Beware

This piece ran in the Emergent/C newsletter today. There's an "illustrated version" on the Emergent Village Website

Beware - by Don Heatley

I never knew our church was emergent until the people in our town starting warning one another that we were.

The newspaper ads for Vision Community Church tend be thought provoking and irreverent, but rarely controversial. The closest we came to scandal was a few years back when we ran an ad featuring a patient in a dentist's chair with a headline that read, "Let's see, church? Root canal? Church? Root canal... for some people it's a tough choice." That one spurred a nasty email, though not from a church person. It came from an offended dentist. Turns out, I am truly an anti-dentite.

So I was a little surprised last week when a friend in town showed me an email that was circulating through his church. The writer warned that "the Emerging Church is sneaking in all around us" and that we must "follow Jesus alone" (apparently emerging churches do not follow Jesus). Attached to the email was a scanned copy of one of our newspaper ads. Scribbled across it was the frenetic warning, "Beware the Emerging Church." The image of a reptilian creature rising from a latte swamp, sporting an algae soul patch and a graphic tee, comes to mind.

While my friend thought I would be upset, instead I was hysterical with laughter. I kept picturing a "Beautiful Mind"-like scene of some guy in a shed clipping out church newspaper ads and mumbling, "Must stop emerging church. Must stop emerging church." Frankly, the amazing thing about this incident, is that most typical churchgoers cannot figure out how to attach anything to an email. Just my luck one of the few who can targets my church. Don't believe me? Scan your inbox for how many messages you have from your church or denomination with the subject line "Oops! Forgot the Attachment."

Oddly enough, Vision has never used any conjugation of the verb "emerge" in any of our ads. My theory is that this fear of Vision all began in someone's inbox. Sandwiched between warnings of hypodermic needles hidden in the coin return slots of pay phones and claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim, this person read an email claiming that different Christianity equals Emergent, and Emergent equals dangerous. Informed only by anti-emergent websites, they went looking for an "Exhibit A" and found it in my church.

How ironic that Emergent, which is often criticized for not defining itself, can be so easily defined by its critics. I propose a new tag line for, to use a New Jersey term, "this thing of ours." Rather than "Emergent: A Generative Friendship," I propose "Emergent: We're like pornography. You know it when you see it." When I attended a Christian high school in the late seventies, anything deemed different or threatening to the faith was labeled "Secular Humanism" (including, believe it or not, the Bill of Rights). Like pornography, you knew Secular Humanism when you saw it. The ability to know it (heresy) when you saw it is what defined a true belief. For many Christians the working definition of heresy is "things I didn't already think about God." It seems the term "Emergent" has now filled that function of apostasy accusation du jour, the theo-porn whose books wayward believers hide under their mattresses and whose web sites are deleted from their browser histories. No need to explore it. You know it when you see it.

To be honest, I don't mind my church being labeled "Emergent," especially when used as a term of derision. My heroes have always been heretics; Wesley, Luther, Galileo... Jesus. I am proud to pastor a church that invites questions, and embraces the deep complexity of truth found in a life of following Jesus. Since my denominational colleagues give me little attention or support, I value highly the friendships I have made in the emerging church community. Although I am not quite ready to break out into a chorus of I'm turning E-mergent, oh yes I'm turning E-mergent, I really think so, my life has been enriched by this conversation. Uh oh, I used the word "conversation," a telltale sign of emergents. Only talking devil-snakes and gay men have "conversations." You know it when you see it.

After asking around town, I discovered that the email "emerged" from a member of a local Precept (more-Bible-verses-makes-it-more-truer) Bible study. No surprise that a group that views biblical truth as a fill-in-the-blank proposition would find our church so dangerous. In contrast, Vision sees following Jesus as more like an essay question. Uh oh, open-ended answers. You know it when you see it.

Yet I must empathize with Vision's critics since we are always in danger of being like them. Just when they caught up and installed their video screens and rock bands, Christianity morphed yet again. Someday, we may find ourselves in the same position, fearing an unknown future. Hear the cautionary tale of Grandpa Simpson when he told Homer, "I was with it once. Then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it. And what's it seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you!"

Hmmm, that's sounds like a call to humility, another one of those Emergent heresies. You know it when you see it.

Beware.

Comments

[Maria Clara Macedo]

Great response!

[Ronnie McBrayer]

As one who has heard many of the same criticisms yet has never used the word "emergent" to describe myself or my congregation, I found this piece to be spot-on.

Thanks!

[tim Suttle]

Great story! Your "emergent is like pornography: you know it when you see it" is brilliant humor. I needed to read something like this today.

