you (or the computer), that you would not say those words to her. That would be vehicular manslaughter. Jesus didn’t do it that way.
All I’m trying to get across here is that the way we deliver the Truth right now is EXTREMELY important, the Modern era didn’t teach people how to drive with respect to the fragility of people’s hearts or when to get out of the car. Just the oposite, it taught people that all the weight and momentum of that car (or which ever car they happened to be driving – science usually) was their’s to command and an extention of their own will. They were free to drive it where they wanted because it was Truth and if you stood in the way of Truth, then you were an idiot and deserved to get run down. You could run over people without shame because you were driving Truth and it deserved all the respect and fear of any tyranical ruler. Make way for the KING! Ironically this is how some people actually drive in some parts of the world. The idea is very real.
When you say this:
“We sometimes forget that the Word of God is Spirit and is “sharper than any two edged sword”.”
you are coming dangerously close to identifying with the car and using it as an offensive weapon against fragile flesh. That is not consistent with the context of Ephesians 6. I’m sure that you know this. I beg you, please be careful.
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
~TNIV online, IBS.
I have hope, dh. I see that you have taken notice of the pedestrians and that you intend to pay attention to how you’re driving. This is more than many are willing to do. This statement:
“I have a thought, maybe if the modern Christian camp delivered the same message they have in the past without rudeness and with respect yet gave up the power plays then maybe people would see the value of the absolute Truth that many modern Christians have found.”
gives me hope. I’m not thrilled when you say that Mods have found said Truth – as if Postmods have not. I’m pretty sure that if one didn’t accept an absolute Truth of some sort coming from Jesus and God through the Bible and whatnot, then one couldn’t call one’s self a Christian. I’m fairly certain that we agree on that. I just don’t want you to get away without understanding the difference between DRIVING the car and BEING the car. I’m thinking that the Postmods have stopped assuming that the car is an extention of themselves and are now simply more aware of the kind of crisis that they might cause someone spiritually if they run over people. I don’t want you to get away without hearing me on that, cuz this statement:
“”The ones that I’ve read have been concerned about it, but reign in the Judgement and condemnation in light of past abuses and due to the high walls of denial and cultural conditioning which inevitably face them should they take a hard line”. Postmoderns need to not fear this. That is where the overreaction is just as bad as what you are reacting from.”
makes it seem as if you don’t quite see the difference yet. Again, “reigning in the judgment and condemnation” is the same as simply “not running people down”. They are still driving the car, hon. Please listen for the responsible driving in statements like this, and don’t automatically assume that people are rejecting the car outright. K?
Now. As promised, I will show you what I’ve been up to at this philosophy place I mentioned. You and I know that Jesus is “the answer”, right? But many people have been brought up with all the wrong questions and so don’t see any connection between their lives and Him. This problem goes beyond the “relevance” issue that was addressed in the 60’s and on through the 90’s. Now it’s about what many call “evolution”. Not just the monkey to man thing, but how humans have evolved beyond the need for magic and fearsome god religions and are now ready to “grow up” spiritually. The kind of spiritual ideas and practices people are into now involve the prominence of love and the elimination of dualities such as good and evil, light and dark, right and wrong, etc.
The Mod Apologetic experts would run people over by telling them that the reason they prefer this is because they want to avoid moral accountability and express their “love” in immoral ways. But that is not right. The real reason is much more encouraging. It is because when we stop being such stupid and evil beings, there is no need for the dualities anymore.
When the Christian Church stopped teaching this idea in the West (early on because the Hierarchy of the Roman Church required dualities as fuel), as Paul had taught it in such passages as Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 3:21-25 and in numerous other places, then the “pagans” were brought in to remind us of what God was up to. God has done this before, I have no doubt that He’ll do it again.
The religions of the East had shown a way to transcend dualities and arive at a place of love and rest and while many left Christianity entirely due to our lack of witness, some combined Christianity with the ideas from the East in order to bring that missing element back in. What most had simply ignored or forgotten is that it had been there in Christianity all the time, but it was simply overlooked in practice. In fact, Modernity demanded that all public practice (esp. economics!) be entirely concerned with dualitites. They were inseperable. Power relied on dualities and it was excercized through polemic and advertizing. People are tired of the polemic and the sales pitch. They are tired of being jerked around because someone has identified their ability to be leveraged. They are crying out for a religious experience that doesn’t appeal to them by offering them the chance to have the upper hand in whatever duality that they espouse. They smell the Principalities and Powers a mile away and they’re not gonna bite.
