I lasted all of about two pages into my first CLP reading material before I found my head exploding with newfound insight.
I don't want to change. I like my theology where it is. Its not complicated. I don't need to be challenged.
I've been thinking lately that there was some piece of the equation that I was missing - some elusive tidbit that could help me to understand how come my Christianity doesn't sound like anyone else's description of the religion. Two pages into my first CLP reading and there was the answer. But...
I don't want to change. I like my theology where it is. Its not complicated. I don't need to be challenged.
I was watching Stephen Hawking's latest science program on the science channel explaining why there is no need for God in the equations explaining how the universe was created and how it continues to evolve and exist... except that his explanation was so fantastical that it made most religious explanations for the origins of the universe look almost boring by comparison. How does one explain to a great mind like Stephen Hawking that he may have math on his side, but his explanation of how the universe works makes it EVEN MORE likely that God had a hand in it? Why is it that great minds insist that there is no God when the evidence is all around them staring them in the face? These questions have left me thinking about the short comings of my own religion and wondering how one counteracts the general disbelief in the most obvious things in the modern world... and it made me realize that...
I don't want to change. I like my theology where it is. Its not complicated. I don't need to be challenged.
So here I am... two pages into my first article and I read that our job as theologians is to read the scripture, interpret it, and then seek feed back from the rest of the congregation - to create a dialog with Christ at the center (I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here). It was that last part, the part about the feedback, that suddenly made me realize what piece of the puzzle I'd been missing. I read the rest of the article with great relish... I was actually learning something NEW about religion - something I had suspected was out there but that I hadn't yet articulated in my own mind... And Then The Breaks Went On And...
I don't want to change. I like my theology where it is. Its not complicated. I don't need to be challenged.
What The Heck?! One article and my faith is being changed. One article and my theology is being advanced. One article and my world view is becoming more complicated (and simplified at the same time, but only if I stop resisting). One article and I'm already being challenged! Is this what I signed up for? Is This What God Had In Mind For ME?
I don't want to change. I like my theology where it is. Its not complicated. I don't need to be challenged.
Where is this all going? How much does God expect me to change? Will I become some sort of Christian Zombie parroting back theology to the masses? Will there be any part of Will left? Am I being transformed against my will?
I imagine Frodo was perfectly fine with leaving the Shire with Sam, perfectly fine with packing up his sack, grabbing some maps, taking the ring, and heading for some far off tavern to meet Gandalf. It was probably all perfectly fine until the Ring Wraiths arrived and Frodo had the first inkling that perhaps all was not perfectly fine, that this was a journey that he wasn't likely to embark upon and return the exact same person. This was not some trip to the market, or the bar, or even to visit a distant cousin... this was a journey of transformation. And between running for the Buckland Ferry and dodging dark horse hooves, I wonder if the dawning realization caused Frodo to pause, even momentarily, and wonder if it wasn't too late to turn around and head back to the Shire.
But, of course, he couldn't. And, of course, I can't... nor do we really want to. Frodo must know that this is the time to embrace his destiny... and so, for what ever reason, it is time for me to become whatever it is that God wishes me to become.
I'm ready to change. I'm ready to take my theology to new places. I'm ready to embrace a complicated world view. I'm ready to be challenged.
And so, I say... bring on the next article and let the transformation begin.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Monday, October 01, 2012
Cloud Contemplation #1
Question: Out of the four sources for Christian theology - Scripture, the Christian tradition, reason (and philosophy), and contemporary human experience (including the sciences), which two are most important for you and you do theology, and why?
This is the first question I must answer in my CLP training. Of course, there are readings to read, and lots of thoughts and studies to contemplate before I write my two page double spaced essay, but I was wondering how to answer this question just off the bat. I figure that before I can have my mind changed and my perspective broadened, I need to figure out where I stand in the debate to begin with. And I thought I'd share that with my fellow travelers because I value your opinions and vastly different experiences to help me shape my thinking on the subject. You may not make me see eye to eye with you, but you can at least illuminate corners of the argument that I might miss in the shadows of my ignorance. We'll call this exercise Cloud Contemplation... a modern study method utilizing the latest in social technology.
Hmm... Well, obviously Scripture is very important. Its probably not the only method of knowing God's will, but it's certainly one of the most definitive. The challenge with Scripture is not in its definitiveness, but in its definition. How it is defined seems to be determined mostly by cultural and temporal preferences. The same written passage can probably be interpreted several different ways. It seems that for such an inefficient form of communication to be considered the ONE and ONLY definitive truth of God is asking for theological stagnation and misinterpretation. But then again, perhaps God made the word flesh to transform such an inefficient form of communication into a perfect one. If the written text serves as nothing more than a way to identify Jesus as the one true authority on all things, then it has done its job.
