Subscribe to Posts
it’s the epistimology, stupid
How do we know what we know? That’s the concern of epistemology. Now, forget the word, epistemology, as I only used it because it starts with an “e” and so fits “it’s the economy, stupid.” But it’s one of those underlying currents behind all the flailing about in the religious and secular and evangelical world these days: how do we know what we know? I got to thinking about it after reading today’s entry in David Crumm’s Read the Spirit. I confess I was tuning in to Read the Spirit this morning because they did an interview with me yesterday as Jesus Brand Spirituality: He Wants His Religion Back is finding its way into the bookstores. David Crumm interviewed Christine Wicker who noted that Southern Baptists are seeing a decline in baptisms, and that the president of the Southern Baptists think it’s due in part to Christians being viewed as “mean spirited.” Wicker also mentioned a Southern Baptist preacher who is now preaching universalism, the view that nobody goes to hell–all, in the end, are saved. It does get your head spinning, these currents.
I’m thrilled that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention is looking at one of the brutal facts of life in the evangelical wing of the church these days. Many people do see evangelicals–the good news bearers–as mean spirited, and for good reasons that don’t need repeating here. But will baptisms increase by declaring that no one risks separation from love? As much as I’d love to believe that, it’s difficult to read Jesus and believe that. It’s difficult to see the hell lapping at our feet every day and believe that. It’s difficult to think that human beings don’t have the freedom to reject the love of God and believe that, as much as the thought appeals.
So, welcome to the muddled middle. On the one hand, perplexed, discouraged, flummoxed about the trademark infringement on the Jesus brand that causes people on the outside of faith (heck on the inside too!) to think that the followers of love can be doggone mean-spirited. On the other hand, not trusting the too easy answers to that trademark infringement. Are you picking up what I’m laying down?
But the muddled middle isn’t always muddled. Sometimes the middle is the place to be. Like when it comes to epistemology. Sorry I used the word again. But trust me, I spell it wrong half the time.
How do we know what we know? Those who rail on on and on about “Absolute Truth” are often the people who come across as mean-spirited. Sometimes they come across as mean-spirited, not simply because they lack good PR skills, but because they are mean in their spirits. I hate to say.
But those who deny “Absolute Truth” have their own pitfalls. Like who’s to say “meanness” is bad and “kindness” good?
Oh, I’m getting in deep here. Because I’m getting into epistemology. How do we know what we know? Is there a Truth out there, in here, anywhere that can be known? And if so, how?
The fundamentalists tend to say, Absolute Truth exists, and we can know it absolutely, or objectively, or with certainty. Problem is, they turn on each other all the time. Because they can’t get this straight among themselves. Fundamentalism is rife with purity purges and pretty soon it’s just you and me with the pure truth, and I’m not to sure about you, buster. And then it’s just me, and hell, that’s hell, not heaven.
The so-called liberals in the theology department, reacting against the fundamentalists, tend to say Absolute Truth is a nice idea, but ultimately a fiction. We each have our own truths and nothing but our own truths, so help us Whomever.
So we bit on that category error: if you ain’t conservative, you is liberal when it comes to truth.
But what if the Jesus path is a different one? What if a real God necessarily implies a real reality? What if Truth exists, out there, in here, somewhere. And our job is to find it, or let ourselves be found by it when it comes knocking?
But what if we can’t claim to know the Absolute truth absolutely? Because we’re human beings. And we do our knowing in our noggins. And it’s a place of electrical storming, and blood and neurotransmitters and experience based understanding, and ours is partial. So yes, Truth exists, but we know it, when we know it, as St. Paul said, “in part and through a glass darkly.” We see the light darkly.
We ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but we ate it before we were ready for it. We ate it without permission. And we’ve been paying a price for that disobedience. We think we know when we don’t. We think we can’t know when we can. We call good evil and evil good. We despair of the good when it’s close at hand. We’re all mixed up in the knowledge department.
Which means we need to approach this whole truth business, make that Truth business, with a little more, make that a LOT more, humility.
We know, but we know in part.
We know, but only to the extent we allow ourselves to be known.
We know, if we know, when we know, by an act of grace not our own.
We’re wrong a lot, especially when we’re sure we’re right.
But though every man, every woman be a liar, and our truth telling is faulty, the Truth will win out, in the end.
N.T. Wright and others (like Albert Einstein who also adopted this epistemology) calls it “Critical Realism.” And it’s a way forward through the muddle. I think.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Ken:
Once again, this reflection zeros in on the great challenge of our era — clarity of vision. That’s a theme I’ve written about over and over and over again.
Let’s turn to the prophetic epistle of St. John, better known as “Nobody told Me.” And, right in the middle of the song is this verse and chorus:
Everybody’s runnin’ and no one makes a move
Everyone’s a winner and nothing left to lose
There’s a little yellow idol to the north of Katmandu
Everybody’s flying and no one leaves the ground
Everybody’s crying and no one makes a sound
There’s a place for us in the movies you just gotta lay around
Nobody told me there’d be days like these
Nobody told me there’d be days like these
Nobody told me there’d be days like these
Strange days indeed — most peculiar, mama
No kidding.
That’s the challenge in ministry today, right, Ken? You see it so clearly — that the challenge is to see clearly.
Paul saw it. Sometimes it’s tough to hear the electric wisdom in Paul — sometimes it take a John Lennon to say it so it sticks.
Or a Ken Wilson to say it so it sticks.