Thanks!

tim suttle
timsuttle.blogspot.com

[Gustavo Frederico]

Great text! BTW, is there a way to see the ad featuring the patient in the dentist's chair?

[Makeesha]

This came to my inbox this morning and I had to come here to comment - I love your way with words - that was so entertaining to read and also provided the common experience. Thanks

[nathan]

Loved this.
Thank you.

[Tracy Pace]

Love your writing!

It's hard for people to remember the church as they know it is just a fragment of Jesus' teachings, and that amongst world Christians there has been tacit agreement to drop the global issue of 'one true church', though if pushed all scholars have known that many organisations call themselves just that and secretly dismiss the others as 'not real Christians'.

Why it comes up now that we must emerge again is the very issue of global community, which enters our very homes through the computer daily: thus is converting someone to Christianity getting them to abandon their culture and traditions? Because we haven't abandoned ours- each faith interpretation comes with its own cultural base- if you go to one church you will have a different experience than in another, in Jesus' name.

And people are still around the world committing cruelty because they have been taught to hate or to fear someone who is different, or appears so.

Of course, the experience Jesus meant people to have was to openly love God and each other, to transcend our earthly ego experiences. He didn't intend them to abandon their religion: 'Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'

But I was studying the concept of 'saved' from the 4 th century yesterday and quoted from CS Lewis on Athanasius: 'He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius—into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.'

What Lewis and other apologists forget is the times don't move away, the church just becomes isolated from the times, or we must force people to comply- traditionally by using violence or superstition. How far is that from Jesus?

If what you are doing is Jesus' work- caring, healing, teaching good communal values to overcome the godless part of our human natures, that is what will endure when the times pass, for as your blog title suggests all creation begins with nothing, and that is what God is ultimately I guess- the something outside the nothing!

Good article, don't worry about cries of heresy, so long as what you are doing is good and love- of God, of Jesus' teachings- it will be fine. When the critics trust you, you have done well- for in trusting you they are really trusting the God who inspired you. But to trust them back? That's the hard part, and how we learn empathy! Otherwise it's just the same thing-'you really must think and do as I do'.

What about instead of 'I'm right, you're wrong' we say 'we're all somewhat right, somewhat wrong'....

[Don Heatley]

Thanks all for taking the time to comment here and also to those who emailed me with both compliments and concerns. Thanks Tracy for the thoughtful post.

I think many of us struggle with how to describe who and where we are in our journey of following Jesus. It's a great day when I get to meet all of you through your blogs and discover more about who you all are. Come back to the blog and often, listen to the Vision podcast and tell your friends. I'm trying to develop some traffic here. Keep the conversation going!

[Jake Bouma]

Don, thanks for this. I was particularly moved by the phrase "How ironic that Emergent, which is often criticized for not defining itself, can be so easily defined by its critics." When it comes down to it, you can't critique that which you can't define. Once "they" have successfully put "us" in a box, they can more easily write us off. Too bad that the us/them dichotomy is one of the very walls we're trying to crumble.

Anyway, I have subscribed to your blog, added you to my blogroll, and I just posted a link to this post. Hopefully you get a few clickthroughs. Thanks again!

[Thomas aka Headphonaught]

Hey Don... I am one of Jake's "Click Throughs" and am glad I spent my breakfast reading this post. What strikes me is the graciousness of it... you never attack the others and that is God-honouring.

What we all seem to forget in this "battle" is 1 John 4:20 - let's fight the enemy and not each other.

Blessings

Thomas

[sonja]

I'm another one of Jake's click throughs ...

I'm glad you're able to face these storms with a sense of humor; that's healthy. The knee-jerk response to things that are different often reminds me of a line I heard on Battlestar Galatica the other night, "... they inhale fear and exhale anger."

That's not healthy ...

[Don Heatley]

Thanks for the kind comments about being gracious and humorous - and for the click-throughs. I need to add something similar to this blog. Sometimes the church has difficulty with humor and often sees it as inherently mean-spirited (unless it's just plain goofy youth group humor). I didn't anticipate the article resonating with so many people.

[Mike]

Please read GK Chesterton's _Heretics_. I don't think Galileo, Wesley, Luther, or Jesus would call themselves heretics - they thought the Catholics and Pharisees were heretics.

Also, my beef with the so-called "emerging church" has nothing to do with heresy. It's just plain dumb. I have read Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan, M-Ponty, Wittgenstein, etc. I know the litany re: linguistic constructs of reality, etc. Please take my word for it: postmodernism is a joke. In all of my philosophy classes, if anyone so much as mentioned it, they were laughed to scorn.

