Sin and Sacrament

It seems odd but I think often times what initially is declared a sin crosses over into sacrament. Sure, we can nitpick but a lot of times the lines become blurred. Lines, which, frankly, are not too easily regained. More to come on sin as sacrament.

Meaningless Triviality

Such is the way of Christendom. Take up our crosses and follow Jesus as we take on ourselves the mental anguish associated with apologetic work or arduous debate with other believers. We've reversed the importance of mental acuity and the importance of obedience. I come from a homeschooling background and within this sphere/sub-culture there exists potential for great feats within the public realm of discourse (namely, the meaningless circus known as politics or media culture) mostly because homeschooled kids have a ton of mental agility and think well. It's drilled into us in some of the more popular curriculum and in our obsession with things like TeenPact and debate clubs. I come from this background and am slowly learning, albeit very slowly, the impotence of these discourses on eschatology and whether or not paedobaptism is biblical or not.

  Now, I admit. I enjoy a good discussion. And the bible is to be dealt with in community and some of these debates and arguments are fun. But where in the bible do we find a debate on the most inane of topics? Nowhere. Yes, St. Paul (primarily), in his letters calls out fools and people who would do damage to the Church but then goes on to teach those churches how to live in this world. Jesus doesn't give two rips if you're a Calvinist, Pelagian or not. In fact, while doctrinal orthodoxy (which is too often a phrase for "fortress theology") is important (doctrine does motivate and move when presented right), the importance of praxis is being undermined. Sure, Reformed folk of the theonomic stripe argue for the "Regulative Principle of Worship" which basically is a how to guide for worship from the bible, but most times the bible doesn't care for specific on how you embody the way of Jesus. In fact, the bible is more concerned that you actually do embody the Way and learn. 

  Look. All this is coming from the mouth of a guy whose probably going to major in philosophy in college. I love arguing, discussing, and debating trivial things. But it's becoming apparent to me that unless those seemingly trivial ideas can become practiced then I am basically blowing steam into an area of nada. If it cannot be practiced it is, almost always, an meaningless waste of time.  

On Faith

Faith, being that which names an Object and thus obliterates it in the name of following, is that thing which no one can seem to speak clearly about. Mostly since faith eludes naming, at least true faith eludes naming. As Critchley argues in Very Little...Almost Nothing (paraphrased), "Adam was the first serial killer." Why? Because he named things. Faith does this all the while being unnameable itself.

I claim faith is unnameable (undefinable) because in any attempt to define it becomes simplified and therefore, most times, meaningless. Faith kills that which it has as an Object since it tries to grasp and name that Object. But at the same time faith is oddly needed.

Maybe the beauty of Christianity is that it requires a faith which, in naming as its Object the person of Jesus, can kill God because God has already died. In so doing, then, we find life.

Dirt:Rib

I thought, today, about how the world revolves around beauty and truth.

At least, I want it to revolve around those two spheres. It would be nice if the world revolved around those two and sin and evil and ugliness were not so prevalent. Sadly, or not so sadly in my mind, the picture of truth, beauty, evil, ugliness, is one much more haunted by intimacy than we would like it to be. Like a spiral of color where one ends the other begins and often times one can only guess at the end or beginning. 

If we're honest this picture of reality - a potpourri of conflict - is based in the primordial reality of the bible. In the opening chapters of the creation account we find God molding out of dirt and rib humanity. Dirt and rib which is intimately linked to God by being made in his image. And then a chapter later we find man breaking down, the dirt and rib cracking, and the image of God becoming marred. 

But it is still there, haunting our every move, mixing in the sin and beauty into one rough cut whole. 

And as the story of the bible continues on towards its culmination in the Incarnation of the Word there are numerous stories of this complex interaction between the ugliness of sin and the beauty of God's children. David, the man after God's own heart, commits murder and adultery and causes people of his nation to be killed at God's behest. Rahab, the prostitute, redeemed by faith and action (and oddly seemed to have faith while still a prostitute). Solomon, given wisdom, commits idolatry via marriage. 

The point is, the stories we tell often do not fit the stories of the bible. The language we use does not fit the language we find in scripture. 