So someone posed a friendly question in a discussion forum asking that if we *feel* free, are we *actually* free, or are we actually controled by fate or some other power and living in an illusion of freedom. Many opted for the illusion even though that made them uncomfortable, because the alternative seemed to be a duality that made them even more uncomfortable! I saw the irony. I’ll leave you with this as an example of cooperating with the progressive opening of people’s minds and hearts and God’s progressive response of Truth. This is what I said:
“I feel jerked around. I feel trapped. I feel paralyzed by fear of the future. I feel numbed by regret of the past. I feel helpless. I feel victimized. I feel nullified and void. I feel invalidated. I feel lost. I feel grief. I feel horror. I feel hurt. I feel helpless. I feel helpless. I feel helpless.
But this is all a response to what has happened to me. And the way I behave while feeling this way will become a cause for someone else [to respond to].
I am a hugely powerful being in a world of hugely powerful beings. Sharing power means that we affect one another. I am affected. I affect.
[Another member of the forum] brought up a word which kept coming up for me while I was reading this wonderful thread. Response. We are responsive beings. We respond. Is responding “being compelled” or is it “choosing”? They are not two seperate things, but actually the same act. Which way shall we define it?
I read somewhere about 4 stages of dependence.
1 Dependence
2 Counter-dependence
3 Independence
4 Inter-dependence
Do WE actually move through these stages, or only our AWARENESS?
I suspect that what [Victor] Frankl was describing [quoted in the orriginal post - I hope you know who Victor was, very important. If not, Google him.] was COUNTER-dependence – what [the philosopher who's website this forum belongs to] describes as “F-you, I’m gonna do/be what I want anyway.” I really apreciate it when he gets explicit.
Frankl’s experience was profound. How shall we think about it? The man who chose to give away his last piece of bread and offer comfort and a prayer to another suffering man was responding to abuse. The man who took his bread will have responded to love. If the cycle of abuse was interrupted, we would probably prefer to call that choice. But when the cycle of abuse is begun, it is only fair to call that choice too.
Our litigation system compells us (pun intended) to follow an act back only to the person who commits it. There is pressure (of course from the defense) to follow it back further into the causes of such acts, but we resist that pressure because it seems an endless rabbit trail and the farther down the trail you go, the less certain we can be of anything. Certainty is important in law. So we need to stop before it goes too far. But that is only for the purposes of Law. What if there are other purposes? Other reasons to follow the trail of response? Do we resist going there because we don’t want to risk undermining Justice? Can’t we keep them seperate? Maybe not.
And what of the idea (methinks it will never be anything more than an idea) of the absense of responsiveness? If Freedom is not being compelled by anything (but this also means we cannot choose either, because responding is the same act as being compelled – only a mental contortion seperates them) then try to imagine what it would be like to escape from the realm of responding… is this really what we “want”? Do we have a “choice”? Is this the “fate” of all beings?
I believe that Freedom is clearly connected to responding – not it’s absense. But how do we navigate this? Maybe this really is the best way to think about it.
“You didn’t come here to make the choice. You’ve already made it. You’re here to understand why you made the choice. I thought you’d'a figured that out by now.”
Keep pulling on the cord of response. Follow it back, back, back, back. Learn. Learn why we do the things we do with our power, and change ourselves to be better responders. We cannot do any better than that. That is our fate.
_____________________________
~Whitewave
[Crying] opened my third eye.
~TOOL”
________
The stench of the Principalites and Powers are no longer in the air, but now it has been replaced by the sweet smell of the Gospel. It is very near… only around the bend!
I too have enjoyed this convo, and I hope it has been of some benefit to folks besides us two frustrated peeps. I know that you and I will meet in Heaven and all will be resolved in the all-exposing Light of God. I long for that day when we can both rest from our efforts to understand and convince and finally know be known. God, bless you and your household.
Comment by Whitewave
7.41 pm on 12 Mar 2005
Oh, I almost forgot! Please respond to our gracious host’s “Who are you?” roll call string. It’s only fair.