Blessings on you Ken and your pilgrims on the journey! Your greatest strength as a community is moving past the “mean spirited” exterior to actually try looking compassionately into the faces of the people you meet.
Many thanks.
– David Crumm
May 8th, 2008 at 7:13 am
you know it!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“when the truth comes knocking”…sounds like a great sequel to Jesus brand Spirituality.
…truly, i believe humility to that way forward in the muddle…thanks for reminding us!
May 9th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Ken,
Great stuff. I think the “critical realism” that Wright talks about is the best explanation of the “muddled middle” out there. Its the “hopeful muddled middle” rather than the “defensive muddled middle” that cuts (for some) at some deep fear that if we lose the Enlightenment we’ll no longer be in the light, so to speak. Kevin Vanhoozer does well (“Is there meaning in this text”) teasing this out a bit on a “textual” level.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
jared, I’ve got to get the Vanhoozer book, it’s been recommended to me before. Just had a conversation in fact, with the staffer at Blue Ocean Institute, with whom we’re partnering to do this “Friendship Collaborative” bringing secular environnmental scientists together with evangelical pastors who are operating in a climate of suspicion regarding environmental issues (especially climate change)to care for God’s good creation. I was pointing out that most scientists share the same epistemology as many fundamentalists and evangelicals–naive realism. And that critical realism is the epistemological bridge between scientists and evangelicals; both need to cross it to work together. I think. ken
May 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
This idea of relationship being at the heart of knowing Truth is really a key concept, I think. As you put it, “We know, but only to the extent we allow ourselves to be known.”
I can read all about someone, but unless I relate to them, I really don’t know them. This is rather obvious when you think about it. But the next step that says I don’t know you unless you know me, is more subtle and yet quite profound when you think about.
Keep going….please.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Bob, Yes critical realism fits the knowing of persons, doesn’t it? Person, by definition are mysteries, and can’t be “mastered.” So our knowing of them must be in part. Nancy still surprises me after 38 years. And I know I remain a mystery to her! Praying for your missus and her adventure! ken
May 15th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Good post. I’ve been living in the “muddled middle” epistemologically – you’re right, that really is a big word – for a while and it ain’t always an easy place for a Pastor to be! I’m glad I stumbled onto your blog. I’ll continue to watch it… Blessings!
May 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Ken
here is a nice look at your book
http://www.flowerdust.net/2008/05/21/jesus-brand-spirituality/#comment-184285
May 21st, 2008 at 9:12 am
Ally, Thanks for sending that! Especially since it was so nice! I did an interview with a English radio thing–bookshelf or something? A very thoughtful interviewer, who had actually read the book. That plus visiting St. Mary’s in Central London gave me more insight into the over the pond situation, which is quite a bit different than the American one. Curious to see how it resonates in U.K. and N. Ireland and places like that, which aren’t so influenced by the recent melding of conservative politics and Jesus faith. I actually like a lot of non-religious conservatives like David Brooks and George Will. It’s the ones that baptize all things conservative with the Jesus name that annoy me. A more uniquely American phenomenon. ken
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ken,
At the age of 20 I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, was born-again and baptized-in-the-Holy-Spirit, all in the same moment. It was a thrilling experience. Since then I have been a devoted Christian, active in a large Spirit-filled church and in several different ministries. I love the Lord and His people, and they love me. Filled with the Holy Spirit, I walk daily with the Lord, and actively seek His Truth wherever I can find it. I believe that all Truth is God’s Truth and that all Truth originates with God.
Therefore, I have taken up the study of Critical Thinking and in the process have learned quite a bit about myself and about the seeking of Truth. Here’s a portion of what I’ve learned as the Spirit has been leading, guiding and teaching me:
Critical Thinking is about being both willing and able to think, about developing two aspects of God’s gift of Reason to us: our Critical Thinking skills, and the disposition to use those skills to form good judgments.
Disposition means developing the habitual intention of being truth-seeking, open-minded, systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in making judgments.
Those who are ambivalent on one or more of those aspects, or who have the opposite disposition [biased, prejudiced, intolerant, disorganized, heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of reasoning, imprudence] are far less likely to use their God-given gift of Reason for Truth-seeking.
I’ll leave it there for now. I look forward to hearing any thoughts from you and any other brothers and sisters.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Check out my comments and the comments of Ken and others on this same topic right here:
http://www.flowerdust.net/2008/05/21/jesus-brand-spirituality/
June 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I think that I understand what you are saying, although philosophy makes my brain get all twisted up.
Just to give me an example: is the commandment thou shalt not murder, meaning God doesn’t want us to do that, an absolute truth or not?
And for further clarification:
What are you sure of?
Thanks
June 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Javana, Yes all truth is absolute. But we are not, and our knowledge of the truth is not absolute. We must have ears to hear, and of course, our our ears hear partially. As Paul said, “We know, but we know in part.” Am sure of Jesus! ken
June 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ken,
I just wanted to pose this question to you in more succinct terms (I hope I’m not kicking a dead horse here, after my drawn out comments on your calling all Jesus freaks post). I’m back tracking a bit, but this is definitely an epistemology issue (I also posted this comments on the flowerdust blog referenced above by Archie and Ally). I hope you could offer some clarity since this is about the central problem I see with your book (other than this I think it’s great =).
