Postmodernism 2: The Idolatry of Propositional Truth
As I read the writings of those attacking folk like Brian McClaren and others they always come back to their bedrock which is "propositional truth".
They do a theological sleight-of -hand by quickly making the jump from revelation in Scripture to the concept of propositional truth. While the latter half of the Bible is written mostly in Greek, it is not Greek philosophy. Instead of a systematic theology or ongoing set of propositional truths, it presents itself as narratives, personal and community letters, and apocalyptic literature at the far end.
Nowhere in it are we presented with a systematic theology or a list of propositional truths. Those have either been picked up here and there, often out of context, or have been imposed upon the texts at later dates that reflected the spirit of the age. They are not inherent or obvious.
In fact, read the Gospel of John with fresh eyes and see what you find there in the narrative...in the STORY and the teaching, which is often enigmatic, personal and often unexpected.
The need for "factual and systematic theology" in a propositional way is quite contrary to faith , and most certainly to trust in the efficacy of the Word or the Holy Spirit's immediate presence.
In other words, put simply, it is easy to make "faith in God" into "the faith" which is simply a set of propositions that you must agree to in order to be orthodox.
As such, I dare to say that for older generations there is still room for propositional argumentation and debate because this is the dominant mode of discourse and is found helpful. But for the postmodern world is becomes, with each passing day, more irrelevant.
Which is an opportunity, not a setback as the Fundie-Fearful would have you believe.
Let's get back into the Gospels. Let's read Paul in context instead of universalizing particular situations into a normative "midrash" that we treat every bit as reverentially as we accuse our Catholic brothers and sisters of doing so with their Tradition.
Meaning no disrespect (and with deep irony) I ask the old question "Is it Rome by name or Rome by nature?"
Calvinism for these folks is their Catholicism and JC is their Pope (and I am not talking Jesus).
It would seem the tides have turned in some regard and these Fundagelicals have become the new Rome, even as Catholics are becoming more open to their Protestant brothers and others (let's not forget our Eastern Orthodox Brethren). They hold to their own Tradition (Calvinism) every bit as staunchly as they would oppose the Traditions of others.
Hypocrisy.
They are not "Sola Scriptura" or they would stick with the naked texts. They would embrace the poetry, narratives, the pastoral nature of the letters, and also highlight the dominant concerns that are there which are ignored by modern Fundamentalism (personal issues like pride, arrogance, anger, war, greed; and more profound religious issues like Gnosticism and Legalism...both of which breed in Fundamentalist enclaves devoted to abstract propositional truths).
I guess that about sums it.
posted by Obi-Mac BakDon @ 1:33 PM
5 Comments:
i am reading brian mcclaren's book "a new kind of christian" right now. i might have already mentioned that . . . it is amazing to me because it has put such to words what i struggled with in the generation gap between my parents and myself. it has been a struggle for us to meet somewhere that allows us each to define religion in different ways (and this in itself in an aspect of postmodern christianity). they (although not at all willing to put themselves in the same camp as "that denomenation") are in a sense very fundamentalist.
they have their set list of items that you must subscribe to before they allow to admission into heaven . . .
but i would like to ask, "who made you god? who said you could choose who went to heaven and who went to hell?" maybe that is not any of your business.
then they would reply, "if you start thinking like that you are going to stop taking religion so seriously and start letting everyone do it their own way and god has a certain way he wants people to go about being saved."
i would say, "maybe i should stop taking "religion" so seriously, start being more spiritual, start accepting everyone for exactly who they are just start living my life like christ exampled for me, peace, social justice, forgiveness, generosity, etc."
their idea of a good church is whether that church believes in the inerrancy of scripture, the need of baptism for salvation, and they had better not use a musical instrument within the walls of the church. my idea of a good church is a group of people honestly examining themselves (not others) and humbly taking steps to make the world a better place in the name of something greater than themselves and inviting others to do the same . . .
but that conversation will probably never happen. i would rather have a shallow relationship with my parents than have them stop talking to me, disown me altogether and not allow me to visit my little sisters.
i attended church for years too and then i went through a period where i woudln't step FOOT in a church. and i still dont. what i love is the spiritual center i visit occasionally. it feels totally right to me. they're kind, gentle, soft-spoken...they don't point their fat finger at me preaching the fact that i'm a sinner if i have pre-marital sex (notice i say fat finger becuase if you take the bible literally then gluttony is a sin). Or that you are welcome here if you are gay even though it goes against the ideals of our father...oh God - i wretch as i write.
so i guess that is making me judgemental too but the cool thing about not claiming to be christian is i can be bad! anyway, why is it that all christians are super Bush lovers anyway? we almost got attacked at my friends party for bringing up the word 'liberal' amongst her church buddies...
i hate that people just assume you are a fundamental right-wing gey hating bush lover as soon as the word "christian" comes out of your mouth . . . i think it's time to come up with a new word to describe people who are really truly following the teachings of jesus . . . you know, the ones about loving and giving and not judging etc . . . a new word that hasn't been tainted yet.
At a couple of different jobs I worked in Portland I had homosexual co-workers. As soon as they found out I was a Christian I could almost see the walls of distrust go up. It was like a switch was flipped - before they knew we were friends at work - after we weren't allowed to be friends. It just made me so sad that in their minds Christianity=judging. I hurt for them and I hurt for all the Christians who have to put up with the bad rep of a few radicals.
Hmmmmm, now maybe I know how American Muslims feel . . .
This makes me think of the new tv show on FX: 30 Days, where people have lived among muslim americans, homosexuals, and on an earth-friendly commune.
Sorry for the digression . . . I like the term: Christ-follower. It sums up what I want to be about and it's unique enough that hopefully people will stop to ask what I believe when I tell them, "I'm a Christ-follower." And not immediately assume that I am judgemental like those bastards with picket signs and bullhorns that preach hate and hell in the name of a God who seeks love and forgiveness.
Sorry, that stuff really makes me mad.
Great comments all.
I have shied away from using the term Christian for just the reason you all talk of.
Or I say "I happen to be a Christian, but not one of those judgmental asshole types" (this usally does the trick)
Ot I simply say I have a strong spiritual side that includes connection with the J-Man.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home