Point is, horrible sinners can be decent people. Saints, good people we admire, screw up horribly, commit atrocities and horrors unspeakable. We are grace filled creatures with sin leaking in the cracks, made by dirt but breaking, created via life yet death creeps ever closer at every step. We are not only walking contradictions, we are walking dead. 

We are not sinner or saint. We are decent killers and indecent saints. 

The Filling Full

Incarnation affirms humanity and redeems the material world and our bodies. And deems them sacred.
The cross sets the pendulum back in place between man and his God. No longer do we idolize man nor can we idolize God.
Resurrection defeats death by affirming life. And by affirmation negates any claim that has us floating off into the stratosphere.
Ascension drags the material world into the presence of the God who is spirit. This fills all the previous events full, affirming the immanence of God because the material is now before and embraced by him.

On Fundamentalism

There are fundamentalists [connotation] and then there are fundamentalists [denotation]. The fear of being labeled a fundamentalist [connotation] only perpetuates the illusion that some people are not bigoted or fundamentalist. When, in fact, all are fundamentalists because all have specific fundamentals to which they think we should return. Thus, to label someone a fundamentalist [connotation] is to accept that you implicitly have fundamentals to which you would like to return but cannot because that fundamentalist [connotation] is stopping you. It's all a vicious cycle. Thus, the only difference between the connotation and the denotation is that of method and approach.

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead (God)

For those unfamiliar with the ideas brought up herein, read the following links (I understand these are not comprehensive but they are good introductions to one of the main proponents of the idea of "living the death of God"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._J._Altizer

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/god-dead-controversy

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=523&C=527


This post will be my attempt to deal with the options for radical theology/death of God theology as well as some of the main problems (as I see them).

First option:
Death of God theology is nonsense. The basic assertion, as I understand it, is that God is dead (though what that means is itself not super clear). It seems to be simply saying that God [as transcendent] is dead. This death comes because of the incarnation and finds it's embodiment upon the cross. This has led to me to ask: what about the Trinity? Because, as much as a Hegelian reading of the Trinity is beneficial, it really does not explain the complex nature of the Trinity. Nothing does, really, but there is two thousand years of Christian thought on the matter and death of God theology (seems) to disregard this fact. If God is dead via the cross then how is the Trinity to be understood? As a dialectic triad? What about God the Father still existing as transcendent? Is God the Son's death the death of the Father? What about the Ascension? Jesus rises and returns to heaven, thus, returning to transcendence (leaving the Spirit, yes). Thus, this idea of the death of God becomes entirely nonsensical. It's just nitpicking without really taking into account the entirety of Christian tradition.

Second option:
Unclear restatement of Christian tradition. This is a quite simple critique but also vital. Any attempt to deal with Christianity in the current age needs to learn how to contextualize, to speak to this time and age. Currently, this death of God movement is simply speaking to academia. It uses the terms given to them by Hegel, Lacan, and Zizek; terms which, for the most part, are extremely unclear. Though, admittedly, they could find a home withing Christian tradition.

Third option:
It's all accurate and a current developments that needs to be embraced by the Church. But again, clarity and simplicity. Both lacking.

Fourth option:
It's all crazy.

Cross as Destruction of Structures

The cross is a violent act, a violent moment in time. On the cross we see a man brutally displayed in all his humanity and without dignity.

Yet, the cross is a self-defeating act, too. For, on the cross, we find a man, destroyed, beaten, by the powers of his age. But the violence done to Jesus is violence done to the structure(s) of the time, the powers, the State. By employing violence on a peace-making Rabbi, the son of God, they employ violence on themselves. Thus, the cross is self-destruction - of the powers and the violence upon which the State is (too often) predicated.

Anecdotes

1.

The death of God is an absurd notion if taken literally for God is spirit. --Yet some say in Christ dying God died too. But this fails to appreciate the nature of the Trinity. Perhaps God is dead but this statement needs to be explained/clarified/expounded on

2.

The endless raging and antics of those who would see the death of an idea only perpetuate that idea. 

3.

To oppose an idea is to afford it legitimacy -- when they picket and shout that God Hates Fags they already assume that Fags exist and therefore that they have some significance to culture. Maybe ignorance would be a better reaction. 