Your JBS mosaic model for guidance to Truth seems to take care of many of the issues of authority (church or the Bible itself), but ultimately it fails in that it is circular reasoning that begs the question. Once the pieces of the mosaic fit together in the right places to “cohere, hold together, [and] present us with the face of Jesus (truth in person) [so that] we know we’re on the right path”, how is it that we actually recognize this image as being that of the true face of Truth (Jesus)? It must be beautiful, right? Anything that doesn’t fit into our individual ideas of what “love” is, must be thrown away (according to your book). Except everyone has different ideas of what constitutes beauty and love.
Only in our fully redeemed state, in our new bodies in the new heaven and new earth, will we actually come to communal agreement (in Christ) on the definition (recognition) of beauty, love, and truth (the person of Jesus) because He will be there with us, plain to see and experience.
Ultimately there has to be some underlying “assumption” in the authority of the sacred text itself (unadulterated by fallible human interpretation) as inherently infallible (at the very least in the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels). With this underlying assumption or paradigm, just as science operates through such pre-requisite assumptions, then we can actually journey together as a community, along with individual reason and experience (ultimately seeking guidance via the Holy Spirit), in our efforts to know Him (truth) “better”. This “knowledge” must always be subject to spice of humility in that we “know in part” “through a glass dimly”… thoughts?
-Trenton
June 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Trenton,
I’ll have to re-read the section you’re referring to. Keep in mind that this is a book on spirituality, with one chapter on the the biblical dimension of Christian spirituality. It was a rather short section on the question of understanding the Bible in light of expereince, Reason, the Spirit within the context of community, etc. So it could be that it simply doesn’t hold up as a fully developed theological treatment. I’d be shocked if it did, given the fact this is not an area of theological expertise on my part.
The thing is, I think these factors tend to be hopelessly interdependent. To cite obvious one: It seems to me to be quite strange to place Scripture in a hierarchical position above the Spirit, since the Spirit is God. One can say that Scripture is infallible, reliable, trustworthy, or whatever other word you prefer–these are all words that I have no problem with in reference to Scripture! But it still remains that Scripture is the book of a community, inspired by the Spirit, read with the aid of reason, through the lens of our experience. Scripture isn’t simply data that you feed into a computer. It is a living word that lands on a living person, as does all personal communicaiton. So one can say theoretically, that Scripture is itself (unadulterated by fallible human interpretation) inherently infallible, trustworthy, reliable, etc. But Scripture is by definition divinely inspired communication to fallible human beings–human beings who remain fallible in all their hearing of Scripture. So as a theoretical construct, it’s really not so helpful, is it?
This doctrine of Scripture depends on a philosophical committment to foundationalism. Get the foundation properly aligned and understood, and build on that. But there has been a rather cogent critique of foundationalism as a philosophical approach. Precisely because something like Scripture is always, and must by definition be read, heard, received, by us in our human state, subject to all our human vagaries. (Plus which, Jesus Christ himself–the living, risen Jesus that is–is the foundation.)
I’ve just so often seen people adopt what they view to be a fool-proof system and then feel that if they just work the system, they will be safe and secure; that approach, in my experience lends itself to over-confidence about the results–the cost is always humility. You probably didn’t select the term “spice” carefully, so it may not be fair to respond this way, but I think whatever approach we have has to be SOAKED in humility; humble to the core.
Speaking of which, I’m somewhat out of my depth here admittedly–having neither a degree in theology or philosophy.
Just like you, someone seeking to find my way forward.
[Thought on science: hasn't science been a discipline which has developed over time? The various rules of science didn't get agreed on all at once by an authorized set of leaders. It evolved. There will probably be more rules that are widely accepted in the future as central to good science. And of course, science is a much more limited discipline than religion. Science has very sharply delimited boundaries, whereas religion has to do with utlimate and transcendent knowledge, and from a Christian perspective, knowledge is personal.]
OK!Enough for now!
Ken
PS one other thing: I don’t think my book “indicates that anything that doesn’t fit into our individual ideas of what love is must be thrown away!” Egads!
Sounds like Beautyism to me! Just made that up. That was the whole point of saying, all you need is love, properly understood. We can call all sorts of things beautiful that aren’t. But because God exists and God is the ultimate source of all that’s beautiful, beauty exists and draws us.
(One of my favorite songs was a Wimber tune: Isn’t He beautiful, beautiful, isn’t He?)
June 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ken,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The only reason that I’m being so critical of these “issues” in your book is because I see so many good things in it and in you and your church and I’d hate for people to be confused and miss out on all that good, due to a misunderstanding of your direction (assuming that it really is a “mis”-understanding). I say “other people”, but of course I’m referring to myself also (I really would love to join you full on in this pursuit of Jesus Brand Spirituality and Love – “properly understood”).
That being said I just thought this passage was quite relevant:
2 Timothy 3:12-4:4
12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
He who has ears let him hear…(take what you will)
I also am curious about these issues in light of your many philosophical and relational connections with Phyllis Tickle (the forward to JBS). Perhaps it would be wise of you, since you have so many overlapping ideologies, to bring a little clarity to actual points in which you disagree with her (at least the points of disagreement with things she has been outspoken about). Of course she is “Episcopalian” and you’re an “Evangelical”, but with the blurring of the boundaries between all 4 quadrants (a model used in your book, which Tickle also has talked about for years) these labels don’t really mean anything anymore.
For example, Tickle’s take on truth is ultimately about “beauty” (is this the Beautyism you were referring to?):
Tickle says she still has “zillions” of questions about faith and about God. “But they don’t keep me up nights. Part of the wonder of being 70 is that you’ve gotten to a place where questions are almost like trophies on a shell, safaris I’ve made. It all becomes so much simpler,” she says.