Please also google the Sokal incident. In 1996 he showed the lit crits, and their love affair with all that is postmodern, to be a sham.

Finally, if you have time, take a look at Marshall Berman's _All That is Solid Melts Into Air_. Berman's analysis of 19th century intellectuals' thoughts on modernism pretty much show postmodernism for a recycled philosophy....called Modernism.

[Mike]

(from Chesterton, the intro to _Heretics_):

"Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause."

I'm sorry, but when pressed to decide between the unmistakably sensible words of Chesterton, and those affiliated with the emerging/emergent church, I will have to go with those who actually have an understanding of history and literature, and avoid those who quote episodes of Battlestar Gallactica!

We are not meant to go with the times. Any cursory reading of the New Testament and any glance at the history of the Church shows the opposite is true.

[Don Heatley]

I'm unaware of anyone claiming to be a heretic. I am not and certainly don't consider myself one. My article referred to being labeled as one and not being bothered by it. I then listed some people who were labeled as such and are now considered as having been right (although I would never consider myself in the same league as any of them). From the quote you provided, it seems Chesterton was referring to a different type of situation.

Quoting popular culture is not inherently inferior to what a particular group defines as history or literature. One century's pop culture can easily become a subsequent century's history. Neither is making a pop culture reference endorsing everything about said culture. So claiming Chesterton must be right simply because of his status vs Battlestar Galactica is not very persuasive. It would be like criticizing Jesus for using seeds and flowers (pop culture of his day?) as examples in his parables , instead of quoting the respected rabbis of his time.

Also, I don't know many Christians who believe in going with the times just for the sake of going with the times. I believe in going with what God is doing in our time and where God is calling us in our time. Sometimes, that will be very different from what we were called to do in another time. Hence, "Behold I am doing a new thing. Do you not perceive it?"

Oh, and I am familiar with the Sokal incident. I majored in film at an art school 25 years ago and encountered a lot of emperor's new clothes ideas. It was tempting to just dismiss anything artsy as mere BS. However I learned not to be so hasty and my life has been enriched by that realization. Similarly, the Sokal incident or the opinions of a philosophy class do not justify dismissing everything about postmodern thought, or people who espouse some postmodern philosophy or are only guilty of quoting one of them in their books. If I agree with an insight by a biblical scholar who utilizes a postmodern literary technique, it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything that Derrida or Foucault ever said and that therefore the scholar's original insight must be wrong.

Anyway, thanks for contributing your ideas and thoughts to the blog. It just proves that intelligent Jesus followers can come to differing conclusions about these things.

[Mike]

I'm sorry, but writing "my heroes have always been heretics" achieves the same effect as saying "I suppose I am very heretical", and looking around for applause. In Chesterton's case, the speaker is also not-quite-serious; and if pressed would, like you, claim not to be heretical at all.

Btw, I'm not claiming you are heretical. I just don't think Galileo or Luther would have joked about being a heretic.

I don't know what the mention of seeds and flowers has to do with pop culture (poppy culture? :) but Jesus did quote extensively from the Psalms and Genesis. I think Psalsms and Genesis would have been considered literature. But I do agree with you: Shakespeare in his own time had not the scholarly scent he does in ours. So please don't think I'm turning my nose up at science fiction.

Going with the times - that, like the Battlestar Gallactica point, came from other posts. But would you mind giving the source for your quote: "Behold I am doing a new thing. Do you not perceive it?" Just curious about the context.

Can you give me an example of a postmodern literary technique, as opposed to a modern literary critique? And if you could - what does "postmodern" mean, anyways?

Forgive me, but I am sensitive to the use of words. Just as you are probably sensitive to the use of images, being a former film student. So this last thing you say, that "intelligent" (I like that, thanks!) followers of Jesus can come to different conclusions on things....yes, but not on essential things....don't you think?

[Tracy Pace]

Mike, very interesting points, but how can postmodernism be merely 'dumb'? It is an attempt to define and redefine realities, given a confusing name. That's not new concept-either shifts in perceptions, or definitions, nor naming periods in history, even somewhat inaccurately.

What it means is basically a philosophy of questioning the assumed certainties of received wisdom, post-scientific knowledge. It's a critique of absolutism, a focus on relative truth knowledge. Reality through perception, necessarily changeable and infallible. And difficult to define succinctly, so likely to be called 'dumb'?!