The Christian Tradition is a curious thing in and of itself. I'm not quite sure how to define it. Are we talking about the things we have always done as having some weight over the things we have yet to do? I've found that looking backwards while moving forwards is the one guaranteed way to stumble. On the other hand, while going from Point A to Point Z, it's probably a good idea to remember Point A - if for no other reason than to judge how far you've come. Or are we talking about those things that define us as a religion - church structure and baptism and prayer and the like? To be honest, I haven't really given those much thought. It's sort of like asking a newcomer to the sport of baseball what he feels about the Infield Fly rule. A) It's such a loaded question. And B) Its such an integral part of the game that contemplation of it is way too complicated at this point. I can't weigh how I feel about baptism because I can't separate it out from everything else at this point. Baptism is baptism. Its part of theology to me.
Reason (and philosophy) - I really don't know anybody that goes against their own reason or philosophy when it comes to anything in life. 2 plus 2 is four... but I'll call it five because that's what my Pastor says. Yeah... that just doesn't work. But if you're asking about whether a specific reason or a specific philosophy has any bearing on my theology... that's a good question. I'd say as a starting point that if scripture is cherry-picked for theology that conforms to your own personal world view, then philosophy and reason are torn apart with jackhammers - gleaned cleaner than a grape vine on the day of Jubilee. Reason and Philosophy surely have to be accepted or rejected according to our own personal tastes and then probably modified to fit specific needs as life goes on. As a tool of theology, I think one would have to be careful about using "reason" or philosophy because of its varying nature as life goes on and new views about once strongly held beliefs come to the forefront. This is the one area where hypocrisy is probably most prevalent.
The last is deceptively probably the first - human experience and the sciences - probably informs more theology than anything else. Our lives always form the framework through which we see the entire world and try to make sense of it. Each new wrinkle in our human experience informs our own theology and then, in turn, can be used to do theology with others. Whether we are very good at turning human experience into theology or not, our natural human instinct is to relate life to our theology and our theology to life.
I think I'll leave that off there. Please weigh in while I still have time to chew the gristle of thought-provoking marrow.
This is the first question I must answer in my CLP training. Of course, there are readings to read, and lots of thoughts and studies to contemplate before I write my two page double spaced essay, but I was wondering how to answer this question just off the bat. I figure that before I can have my mind changed and my perspective broadened, I need to figure out where I stand in the debate to begin with. And I thought I'd share that with my fellow travelers because I value your opinions and vastly different experiences to help me shape my thinking on the subject. You may not make me see eye to eye with you, but you can at least illuminate corners of the argument that I might miss in the shadows of my ignorance. We'll call this exercise Cloud Contemplation... a modern study method utilizing the latest in social technology.
Hmm... Well, obviously Scripture is very important. Its probably not the only method of knowing God's will, but it's certainly one of the most definitive. The challenge with Scripture is not in its definitiveness, but in its definition. How it is defined seems to be determined mostly by cultural and temporal preferences. The same written passage can probably be interpreted several different ways. It seems that for such an inefficient form of communication to be considered the ONE and ONLY definitive truth of God is asking for theological stagnation and misinterpretation. But then again, perhaps God made the word flesh to transform such an inefficient form of communication into a perfect one. If the written text serves as nothing more than a way to identify Jesus as the one true authority on all things, then it has done its job.
The Christian Tradition is a curious thing in and of itself. I'm not quite sure how to define it. Are we talking about the things we have always done as having some weight over the things we have yet to do? I've found that looking backwards while moving forwards is the one guaranteed way to stumble. On the other hand, while going from Point A to Point Z, it's probably a good idea to remember Point A - if for no other reason than to judge how far you've come. Or are we talking about those things that define us as a religion - church structure and baptism and prayer and the like? To be honest, I haven't really given those much thought. It's sort of like asking a newcomer to the sport of baseball what he feels about the Infield Fly rule. A) It's such a loaded question. And B) Its such an integral part of the game that contemplation of it is way too complicated at this point. I can't weigh how I feel about baptism because I can't separate it out from everything else at this point. Baptism is baptism. Its part of theology to me.
Reason (and philosophy) - I really don't know anybody that goes against their own reason or philosophy when it comes to anything in life. 2 plus 2 is four... but I'll call it five because that's what my Pastor says. Yeah... that just doesn't work. But if you're asking about whether a specific reason or a specific philosophy has any bearing on my theology... that's a good question. I'd say as a starting point that if scripture is cherry-picked for theology that conforms to your own personal world view, then philosophy and reason are torn apart with jackhammers - gleaned cleaner than a grape vine on the day of Jubilee. Reason and Philosophy surely have to be accepted or rejected according to our own personal tastes and then probably modified to fit specific needs as life goes on. As a tool of theology, I think one would have to be careful about using "reason" or philosophy because of its varying nature as life goes on and new views about once strongly held beliefs come to the forefront. This is the one area where hypocrisy is probably most prevalent.
The last is deceptively probably the first - human experience and the sciences - probably informs more theology than anything else. Our lives always form the framework through which we see the entire world and try to make sense of it. Each new wrinkle in our human experience informs our own theology and then, in turn, can be used to do theology with others. Whether we are very good at turning human experience into theology or not, our natural human instinct is to relate life to our theology and our theology to life.
I think I'll leave that off there. Please weigh in while I still have time to chew the gristle of thought-provoking marrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)