But “just because they’re trophies on a shelf doesn’t mean they aren’t questions. It just means I’ve parked them.” Tickle adds, “I believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You just have to let me define what I mean by that expression.” She said to a young rabbi once, “Yon know I believe in the virgin birth because it’s so incredibly beautiful. How could it be otherwise? As for the mechanism about how it happened, who cares? It’s the beauty that persuades me.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_121/ai_n6159167/pg_5
I don’t want to get stuck on the actual issue of “the virgin birth”, since this is just an example (a wisely chosen one at that, just controversial enough and vaguely connected to more important issues like Jesus’s divinity etc., but not quite as pivotal as say “the atonement” – which Brian McClaren doesn’t mind questioning, on the basis of his idea of love I might add – and which I believe you still hold to as so important/foundational that without it Christianity is pointless). The point is that she is using this “beautyism” to interpret what is and isn’t true about what is written in the gospels.
And it’s not just because she’s in her 70s. This is an important part of this movement, this “new christianity”, “emergent faith”, whatever you want to call this loosely cohesive free-for-all literary/church movement. She continues in reference to:
…whether she had the near-death experience “because I am a spiritual weakling. If you know where you’re going and are sure of it, it’s easier to steady yourself than if you had [the assurance] only in the abstract.” She adds, “It’s reassuring, almost pleasant, to know I don’t have to understand. There comes that peaceful place where I can smile and say, “I don’t know and it’s OK I don’t know and it will be OK someday that you don’t know too.’”
In another interview she says:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/special/phyllistickle.html
Obviously, we’ve put spirituality back in its place. We spent forty years of being spiritual and not religious, and you just don’t hear that from young people anymore. Those five things that fundamentalists used to argue about—the five things you used to have to believe in to be a Christian—mean absolutely nothing to those kids who are 40 and under, for the most part.
For example, I was talking to a 17 or 18-year-old young man two or three years ago, and he said to me “I don’t understand all that controversy about the Virgin birth.” Keep in mind; this is a devout Christian kid. When I asked what he meant, he exclaimed, “Well of course I believe in it; it’s so absolutely beautiful, it has to be true whether it happened or not” [laughter]. That’s a post-Reformation comment if I’ve ever heard one.
She also says this about how pastors should make the transition to this new, post-Reformation era:
This is such a vast difference in worldview between young people and old people. It’s a crevasse. An abyss. I suspect that for those pastors who are shepherding a very sizable congregation that has its bulwark in folks 50 and older, this presents a huge problem. It’s a two-program thing; you’re not going to meld these two worldviews. Most of these pastors are going to end up riding two horses, so to speak. A pastor has to learn to ride these two horses, or he’s going to have to go into the new Christianity—the emerging Christianity—and hope that his older congregants will follow him, because he’s going to disturb what they’ve got worked out.
I get the feeling that you’re leading your congregation “on the cusp”, so to speak, of this transition. For example the Vineyard website self-describes you as including
“perspectives that have been hashed out or articulated with a view toward shaping whatever it is the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor is becoming. Much of it, I think, is in the ballpark of what some are calling Emergent faith, but I’m not really sure, and if it’s something else that’s fine by me. I do know it’s the best we’ve been able to come up with so far in the noble task of engaging our culture with an ear tuned to the gospel and a heart open to the Spirit. Consider it our contribution to the conversation that is properly underway to help us discover who it is we’re meant to be together.”
That’s all well and good. We postmoderns like to hear that our authorities honestly don’t “have it all together” and we love that we can see eye to eye with our pastor as we “journey together”. But, I’m not that old (I’m 23), so why am I having trouble with this? Sometimes I do feel like you are perfecting the art of “riding two horses”. Where I’m from, that’s called “strattling the fence”, being “luke-warm” (such that God will spit you out of his mouth), or worse yet being “two-faced”. All of these things I myself struggle with and all these phrases I myself have been called. So I’m with you on this. But since we have so much in common, and since you are older and wiser (hopefully, at least I think you are and I actually do look up to you, whether you’ll believe that or not), do you have any insight that might help me with this?
Sincerely,
Trenton
June 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Trenton,
I’m having a hard time explaining myself let alone someone else!
I certainly wasn’t referring to Mrs. Tickle when I used the phrase Beautyism. I think we believe various things for various reasons, their beauty or lack thereof being one of them. I know when I first read the gospels, I had no assumptions about their authority, no theory of inspiration, etc. But I was drawn to the Jesus whose living presence came to me through those words. I was drawn to his beauty, I believe, his authority, in short to HIM.
(AS you’ve probably guessed, I’m not a systematic theology kind of guy. I distrust systematic theologies. Especially the ones that are too neat. Or perhaps better said, if I go to far down that path, I find the temptation too powerful to root my trust in the system rather than the person. This could well be my deficiency, but I’ve yet to meet a systematic theology that I liked. Truth has loose ends until God ties it all together. So to me, systematic theology is a form of over-realized eschatology-how’s that for some 50 cent words! I realize this can be an annoying feature of how I go about things….!)
I think part of what you’re sensing is the occupational hazard of the 21st Century. The formulations of faith that we’ve cut our teeth on were based on epistemologies and philosophical assumptions that we may no longer share. The church is in the process of catching up with herself, so to speak. This has been an ongoing process, but I suspect that at certain times it’s more acute than others, and it sure seems to be one of those times now. The fact that you refer to yourself as “postmodern” I think conveys that you have a different set of philosophical assumptions than perhaps your preceding generations did and there sure are a lot of people who would agree with you.