Jesus did indeed call himself a heretic by his own era's blasphemy: 'I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.' We are told in the scriptures this is the only 'crime' the high priests could find in Jesus, he knows it will condemn him yet he remains firm in his conviction.

All religious beliefs are heresies to someone at some point in history! The word comes from the Greek and Latin verbs for 'to choose'.

As for followers of Jesus coming to the same conclusions, or having to, I disagree. I am a Unitarian, others are Trinitarians- possibly because of 'sensitivity to words' which people have interpreted variously and held fast to. When I studied I saw a different gospel to the one i know others see.

Postmodern thought can help people realise they are seeing their convicted beliefs through cultural, psychological, historical and educational distortions
( post-modernist thought critiques particularly increasing ignorance and dependence upon popular culture for education and information )

The emergent schools of Christian thought can help people move to where individual creed each informs the other, instead of the competetive concepts of spirituality we have entertained before:

'now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.'

How, practically? The passage tells us: love. 'Love anyway'- let it go. Each can worship together yet believe separately...which I firmly believe we do anyway, in reality, beneath the veneer of religions.

A postmodern literary interpretation of the scripture would focus on the formation of the text, who wrote it, their personalities and perspective, how it comes to be interpreted or translated so, what is the meaning of it in those contexts, not merely trying to define it once and for all time. Which was the modernistic approach- answers. Such details would once have been seen as extraneous. Not always though!

Postmodern critique raises questions as answers, even if they may never be fully answerable to us here, as with some of the divine mysteries our religions have tried to describe.

Thus in the matter of religion there are not necessarily absolutes- which of course is what people are often looking for, that elusive 'gnosis'...

[Mike]

Tracy, thanks for the time to answer some of my questions.

The significance of the term "postmodern" still isn't very clear, though - at one point you say it involves defining things, and at another you say it isn't particularly interested in defining things.

You also mention something called "post-scientific knowledge". What is this, and how does it differ from regular scientific knowledge?

And how is the postmodern approach to literature different than the 19th century approach to literature, particularly in Germany? I think scholars there began studying the very same things you call unique to postmodernism.

If you could provide some authors you're using, it would be much appreciated!

[Mike]

Tracy, here's a description of critical hermeneutics as borne of a modernist mindset in the 19th century:

"The new philosophy of the object is founded on the thoughts of the German philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818-1883), the German philosopher and philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900), and the Austrian physician and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). These theorists demonstrated that textuality can be infiltrated with power and forces that are formerly considered extraneous to it and practically innocuous. Specifically, Marx argued that textuality can be warped by capitalist and class-based ideologies; Nietzsche, by cultural norms; and Freud, by the unconscious. These extraneous powers and forces are capable of penetrating deep into the text, by weaving into its linguistic fabric. Thus, even without the cultural and temporal distances that made romanticist hermeneutics anxious, or even without the differences of life-worlds that bothered both phenomenological and dialectical hermeneutics, there is no guarantee for the reader to be brought side by side with the truth/meaning of a text, because textuality can be veiled by ideology and false consciousness. The goal of this hermeneutic system is to diagnose the hidden pathology of texts and to free them from their ideological distortions."

How does this compare to your postmodern method?

[Tracy Pace]

Examples of people who have provided postmodern critique I have read: Paul Tillich, Margaret Attwood, Samuel Beckett, Albert Camus, Jacques Derrida, umberto Eco, William Faulkner, Michel Foucault, Søren Kierkegaard, Gabriel García Márquez, Scott Momaday, Martin Amis, Toni Morrison, Salmon Rushdie, even childrens' authors Lemony Snickett and Roald Dahl with my son! There are lots more I am sure, and other informative writings I haven't looked at yet- Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein as you say.

Many of the modern Christian ideas are re-workings of the ancient philosophies and debates of people like Plato, Socrates, Augustine etc.

'at one point you say it involves defining things, and at another you say it isn't particularly interested in defining things.'

words are incomplete communication Mike, which is one of the obvious features of post-modern life, the influence of existentialism and the meaning of meaning! Gnosis- the complete knowledge of all things- is not given to us, is it.

The concept of 'post-scientific' is an examination, not necessarily rejection, of the scientific paradigm. An example of that might be the latest approaches to health or wellbeing which incorporate spiritual notions or the self-regulating human body. Medical doctors are still largely trained with a functionalist model of 'identify a problem and fix it' so they might use techniques of medication, surgery, have a set notion of what is good dietary recommendation ( how often does that change ) As opposed to someone say like Louise Hay who would recommend mantras over medicine, identifying your own subconscious role in a sickness, and self-healing techniques & the diet which works for you.