4. 

The Church is its own political institution thus any affiliation to the American system is, in very clear ways, while not wrong explicitly, flawed.

5.
--I am not political is a political statement--

6.
The self is alone and continually faces outwards to avoid seeing itself revealed to other selves. Because to be revealed to other selves would cause the self to become accountable to itself and other selves.

On Exchange

Previously I began to address the radical nature of law vs. gospel within the scriptural context. But, did not set out any nuance (mainly because I am not fond of nuance-ing everything). This post is an attempt at that.

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Not only did death come via the Law but perfection could not be attained through it. The Law was created to pass away. 

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The priesthood is no longer with Aaron and his heirs but is now with Melchizedek and his heir. And with this heir there comes a change in the Law. But saying the Law has changed seems okay. It's kosher within Christian circles to say the nature of the Law changed but isn't set aside. Yet, the bible leaves us no room for the comfortable. 

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless...

The Law was created to pass because it is weak and useless. The goal was perfection and the Law was useless in achieving this goal. Ergo, it has to pass. 

...and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

This hope is one of an indestructible life. Again, the tension of death vs. life. Death in and by the Law and life in and by Christ. 

Through whom we live and move and have our being. 

Love - Antithesis

Love is kind - "I wanna kill people so I'm gonna join special ops," guy at school.

Love does not dishonor others - "God hates fags," Westboro Baptist Church.

Love keeps no record of wrongs - "We will never forgive, we will never forget," Anonymous.

Love is patient - "Come quickly Lord Jesus."

God Suffers

God the Father suffered loss.

God the Son suffered physical and emotional pain.

God the Spirit actively suffers.

There is plenty within scripture to suggest that God suffers. When we see the lowest of the low, the least in every way within society, there is Jesus, suffering along with them. When the Church suffers in some way God suffers. In the garden of Gethsemane we see a suffering God.

Only a God who suffers with us actively is a God who can truly save us.

Questions for the Radical Theologians

1. How does Radical Theology stay within Christianity if it is, in many ways, a denunciation of the traditions we have held? Or, rather, Christianity has held.

2. What is meant by God is dead?

3. If God is dead and we must embrace that then what are we preaching?

4. What meaning do our beliefs have in a world where God is dead?

5. Is this about God transcendent versus God immanent?

Forgive me for any misunderstanding of this concept since I think this concept is rather important to the ideas behind RT.

More Thoughts on Doubt

In light of a previous post on the subject it seems appropriate to attempt to clarify or expound further upon the issue raised therein. Where is the line that Rilke seems to be drawing between a doubt that is a worker in your life and the implied giving in to doubt that becomes skepticism?

Doubt is the natural outpouring of the soul when confronted with the pain of reality, not even the pain necessarily but simply reality itself. It's simply wonder at what you do not know, or cannot know. More clearly, doubt is the experience of the soul. 

The line between doubt and skepticism is one of questions. With one the questions find their origin in a wonder that has been disciplined; in the other the questions are asked incessantly without ever disciplining and tailoring them to your needs, to becoming useful. Discipline and questioning, this, it seems, is the line.

One Way Out

The burden of unknowing and doubt lays heavy on any human heart which has attempted to live in the world. A burden which for the most part is furthered by the Church rather than embraced.

Mind you, this burden is not a problem to be solved, but embraced. Too often the Church has used St. Thomas as a means of saying: do not doubt! But this is as far from truth as one can get.

Doubt and unknowing: there can only be one way out (if, in fact, we can ever truly escape) and that is to go through them. Just as with the wrath of God, so with doubt.

Run towards the doubts and uncertainties, sprint even. For at the center there lies the cross, the greatest example of uncertainty. Doubt is part of existence, faith. Faith without doubt is boring, and a creation entirely planned is equally dull.