I think we have to be extra kind to ourselves during these kinds of shifts. They can be disorienting at times, but Jesus is a living, risen Someone, and ultimately truth rests in him and he has the responsibility to get through to us, just as we have responsibility to follow as he leads.
I also think we need to pray our way through this territory, not simply think our way through. I know you agree with that. It’s like the time of the book of Joshau, and like Joshua, “We haven’t been this way before!” It’s been enormously helpful to me to rely on prayer through engagement with these questions. I mean the kind of surrender to God kind of praying that acknowledges and makes peace with one’s limitations. One has to rest in the everlasting arms while things are getting sorted and sifted. I love Psalm 131 for that, or the one that begins, “I do not occupy myself with things to marvelous for me” (is that 131?), “but I have calmed and quieted my soul like a child at it’s mothers breast.” I find when I overthink things, or think out of proportion to my praying it becomes more angst laden thinking, and ultimately less productive, creative, or whatever.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
PS Trenton, I posted a “theological influences” thing under “About Ken Wilson”–egads that sounds self absorbed, I guess having a blog is. It’s a little chronicle of the theological influences that have shaped me and might help you with seeing where I’m coming from.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thanks so much Ken. You have a difficult job and I don’t envy you. You’ve opened yourself up on so many fronts, with your books, your blog, and even a few years of sermons available to all. It’s enough for someone like me to feel like I “know” you (even though we’ve only actually met and talked face to face once!). I must voice my agreement with the comments about knowledge being personal/relational (another thing that must make pastoring so difficult). As Bob said (comment #6):
“I can read all about someone, but unless I relate to them, I really don’t know them. This is rather obvious when you think about it. But the next step that says I don’t know you unless you know me, is more subtle and yet quite profound when you think about.”
As I said earlier I do feel like I can relate to you (on a lot of things, not just what I said – clarification on that, I relate to being called “two-faced” more so than actually admitting to/being “two-faced”, so I don’t actually think you are =).
One of my biggest weaknesses is encouragement. I often come off as a very critical person because I have no problem with voicing my criticisms (I actually see it as a form of humility – hopefully not with too much pride… – that I’m willing to sacrifice what others may think of me to voice such criticisms that I feel others may want to voice but are afraid to), and I only hinted at my appreciations… Yet you surprisingly have not reacted (for the most part) with defensive indignation. That speaks volumes to me about your character. And the amount of time and thoughtful expression in response to someone like me (hopefully our conversations will be helpful to others as well) is also amazing. I stick with my initial feelings that the heart of your intentions is consistent with the ultimate Truth of the person, Jesus of Nazareth. And you’re right, I agree with you about prayer being of utmost importance in all of this (I admit I’m not so up to speed on that).
I still don’t know though, despite your lengthy responses (and the theological influences page – even if I had time to read all that you’ve read, it doesn’t tell me what you agree/disagree with – that said, thanks for it anyway =), if you’ve actually answered the core of my question… But that’s ok. I think what’s most important would be to know exactly what all the underlying baggage is. I feel like we’re both fighting against straw men here. I told you about some of my straw men (assumptions about your ties to and/or journey towards the views of Tickle and other emergent/emerging church leaders like Brian McClaren). And you cleared some of that up (sort of… more distinct clarification is always welcome =).
Ultimately, I’m curious what “straw men” you’re fighting against. You’ve hinted at it – the “mean spiritedness” of some Baptists/Evangelicals – and I feel like I understand. Maybe you could hash out more on how Jesus’ own words may come off as mean-spirited (this I think is definitely a core issue – people just need to get over that…). But it may help if you give a few examples. Your theological influences are helpful, but I think maybe even more important than that (for anyone trying to “understand” you – I hope you’ll believe that I’m not trying to “master” you like someone may try to master sacred scripture), would be to hear specifics of where you’re coming from in your own experience with the “mean-spiritedness” of other Christians, or even how you yourself used to be. The problem here is that voicing such a thing will come off as “mean-spirited” itself… hmm, conundrum.
I think you’ve actually done a lot of this, but maybe it would be helpful to admit how much of this reaction is really just against something that’s really not there, but just a generalization (that’s what I mean by “straw man”). I think the media and even university education has a lot to do with this. And just because a lot of people follow the media and because we’re in Ann Arbor with all of the university influence, it doesn’t make the straw man any more real.
For example, I and no one I’ve met actually believe that a human can know absolute Truth absolutely (if there are people like that I’ve never met them). And I also agree about the “living word” you mentioned, and I don’t know of anyone that believes Biblical text can just be “data fed into a computer” despite how much some people may sound like they think something like that. It’s funny how much, despite the call for getting rid of labels, the label of “fundamentalism” (stated or unstated) gets misused. I’ve never actually met one of these people, though I know people that act like them due to their own reactionary straw man attacks against others.
What if we’re all actually in the “muddled middle” and we don’t know it because we constantly think that people who aren’t exactly where we are in the muddled middle must therefore be somewhere on either polar end (depending on their leaning) in the demonized “straw man land” (literally, no man’s land).
Even if that’s true I don’t think anything will change. People will always try to identify with others who feel the same way about their straw man constructs of who the enemy is.