Jacques Derrida used the word 'deconstruction' in the 60s to break down our 'inside the box' notions of assumed reason. He said of language: 'As soon as there is language, generality has entered the scene.' It has to, for common ground of communication.

Upon detailed examination, one person's interpretation is going to vary from another's, the reason we never had common Christianity, it was coming from various cultures and goals right from the start.

Yes, Nietsche informed all this developing thought- but it's important to bear in mind that the whole of it points to the extra dimensions of language, shared meaning and even values which are not so concrete as they seem. To quote Nietsche as an absolute authority would also be a mistake: it is a model, and opinion, even poetry at times. But by it's own argument equally likely to be flawed, or misunderstood, or practically unhelpful!

Textuality in religion is often hidden: the various branches thinking they have the 'one true' interpretation for example; or the swaying of translation in favour of a societal model, which changes over time.

An example of this might be the eucharist, which began with a blessing in which Jesus forewarns his coming death 'you do this in remembrance of me' through the early apostle's guidance of keeping the agape love feasts respectable and godly, to today's ritual in which people pretend to drink the blood etc.

Even within that is more hidden meaning- at one church I went to the pastor spoke on this at length and said he himself 'keeps an open table' so anyone can participate if they are called to. I asked him 'what should the people do who are called not to drink it?' and he said all should participate- it's one of their 'sacraments', symbol of unity; so it wasn't that open then!

The problem with advanced hermenutics Mike is that it gets convoluted, obfuscating, but there are two main things to remember:

*what I believe or perceive is just that;
*there will always be another way to look at this, even where it is not apparent right now!

That's the role I see the emerging church having, to help bring people together in the same way Jesus did, in his multi-faith multi-cultural world, by saying that stuff doesn't matter, you will always have your disagreements and perspectives about that, but here is the way to God, through the simplest teachings about love and generosity and tolerance.

People being people always want to complicate and control things, and not everyone is interested to look at things in depth. Many people in history have just wanted someone to lead them, even astray, and didn't Jesus also foretell that too?!

Examining ideological distortion and the pathology in text is absolutely a goal of post-modern Christians such as myself, who have decided to put away quarrels about who owns what, who gets to be in charge, by whose authority we speak except God's. Some balance to the rising dual fundamentalism of the world's two religions, which have brought so much suffering already.

That's what God is to me I guess, the balance of all things, external to ourselves. And Jesus said the peacemakers were the children of God, but many interpretations of the scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths will still lead to violence and intolerance. Rituals have a power of their own for influencing people, and I hear often people using history as justification against revisionism, even where they know their resources are flawed or incomplete.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

To Jesus we were all the children of God, every single one of us.

Religion in and of itself is not enough, any religion. And it all comes from the use of words, of which I have used sufficient myself for one day!

[Mike]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be masking Unitarian theology with postmodern philosophy. You mention a whole lot of things here, and quite honestly I don't know how they fit together. But I will say this: gnosis is not complete knowledge, it is hidden knowledge that only the "elect" have attained. These were the gnostics the apostle John warned about in his writings. I tend to think that finding "hidden meanings" in scripture or sacrament, and not taking either at face value, is dangerously close to gnosticism. This, coupled with your mentions of wholistic medicine, lead me to believe, again, that your theology is driving your philosophy. You want things to be open-ended in terms of truth because you've already decided that truth is open-ended.

I'm really not concerned with your theology; I'm just curious where you get your philosophy, and what you mean by "postmodern". So far you have described modernism, but I will check out some of the authors you've mentioned...well, maybe not the children's authors, but then I don't have kids :)

[Tracy Pace]

Mike, I'm not 'masking' anything; I just don't accept that there is a received 'Christianity' in the post-modern era, just a lot of separate faiths some which originated from Christianity; and that indeed there are many things which are beginning to come together spiritually and inform our religions.

Through holistic medicine I think I understand what Jesus and other healers have done in history, and the healing miracles I have heard tell of in simpler cultures today. There is definitely a mind-body connection to healing, and even if we are healed from one thing without a holistic spiritual approach our bodies seem to just get sick again.

I'm not referring to gnosticism as a philosophy or religion, but the concept of gnosis as a human goal. The ancient goal of investigative learning and wisdom thereof!

I don't see anything 'dangerous' about gnosticism or any other belief system though. How can anything be more dangerous than what we've done with the Abrahamic faiths already?!

If you are thinking about Christian writing start with Kierkegaard. My favourite writer on healing and spirituality is Joel Goldsmith.