But:

“And your doubt can become a good quality if you train it. It must become knowing, it must become criticism. Ask it, whenever it wants to spoil something for you, why something is ugly, demand proofs from it, test it, and you will find it perhaps bewildered and embarrased, perhaps also protesting. But don't give in, insist on arguments, and act in this way, attentive and persistent, every single time, and the day will come when, instead of being a destroyer, it will become one of your best workers--perhaps the most intelligent of all the ones that are building your life.” Rilke 

On Christianity as Absurdity

"Modern man must descend the spiral of his own absurdity to the lowest point; only then can he look beyond it. It is obviously impossible to get around it, jump over it, or simply avoid it." Vaclev Havel

Much of what I believe has become absurd, or seemingly so. I've come up against the limits of reason where one can do nothing other than embrace the absurdity. Is that not faith itself? To embrace the utter strangeness of the gospel, its inherently radical nature.

And maybe that's why Christians are so obsessed with having a rational explanation because we have to defend ourselves against the attack of atheists. But is this not the absurdity of the gospel? That we don't defend the validity of our beliefs because they cannot, in fact, be defended. This is not to say they're invalid but rather that the so aptly called 'Christ-event' is absurd and as such cannot be explained.

But once more we encounter an absurdity. By realizing the absurd nature of reason and going onward in faith we embrace absurdity once more. Absurdity is given up for lack of power and replaced by an absurdity of power in weakness: the cross.

Anecdote(s)

1.

For a church culture that wishes biblical faithfulness over cultural norms our view of women is based upon culture and its stereotypes. 

2. 

Christianity is said to be based in the bible but is, in fact, most fully embodied by our lives.

3. 

Law and gospel, two tensions intertwined. 

On Heresy

  Heresy is a good thing. I know the church proper should be opposed to heresy but I honestly cannot find good reason to stand against it as it is. By this I mean, simply, that heresy, is over rated. It is a word thrown around in the church today, especially by Protestants who want to sound like they have some grasp and/or appreciation for church tradition, and is so often used (and abused, frankly) that it is essentially meaningless. So, how is a word that is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless, a good thing?

  Heresy is simply any doctrine/dogma/idea contrary to orthodox Christianity. Leaving aside the issue of what orthodox Christianity is, it would seem rather wrong of me to suggest that heresy is a good thing in light of this basic definition. But I will suggest such a proposition. And my basis for this claim is simply that seeking Truth (whatever that may entail or be) requires one to step on toes. Truth is to be sought and in doing so one may find that they are enjoining themselves with a heretical notion. And the notion that this is a bad thing, to enjoin oneself with heresy, must be done away with. Inherent in the search for Truth is the risk of heresy. Heresy serves two purposes in the church: 1) to cause reevaluation of dearly held beliefs so as to test whether those things are True and 2) to spur the Church proper into action (I am grateful to Dr. Michael Bauman for this clarifying point). As such heresy is a good thing. It serves a long run purpose. However, does this mean one should arbitrarily become a heretic? No. But one must accept that inherent to Truth seeking is the risk of heresy and that holding a heretical notion (if, indeed it is heretical) can be a good thing for your beliefs and the vitality of the Church. 

Vere Tu Es Deus Absconditus

  I am a Christian. I pray like crazy. And I grew up being told to listen in prayer. I've tried listening but nada. Exactly what is entailed in listening to/for God? The still, small voice? How does God speak? Through his word? Sure, but that's its own dilemma right there. So, I prayed and tried to listen and God was silent. What now? Silence, just silence.

 -"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"-

   I use apologetics to give reasons, primarily to myself now, for my faith. Yet, God escapes me. "Jonas, you need to have heart knowledge, too!" Well, how? Like stated above the silence is frightening and overwhelming. Apologetics is all well and good till it isn't.

 -"Pointless, because it seems to me like an attempt to put a grown-up man back into adolescence, i.e. to make him more dependent on things on which he is, in fact, no longer dependent, and thrusting him into problems that are, in fact, no longer problems to him."-

   I accept unknowing, the lack of certainty. Or, rather, I try to. I think hard and think well, attempting to use my mind to get somewhere with the unknowing and lack of certainty. But it's very obvious what I am doing. I'm finding certainty in the use of my mind to be uncertain. Oxymoron much?

 -"The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me."-

 

Anecdotes

1.
God is fully revealed in Jesus Christ, implications of this?

2.
Jesus demands something more from us than religious observance.

3.
God self-limits himself.

4.
A relationship not a religion is too weak; rather, a life instead of a religion.