The best way for humans to unify is “against” something, no matter how hard we try that is always true. Even if the enemy is itself “to have an enemy”…
I think I’ll stop now. Thanks to anyone with the time/endurance to listen. Hopefully this isn’t all a bunch of wasted space.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Trenton,
Excellent questions….I’ll give it a whirl.
1. On Jesus “mean spirited” or tough sayings. As I read the gospels all of the harsh sayings of Jesus seem to be directed to people who have power, mostly religious power (which in that setting was also political power) but also Herod who had more political power. These to me are in the tradition of prophetic denunciations. They are part of what drew me to Jesus in the first place–so in that sense I don’t see them as mean spirited, rather as harsh. What I think is more mean spirited is when this tone is adopted and used against people who are more vulnerable or less powerful than the person using them.
2. On the straw man–where is the mean spirited in actuality question. I think you make an excellent point that many, many people–vast majority?–who are even fundamentalist are also very kind, warm, etc. When Falwell died, he had many critics who made a point of saying how kind and warm he was in person, even with his opponents. I have fundamentalist members of my extended family who are delightfully kind and warm hearted, so I think that’s very true.
I think the examples of the mean-sprited thing are more in the public sphere by public spokespeople of the evangelical-fundamentalist persuasion. Certainly whe Falwell and Roberston blamed 9/11 on liberals, lesbians, etc. publically, this was a notorious example. When Robertson called for the assasinatin of a S. American head of state. Also when a major evangelical leader used his considerable influence to get Rich Cizic from the N.A.E fired for his advocacy of environmental concerns. This to me was over the top.
I think the fact that so many evangelicals listen to and enjoy people like Rush Limbaugh whose entire scthick is contempt laden, etc. is an indication that at best, there is way too much tolerance for this sort of thing. I know, for example, many who have had very negative attitudes toward people who really care about the environment, believing the worst about their motives, having a contemptuouos attidude etc. I think I participated in some of this myself in years past, in a going along sort of way.
I think the attitude toward women in some of these circles is really poor. The theological opposition to women serving as pastors, teaching, etc. can too often cloak a more powerful lack of respect for women. I think I’ve seen this from the inside. I hasten to add that just because someone has a view that the Bible doesn’t allow women to be pastors or whatever doesn’t mean that this darker attitude prevails.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists have to own our history on the slavery issue. It wasn’t long ago that a biblical perspective was used to justify slavery and this was fueled by racism, flat out racism. It was pervasive. It was presented with a polite face, and grounded in biblical language but it was what it was.
I think there is something like that at work in some attitudes toward people who are different. I was at a church where a speaker railed against homosexuals in a mocking tone with laughter from the congregation. I was a visitor, and I came within seconds of standing up and objecting. I probably should have, but it was complicated setting, so I talked with the pastor later. I don’t think this is
a common thing in evangelical churches and in recent years there’s been a more concerted effort to move away from it, but if it happens it;s likely to have been an evangelical or fundamentalist setting.
Listen to talk radio sometime and listen to the comments that people who self identify as people of faith make. How they talk about liberals, for example. Believing the worst, ascribing the worst motives, misrepresenting what liberals believe, etc.
HOw many evangelicals purchase books by authors like
Ann Coulter? I don’t know, but it must be a major sector of her audience. Check one out sometime and see if you think it’s mean-spirited. I think we evangelicals are guilty of tolerating a lot of this stuff.
I think part of the problem is that a culture of tolerance has grown up in recent years as the evangelical movement has migrated toward a “culture war” approach, despite the fact that evangelicalism as a movement was an attempt to engage culture more sympathetically. As you point out, tts actuality helpful for faith groups to have a clear “outside enemy”–adds a sociological “community coherence factor” so in that sense it’s a very natural thing. However, I think it’s something we participate in at the expense of Jesus, who didn’t model that kind of thing toward the outsiders of his day (the religious outcast, Roman occupiers, etc.)
Since a lot of the egregious things happen in a media venue, in a sense, it’s overblown. People on the outside of the evangelical community get frightened of evangelicals and their fear makes them overestimate how mean spirited the people are in real life. But we’ve allowed that to happen by being so tolerant of this spirit, by buying the books and being huge fans of the radio hosts, etc.
I think I probably do have a “reactive” sensibility to this. I’m trying to be aware of it. Perhaps it’s because I have close family members who are way outside of the evangelical milieu, and it so PAINS me, because I’m able to “see things through their eyes.” I also have seen how ineffective most evangelical churches are at actually being evangelical–reaching people who are from a secular mindset, who vote democratic, who are passionate about the environment, etc. This is an indication that something is wrong with our culture.
It also pains me because for a period in my life, I think I participated in too much of this mindset.
At the same time, I have very close and dear friends who would identify pretty closely with the religious right. (My complaint is not with political conservatism–I like lots of those writers–it tends to be with the culture of the religious right and the tendency to make too close an identification between Christian views and views that I think are simply politically conservative, baptizing the whole lot as “Christian”)
It’s also true that a liberal secular bent often has a very similar contempt for faith that is pure ignorance. But they are less likely to attach these things to the name of Jesus. And I think we are meant to have a certain “jealousy” over that name, just as he has a certain jealousy over ours. So I’ve certainly felt the attitude that comes from the others side in Ann Arbor and at the university. But I think we have to take more concern for the group that is “our” group on these things. Things like this are changed by “insiders” more than outsiders. Reform from within, kind of thing.