And Roald Dahl is a delightful author of moral tales for all ages- in 2000 years that will be part of our mythology I am sure!

[Mike]

Tracy, do you believe Jesus Christ lived, died, and was raised from the dead? Did he perform miracles? Do you believe miracles can occur?

I really don't think you do. I think the more we talk philosophy, the more we'll discover our vast differences in theology.

As for how your theology comes through in your philosophy - how couldn't it, especially if the presuppositions of postmodern criticism, as mentioned by you, must take into account how the institution of the Unitarian church has injected certain power relations into the culture you inhabit, as well as your psyche, which is a product of said culture.

In short, what makes your beliefs less susceptible to deconstruction than the beliefs of ordinary people throughout history?

Even more to the point, how can you ever rise above a de-centered postmodern subject assumed to be caught in a web of meta-narratives when that de-centered postmodern subject is you?

[Tracy Pace]

'how can you ever rise above a de-centered postmodern subject assumed to be caught in a web of meta-narratives when that de-centered postmodern subject is you?'

you can't. All knowledge/beliefs/perceptions are contextual. That is the point about post-modernism- even science can be deconstructed and thought about beyond the parameters of science.

'Do you believe miracles can occur?'

yes, I see them every day in my work- 'the healing touch'. It doesn't cure the Alzheimer's though, but people will unexpectedly get up and walk and talk and share something wonderful.

I am glad you are interested in my theology after all, I am interested in yours; it is very important to me to respect and understand others, for ourselves as much as them: 'if you love only them that love you, what good does it do you?'

'what makes your beliefs less susceptible to deconstruction than the beliefs of ordinary people throughout history?'

why does it matter? It is God or spirit- whatever people call it- and it is transient, why do I need to be permanent or more than ordinary? I don't need to be a God in my own right, or to create any, or make anyone bow to it.

[Mike]

You ask why it matters if your beliefs are products of something outside yourself which you cannot (Weber's cage, Foucault's panopticon) escape. Well, it means you might be wrong without ever knowing it. It means there really is not right and wrong - only power relations.

And if that's the case, any thinking man or woman would quickly see it's better to have more power than less power in a world like that.

Christianity offers escape from the world of lust, power, and greed - in a word, sin. It doesn't embrace it.

If postmodernism leads to anything, it leads to nihilism. I don't know what you've been reading in Foucault, but he wasn't exactly a bright ray of sunshine in the world of philosophy. He studied asylums and prisons - and concluded that the whole world was a prison, from which we cannot escape.

Can you explain how you get tolerance and respect, or love, out of that worldview?

I realize that as a Unitarian, delaying the arrival of absolute truths is very convenient. If there are no creeds, if the Bible isn't the word of God, if there are no absolutes, then this opens a lot of doors to other faiths. This is a time to experiment, to see if the faiths can combine. It's based on a healthy skepticism with the goal of creating a better world.

But postmodernism is nihilism. We're trapped, that's it.

But if you can direct me to some actual texts written by Foucault that justify moral values like tolerance and respect, I would have to change my mind.

[Tracy Pace]

'any thinking man or woman would quickly see it's better to have more power than less power in a world like that.'

oh, I am a thinking woman!

Power is largely in the mind Mike. What we believe about ourselves creates our reality in terms of 'thy faith hath made thee whole'. That's the component of healing which is often missing in the scientific model, and a person will get sick again and again when that sickness is a manifestation of their subconscious missing wellbeing.

Most doctors are recognising some aspect in this now at least, whereas if you went to a doctor in my country 20 years ago and said stress or unhappiness was making you sick they would have laughed and said no!

'Can you explain how you get tolerance and respect, or love, out of that worldview?'

Out of Foucault's worldview? He wrote a lot, and his ideas developed and changed as he aged, he wrote on religion a book called 'Religion and Culture', and he saw his work as many writers and scholars do today, more a set of tools for thinking and critique. He came up with the concept of 'statement' in examining what makes things meaningful and he said 'we create ourselves as a work of art.

He wrote a large body of work about health and healthcare, institutions, epistomology and sexuality ( unfinished ) as well as his famous stuff on punishment; he believed 'Man will be totally and definitively cured only if he is first liberated'. He saw this as political liberation from poverty and powerlessness- which is not merely sociological to me, but as much a spiritual matter! I think as we see here in the US being wealthy and able to choose does not necessarily make people feel free- I know people who are educated and capable who do not see themselves as so, and might as well not be therefore...

