Comment of the Day 2
Apparently, a couple of guys are having some kind of online back-and-forth about pomo and Christianity, or whatever they think it is or will be or whatever. The guy whose writings are copied in the above link is one Peter Rollins, who's put out a book about how we ought to NOT talk about God. In my view, if this how he think who should talk about Him, then his book is only only worth using in an outhouse.
For me religionless Christianity operates without any metaphysical guarantees. There is doubt, complexity and ambiguity throughout. And so there can be no final foundational claim to an external source ensuring that everything will work out well in the end (one can, of course, hope that there is).
So, what does any of that mean? Take a guess; after all, they're pomos, to them the reader is more important than the writer.
Seriously, I think he's saying that he doesn't know if there is a God or not. Consider further...
'I have been reborn, transformed, renewed by God, but then again I wonder who, what or even if God is.'
So, a God who may not even exist has transformed, renewed, and reborn someone? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Instead of saying 'I am not sure God is there in my day to day life but I know that God really is there' (i.e. everything is ultimately going to be o.k), I am more prone to say that Christianity allows us to claim, 'God is here in our midst, although I am not sure God exists' (i.e. God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is 'out there'). While the former justifies faith via a metanarrative the later lives Christianity as a meganarrative (a grounded story)
So, Christianity lets us say God is here, even if we don't know if God is really here, or there, or anywhere? And does his definition of God here...
God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is 'out there'
...strike anyone else as being merely an empty collection of words without real substance or meaning?
And saddest still, this 'thinker' has been teaching in Youth With A Mission schools. As a former YWAMer myself, I find this insulting and sickening. YWAM's flirtation with WoF was bad enough, but if they continue to allow this heretic to fill their students with this nonsense, than they do not deserve to be supported.
I'm still waiting for these pomos to finally get the integrity to admit their atheism.
7 comments:
Ah, Peter Rollins. If you're interested in modern heresy, you should check out both of his books (How [Not] To Speak of God and The Fidelity of Betrayal).
Essentially, it's "Christian atheism," where one denies the metaphysical existence of God, but embraces Him as an event that moves us toward a specific destination (justice, if such a thing exists [as the pomos say]). It's really a movement of John Caputo ("Weakness of God"). I've spent the last few years studying it.
Basically, it boils down to this: They're too stubborn to be orthodox, but too cowardly to be atheists.
Rollins seems like a rather interesting read. Now that you mention it, what he said does kind of seem like Caputo.
If what you say is so, then like Rollins is the popularizer of what Caputo and his ilk have been saying in philosophical circles. Most people would likely not read Caputo, but if Rollins passes the ideas in more accessible language, then they may read and listen.
"They're too stubborn to be orthodox, but too cowardly to be atheists."
Jesus came down pretty hard on the orthodoxy of his day. He's our example. We should always maintain a healthy distrust of our own religious understanding, which leaves us no choice but to enter into a deeper trust of the mysterious and infinite cross.
After all religious superstitions are stripped away, the cross remains unmoved.
--Jesus came down pretty hard on the orthodoxy of his day.--
Did he? Did he "come down pretty hard" on them because they were orthodox, or because they were wrong in what they were teaching? In other words, because they were going beyond "orthodoxy" to adding extra things to it?
Consider that carefully.
--We should always maintain a healthy distrust of our own religious understanding,--
Which means...what exactlY? That we should doubt the things the Bible plainly teaches? That we should have a distrust in, for example, the physical resurrection of Christ?
--the mysterious and infinite cross.--
What is that even suppose to mean?
"Which means...what exactly? That we should doubt the things the Bible plainly teaches? That we should have a distrust in, for example, the physical resurrection of Christ?"
My opinion of the resurrection means nothing unless it changes me into something of Godly value.
Religious people tend to cherish their religious opinions above all else. What was once "crystal clear" to me (and I made sure everyone knew just how clear it had better be to them, as well) is less important than living a cross-centered faith. Dying daily to religious certainty. Leaning not towards my own understanding, but leaving a large open space for the Spirit to dwell - without Me and My Religious Opinions getting in the way.
"The mysterious and infinite cross" What does it mean? It represents the ultimate value to every person of faith. Its forgiveness is unending, hence infinite. And yet it is mysterious - the depths of love it represents is a mystery, far beyond our comprehension.
--My opinion of the resurrection means nothing unless it changes me into something of Godly value.--
You may want to rethink that some.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015;&version=31;
I Corinthians 15
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
Sorry, but your 'opinion' on the resurrection is of no small importance; one may say that it is of central importance.
--It represents the ultimate value to every person of faith. Its forgiveness is unending, hence infinite.--
So, universalism?
--What was once "crystal clear" to me (and I made sure everyone knew just how clear it had better be to them, as well) is less important than living a cross-centered faith.--
And how can you live a "cross-centered faith" if you have no certainty what that means?
"how can you live a "cross-centered faith" if you have no certainty what that means?"
I am convinced (which is different than being objectively / scientifically "certain") that the cross is the most profoundly important event in human history. My awe and wonder - rooted in the cross of Christ - is the essence of my faith. No greater love can be found than in this single act. Of this I am convinced.
Can I define this? Can I define infinite love? Can I define the depths of atonement? Can I define infinite anything?
My assurance in the cross is not based on propositional definitions. It is based on pure love. The greatest saints and thinkers of history have labored to define this divine love. Rather than ask me about my "certainty" - I suggest we defer the question to Chaucer, Donne, Theresa of Avila, Shakespeare, Rumi, John of the Cross, Molinos, Fenelon..
The transcendence of ultimate sacrifice, rooted in infinite love, cannot be put into a neat, tidy religious box. I refuse to pretend.
This reminds me of something A.W. Tozer once said.. "if someone can talk you into Christianity, someone can talk you out of it." Phil Yancy later paraphrased Tozer, saying "nobody ever came to Christ by losing the argument."
Post a Comment