Comment by dh
3.53 pm on 14 Mar 2005
I just can’t believe the “East” way of things. When looking at the Laodician church and applying it to individuals we know that God doesn’t want us lukewarm in our lives for Him and that God hates sin. I think at different times and for different people the way the message is given can be applied differently. Sometimes tough love is appropriate (Jesus and the moneychangers) and sometimes soft love is appropriate (woman at the well). Both ultimately addressed sin and forgiveness but applied in different ways. If Jesus used the woman at the well way to the moneychangers He would not have been effective and vice versa. Many times moderns do it wrong and many times moderns do it right. We need to recognize both. Same goes for postmoderns. Lumping moderns in with the extremes or the postmoderns in with the extremes are both wrong. I see you are coming close to “dealing” with the pains from the moderns but I want to help you, since I am a modern, to get past that and look at us as brothers and sisters. I want to help you look beyond the emotion and to the message. Misapplying the message shouldn’t change the correctness or incorrectness of the message. I feel the moderns have the correct message but have done it in an incorrect way.
I’m reminded of a conversion experience of a “hells angel”. (I don’t condone this in 99% of cases but this is an extreme case to make a point so don’t look at it as THE method but as an example).
(Please read with an open mind this conversion experience because this is a rare case of this particular method being accurately applied.) :)
He was in a bar and a fellow “hells angel” grabed him shoved him to the wall and asked him “Do you want to accept Christ?”. The guy brokedown and cried got on his knees and accepted Christ. Both have been a pastors ever since and continues leading the outcast to Christ. (Albeit they don’t use this method very often) HAHA!!! :)That is not to say shoving is correct. HAHA!! I would venture 99% of the time this shouldn’t be done as it would be misapplied.
Back to being serious. I’m just saying that the Holy Spirit can have tough love to be used for His Kingdom. Some people need to be “woken up” to accept, others are so close to the Kingdom that the Holy Spirit need not “wake them up”. Us as Christians need to recognize, discerning of what the holy Spirit wants us to use at the appropriate times. If not then people will either harden their hearts by continuing in sin or harden their hearts by looking at Christians as harsh people. There is a balance. We shouldn’t judge the “method” but we should judge the motive.
Comment by dr gomen
10.43 am on 25 May 2005
FROM: Dr.Gomen I.Blondil
Chairman Contract Review Panel,
Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire.
West Africa.
+225-08056804
DEAR FRIEND.
LETTER FOR URGENT ASSISTANCE ON FUND TRANSFER
First, I must solicit your strictest confidence in this transaction.
This by virtue of its nature as being utterly confidential and TOP
SECRET.
I got your contact in our search for a foreign partner who has the
Ability and reliability to prosecute a transaction of great magnitude
Involving a pending business transaction requiring maximum confidence.
We are top officials of the Federal Government contract review panel
who are interested in investment in your country with funds which are
presently trapped here in Cote D Ivoire.In other to commence this
Business we solicit your assistance to enable us transfer into your
Account the said trapped funds.
The source of this fund is as follows: During the last regime here of
General Robert Guei in Cote D Ivoire some government official’s set up
companies and awarded themselves contracts which were grossly over
Invoiced in various ministries. The government set up a contract review
panel and we haveIdentified a lot of inflated contracts funds which are presently
Deposited in a BANK here in Abidjan,Cote D Ivoire .
However, by virtue of our position as civil servants and members of the
panel ,we cannot acquire this money in our name. I have therefore ,been
delegated as a matter of trust by my colleagues to look for
An overseas partner into whose account we would transfer the total sum
of USD$35,500,000.00 [THIRTY FIVE MILLION,FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED
STATES DOLLARS].
Hence we are writing you this letter. We agreed to share the money
thus:
[1] 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER [YOU]
[2] 80% FOR US [THE OFFICALS]
It is from the 80% that we wish to commence investments in your country
as you will also stand as our foreign agent over there. Please note
that this transaction is 100% safe and we hope to commence the transaction
latest seven [7] days from the date of the receipt of the following
information bellow.
[A] COMPANYS NAME BENEFICIARY OF ACCOUNT.
[B] YOUR PERSONAL TELEPHONE NUMBER AND FAX NUMBERS.
[C] BANK ACCOUNT/SORT/ABA/ROUTING NUMBERS
WHICH THE FUND WILL BE TRANSFERED TO.
[D] YOUR BANK ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBERS/FAX NUMBERS.
The above information will enable us commence the transfer of this
funds into your account in your country without delay
We are looking forward to doing this business with you and solicit your
confidentiality in this transaction.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter using the above email
address; I will bring you into the complete picture of this pending
project when I hear from you.
You can also write me through my alternative email address
( gomen_blondil@hotmail.com)
With Kind regards,
Dr.Gomen I.Blondil
Comments are now closed.