To him power had changed over history away from biological imperatives for survival towards more personal choice, but he saw excess as being not necessarily sinful but probably dangerous, for the society and the individual.

He saw sex as spiritual: 'We have to understand that with our desires, through our desires, go new forms of relationships, new forms of love, new forms of creation. Sex is not a fatality; it's a possibility for creative life.'

One of his later speeches he said:

'The point of departure. My intention was not to deal with the problem of truth, but with the problem of truth-teller or truth-telling as an activity....what I wanted to show you was that if Greek philosophy has raised the question of truth from the point of view of the criteria for true statements and sound reasoning, this same Greek philosophy has also raised the problem of truth from the point of view of truth-telling as an activity. It has raised questions like: Who is able to tell the truth? What are the moral, the ethical, and the spiritual conditions which entitle someone to present himself as, and to be considered as, a truth-teller?'

Jesus was a truth-teller, for his ( own ) words stand up to various interpretations and remain true, also from the ethical standpoint that he really believes in what he teaches.

The Bible is only the word of God when it is interpreted in the light of God, and many people who have chosen to interpret it through history wove that with their own agendas and beliefs to the point of taking it away from a teaching about God and love.

In that, Christian religion has been quite nihilistic so far- substituting the moral values of Jesus Christ with other ideas, in some eras destroying part of his sacrificial legacy, and doing it with deliberation too, as though a spiritual relationship with divinity as he taught is not enough.

I think some people do still believe people are too stupid to reason these things for themselves, yet which of us does not wish to raise their family in peace, and share positive experiences and relationships with each other? Almost all do. Yet religious teachers throughout history almost refuse to accept this and propose instead some form of recompense for suffering.

My argument for interfaith- people should be free to pray and respond as they are called, not converted to save them from the concept of hell or to make a bigger church- and then lead into unkindness themselves.

Maybe in the early days of Christianity people were afraid that there were no means of preserving ideas intact; also their superstitions must have been greater without the scientific explanations of our universe we take for granted. We are told in Roman literature that there was a huge movement of self-sacrifice in the first and second centuries, people being violently martyred who were ready to die to go immediately to God.

One famous Foucault quote is:

'The work of an intellectual is not to mould the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and to participate in the formation of political will.'

I certainly don't think Foucault ever saw himself as a moral leader or anything other than a lecturer, writer and philosopher, and never as a martyr!

[Mike]

Tracy, challenging the power structures of the day by attacking objective truth, declaring that "man is dead", and living a life unmodified by morals (i.e. having numerous sexual encounters with complete strangers in San Francisco bathhouses), will end, if Foucault's life is any indication, in pessimism, powerlessness, and AIDS.

I really have no idea why orthodox Christians would want anything to do with a philosophy that assumes the problem of inescapable relativism (epistemological and moral) and then offers the solution of simply accepting it as a wonderful means of liberation.

But that is because orthodox Christianity, in a postmodernist's vernacular, is the leading mete-narrative of the day. Other "stories" have been marginalized as orthodoxy arose, almost as shadows to a sunrise.

Let me offer this: perhaps orthodoxy prevailed, not because those in power decided so, but because it was, and is, true.

Christianity isn't nihilistic. Unitarian Christianity is too optimistic, in my opinion. Christianity is realistic, and for something to be real, it must be true.

By questioning truth at the outset, postmodernism prevents us from seeing things as they are. We can only attain a number of perspectives, none of which are valued, except as being closer or farther away from power. And as you mentioned, power is in the mind - solipsism is the result.

It happened to Nietzsche, as well as Foucault. Thinking in isolation and pride will only end in idiocy. And while you play with these philosophies to knock the mitre of pontifical man, his head is coming off with it.

[Tracy Pace]

'Judge not lest you be judged'!

I think it's all manifestation of the divine frankly- without 'different' thinkers like Foucault to challenge our received ideas and notions of truth one fanaticism or another would reign, or thought would cease to develop. In that he provides balance!

The world has had plenty of people who would say 'I have THE truth' and not 'I have SOME truth' and cause great suffering to others- even in Jesus' name of love- in order to impose their worldview.

Questioning an aspect of the social order is not nihilism. Foucault was not an advocate of nihilism- he was a writer and researcher who 'unworked things' to get at them. Nietsche was not a nihilist- he just wrote about the effects of nihilism as he saw it.

We are all the products of stories, Mike- our own and the ones people make about us. I know to the core of my being I have no right to feel that my story is in any way superior to another person's, or that the truths I have gleaned from my own life necessarily apply the same way to another.