When I am with people of secular bent, I tend to try to help them see that evangelicals aren’t anything like the stereotypes. I have friends who are highly intelligent, sophisticated, etc. and are convinced young earth creationists. Sometimes scientists think that that position is only held by people who aren’t
toughtful, etc. and I let them know that it actually takes quite a capacity for complex thought and analysis to defend the position. (Of course there are people who hold to the view without that, but many of the advocates are VERY sharp people.)
So yes, it’s complex, and any statements made always need qualifying–so much so that one might not venture to say anything….but that’s the view from here, at least.
Phew!
June 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
June 30th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Trenton,
Enimagtic emoticon aside, you’re a thoughtful responder to these posts, so I’m interested in your response to my comment (in paragraph form perhaps?).
I have many dear friends who are annoyed, I know, by some of my tendency to engage in critique of this sort and I’m trying to understand what they feel is legitimate and illegitimate in the critique. From where you sit, would you see the response I offered to your concern about setting up a strawman as legitimate, i.e. that American evangelicalism has erred in direction I’m indicating and that it does have a very substantial impact on the whole movement? Completely understand if you’re too pooped to participate, so to speak…
June 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ken,
My smile (too clear up some of the enigma) was meant to convey my agreement with you. I think your response contains all legitimate critiques of American Christianity (really, I agree completely, and thanks also for you acknowledgment to some misplaced reactivity). And while some strawmen are media/social constructs, they still affect people’s view of Christianity so they do need to be addressed (sucks that the media has so much control…), but we shouldn’t forget that such “stereotypes” are really still just that, generalizations.
I do want to say that there’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. You are a peacemaker to the core. I think this is clearly evident through “Empowered Evangelicals” where you sought to reconcile evangelicals and charismatics (the “best of both worlds”). Then in JBS, consistent with others in the “emergent” movement (it’s ok, almost no one in the movement actually claims association), your 4-quadrant pull toward the center is another attempt, now for peace among all “corners” of the Church. Science and faith is another big one. I especially identify with you here concerning evolution/creation.
I know I have this tendency too. And I know for myself that it’s deeply rooted in my own personal family upbringing. A large part of this owing to the ongoing conflict between my older brother and my mom. Somehow I would get stuck in the middle, trying to make peace between them, identifying/siding with neither and both of them.
The issue that I am struggling with now, is ultimately how to make peace with Christians that I feel are “mean-spirited” (in some respects, i.e. concerning grace and “tolerance”). So I think we’re on the same page here, sometimes this is a very difficult thing to do. As you’ve said, the church (including the “dogmatic” and “mean-spirited”) is the bride of Christ and we must love her along with Him.
On the same token, I can identify a bit with their position. The concern with total and complete inclusivity (often minus them of course), and where that could lead down the road (even if todays followers of this new Christianity are on the right track and able to retain the Biblical truths of their youth in the “old” Christianity, what will happen to the next generation when the Bible is no longer taught as “truth” per se? …). I hate to mention Phyllis Tickle again (you still haven’t openly disagreed with her on anything specifically), but she said in an interview:
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/phyllis-tickle
“We all know that the historical Jesus is, to some extent, a construct of scholarship. But nobody really knows what He actually said and what He didn’t say. All we can do is guess.”
There are all kinds of ways that a person could tip-toe around a statement like this and say “well hey, we don’t really ‘know’ anything ‘absolutely’” so in that sense she’s right. But it’s not just about “guessing”. I think you agree but in other posts I’ve seen your responses to such claims that the Biblical record of Jesus can’t be trusted, and instead of outright standing up for what you believe (for fear of ostracizing those who may disagree?), you just direct them to some literature (i.e. N.T. Wright). There’s nothing wrong with that. I mean I think you’re trying to be considerate and leave room for comfortable questioning, but I can see how it could be a bit disconcerting to never really know if one’s pastor still believes the things he used to. And if he does, it’s a bit concerning that he doesn’t seem interested in sharing those things openly anymore.
And I agree that a great many of Jesus’ “tough” statements were directed at the people with power, and religious power. I don’t know the exact proportions (which, I might add, if proportion was an adequate test of the importance of something then environmentalism would definitely be low down on that totem pole) but there are many examples of harsh propositional statements directed at the 12 disciples:
Matthew (your favorite gospel) 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32″Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his
own household.’
And to the general public (the sermon on the mount):
Matthew 18:5″And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7″Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
I know there is a lot unsaid in these statements requiring further interpretive deciphering, but I think it’s safe to say that Jesus wasn’t only harsh with the pharisees. And if you think that the rest of the new testament is worth anything you’d know that the simple act of denouncing sin and rebuking people in the church that are participating in sinful behavior (including the sexual sins that some Christians have definitely been “overly” critical of) is not equivalent with the actions of the pharisees. For example, Paul had a real problem with the guy who married his mother. Obviously Paul himself didn’t struggle with that particular sin. He was unmarried and proud of it. But he still recognized sin as sin and denounced it publicly.
I think I’m going off on a long rabbit trail…
Anyway, your book aside I think your preaching has been more on target (which is why I still trust you have a “healthy” view of Biblical truth). But some may suggest (and I can see it too) that there has been a gradual decline in preaching on these “touchy” issues of Jesus’ propositional statements to people other than the Pharisaical “religious right” (this analogy is often evident whether or not actually stated).
Actually the 12-step series from 2004 was more heavy on these things than any of the more recent sermons. And there is a definite decline from the beginning of the archive history in mid-2005 to the present. If this is part of the necessary transition to reaching the people of Ann Arbor, that’s not necessarily bad (by me at least). But if it’s part of a more massive shift, completely purging Christianity of these “offensive” truths, then that is definitely concerning.