We can tell someone: pray and love others- which is what Jesus said. But what God will manifest to them, and how they should conceive of God; I know I don't know that! That's not solipsism, that's fact: 'You cannot see my face: no living man shall see me.'

I do believe if someone commits an act of hatred or evil and says they are simply doing God's will, there is something wrong there- that's not being too optimistic, that's believing in a God of Love.

In that I *have* been influenced by Jesus more than anything. He pointed out to us the difference we can make in the world by manifesting God and love, he taught that we are loved, the children of God.

The ancients couldn't always feel that maybe, when the world was a scary place pre-scientific knowledge, they tried to make sense of it and control it with superstition and rituals. Now we have to re-work their religion, or stay with faith which justifies superstition and fear, retains a lack of trust in the spiritual, in God.

Even the strongest faith must lose superstition or every difficult thing which ever happens feels like some disruption to the relationship with God!

I believe everyone can keep their faiths and traditions if they can lose the idea that there is but one way- the one way Jesus advocated wasn't to grow new religions or end old ones, but to turn from idolatry and make a personal relationship with God.

Our stories contain truths, but they cannot be called 'the truth' in a simple way, for they are many and variable.

And that incidentally is the same way I'd explain the apparent discrepencies in the Bible texts, of other religious texts. It's all meant to balance each other out, somewhere along the way!

All is well.

*

It's been interesting discussing this with you Mike, God Bless!

[Mike]

"I believe everyone can keep their faiths and traditions if they can lose the idea that there is but one way...."

"At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance."

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but through me." -- Jesus Christ

Tracy, to lose the idea that Christianity is the way, is no to lose an idea - it is to lose Christianity.

Best of luck to you, and I thank you also for the interesting discussion.

[Tracy Pace]

'Tracy, to lose the idea that Christianity is the way, is no to lose an idea - it is to lose Christianity.'

I don't mind losing Christianity as it has been, I am patiently looking for the Christianity to come- the one for all people, based only on love and living the teachings of Jesus Christ about God and the good life.

I have never worshipped him as a God but I feel very close to his ideas and he lives in so many people I have met. Not always evangelists though- the attachment to concepts of hell and punishment can easily hijack a person's goodness- and not always people of Christian religion.

I know that people can be strong representatives of Christ who never profess Christianity. How so, and why, I don't know.
'God works in mysterious ways' as William Cowper said- 'Purpose ripens'the more we show compassion.

It *has* been a good discussion, I better get on with some other work now! Take care.

[Mike]

"...only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse." _Orthodoxy_

Once again, I'm at a loss as to how you use your sources, Tracy. Cowper suffered from severe depression, experienced insanity, spent two years in a mental asymlum, attempted suicide at least three times, and died quite miserably in 1800. I don't know why you refer such platitudes (actually, he wrote God "moves", not works, in mysterious ways) and such disdain for the hijacking concepts of hell, as you call it, when Cowper believed he was constantly on the verge of going there.

Sorry to post again (I promise I'm done!), but I just can't help myself after reading your last post. As the proverb goes, where there are many words sin is not absent - so really, take care and please take a gander at _Orthodoxy_.

[Tracy Pace]

it's compulsive to keep going isn't it...but there is something unpleasantly judgemental about your use of language and your perception of things Mike: William Cowper wasn't 'mad', neither are most people with mental illnesses!

He suffered depression, largely brought about by excessive religiousity, he feared hell and damnation. If I had known him I would have reassured him categorically to put such medieval notions from his mind! What suffering we cause to others in our determination to be in control...

It was his phrase abour purpose ripening which made me think of him, his sensitivity lead to some beautiful thoughtful writing:

'Nature imprints upon whate’er we see,
That has a heart and life in it, Be free!'

[Steve K.]

Don, thanks for writing this piece. I hope you liked the "illustrated version" I posted over on the EV blog. Grace and peace.

[Chris Burgett]

I'm another one of Jake's click throughs ...

Really appreciated your comments. It reminds me of a Pastor I once learned under who would often criticize from the pulpit and then get upset when he felt others criticize him. I regret looking back and realizing I was one of the people who criticized him, and I've had to seek forgiveness. We are so quick to categorize and condemn and aren't always so willing to give grace to others to be who they are. It seems to me to be the church's version of "racism", we place stereotypes on others and show no grace in the process. Anyways, thanks for the great article and thanks for being full of grace when others would criticize and categorize you.

[Don Heatley]

Thanks Chris. Not so sure I have always been as graceful as I could be, but I'll continue to try - with God's grace