I always go back to what I was saying originally that there is a need for balance, the balance seen in Jesus own teachings. Not either or, but both and. Not either love or truth, beauty or systematic theology, heart or mind. It’s both. He IS beautiful AND He is intelligible (not completely, to us here now that is). We should embrace knowledge offered to us (soaked with the humility of FAITH) and embrace the mystery where such knowledge is not apparently available (but there IS such knowledge available to us – i.e. we can know/have the assurance of our salvation through faith in Christ and the gift of grace offered to us).
Ok, now I’m pooped…
July 1st, 2008 at 5:07 am
I said that I’m now pooped, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to participate in the discussion anymore. I would however, like to openly extend an offer to any onlookers who have anything they’d like to add. Obviously, due to some of my own seeming contradictions, I’m often trying to act as a mediator and so taking positions that I myself don’t actually hold 100% – I’m just trying to see things from all sides of the argument and I know this can come off as confusing to some people, hence my old spseudonym “Advocate”… Nevertheless, this approach has helped and is helping me to discover more about my own beliefs (hopefully others are benefiting as well, if so please, speak up – even if, or especially, if you disagree =)
July 1st, 2008 at 7:08 am
Trenton,
Since I need to post today and I’ve got a boatload of other writing things to tend to over the next week, I won’t be able to address all or even most of the things you raise in this post–though over time I hope to come back to more of them. Thanks for all the encouraging words.
I would draw your attention in the archives to the Sermon on the Mount series which was fairly lengthy an touched on many of the hard issue questions. I also think this last series on Romans 12 touched on some challenging ones. Also the teaching on the demands of love–love is the most demanding thing, not the least as is commonly thought. If find the teaching of the golden rule to be EXTREMELY demanding, and Jesus says everything hinges on it, so I think that’s meant to be expressed in the emphasis on teaching. It’s fairly easy to denounce
various sins from the pulpit, but over the years I’ve not found it so effective with the sins that people want to see denounced, which are often sins of weakness, or sins in the sexual area. It’s easy to score points with those things, but pastorally, it often simply drives them underground. It’s in the pastors office where the real action is and where I think pastors often get timid. Of course I don’t go around telling who or what I’ve issued warnings about in the pastoral office.
In general I think AMerican evangelicalism has been weak on helping people make the kind of God connection (spirituality) that gives them victory over sin, and has been weak in developing the kind of community support network that is needed, and has erred in the direction of moral denunciation “moral majority” being one of the early groups of the religious right. That combination is not good from a pastoral perspective and amounts to loading burdens on people that one does not lift a finger to help them with. Which is not to say I’m perfectly balanced–thankfully the body of Christ has many voices, and any one cannot be balanced in isolation. I thought Don’s message this past sunday was just brilliant and and powerful and very practical for helping people deal with their sin problems. Interestingly he did this without being very specific about sins. I think Jesus, compared to his contemporaries, took this route, but that’s another issue.
In terms of offense, my experience has been that the greatest offense occurs when the kinds of sins that we, the religous, tend to commit (cloaking our sin with religious langauge, etc.)–that’s what gets the most push back. As I read the New Testament, include Sermon on the MOunt, I think that’s the stuff Jesus was going after. For example he only said, Go and sin no more, to the adulterous woman (probably heres was the sinning of weakness) when the Pharisees dragged the woman to him for a ruling, and he did so in a non-public way, after they were gone.
On feeling a need to differentiate myself from the views of friends who have public platform. I don’t feel the need, at least not to do that when asked by othes. If I think it’s needed, I do it. Keep in mind that I know many many leaders who are public figures and have had close associations and could busy myself doing this all the time. I have 110 Vineyard pastors in our region and there are many I respect highly and differ with on lots of issues and don’t feel the need to point that out.
Paul obviously had differences with Peter but it was only in Galatians, that he felt a need to be public about it.
As you’ve noted, I’ve done a lot of speaking and some writing, most all of the speaking recorded and placed online, often with notes. I think people probably have more than enough data regarding my perspectives on various things.
I was VERY slow, to be more public about differences I had with specific leaders of the religious right. Most of the time, in fact, not naming names. Can’t remember doing it from the public–mentioning names that is, though I may well have. I have mentioned differences with Rush L. a time or two
but he drove me to it…:) I think my little post to you did more than I ever have in public venue other than a talk I gave in another church.
I think if you read Phyllis Tickle’s recent book on the words of Jesus, you wouldn’t have the impression that she doesn’t take his words anything but seriously, including the tough words (for example his hell warnings…) I found in the Divine Hours that she compiled, a studied aversion to down-playing the tough sayings of Jesus in selection of gospel readings. No, Mrs. Tickle included some of the very severe sayings of Jesus, in fact seem to be driven by a desire not to shy away from the tough sayins. Of course there are so many to choose from in the gospels! Mamby pamby He’s not! I was annoyed by her placing the Abraham attempting to Sacrifice Isaac text in the night prayers so I had to read it (a lengthy section) 4 times through the month. I think that’s one of the hardest portions of the entire bible. Mrs. Tickle is a huge advocate for the value of the canonical gospels. Within her context, which is much broader than mine, having been religion editor of a secular trade journal, having the job to cover the entire religious world, not just Christian, I find her to be quite out outspoken in defending the canonical gospels as trustworthy, and for not backing off from the hard sayings of Jesus.
tally ho!