>>>>> Pollution a Sin? <<<<<<

So today I heard that the Pope recentely declared pollution to be a sin. Ok well thats all fine and well with me.

But after this comment Travis Keller my good friend, asked this question:

Who is he to say what is and isnt a sin? hmmm..... interesting question my friend.

If I may I would like to probe a little deeper than the surface of this question to the assumption behind it. This, I think is a question of authority in terms of truth. Who or what do has the authority to give us truth or tell us what truth is?

Well to answer this I guess that I would have to say: Well it depends on what metacultural period you are thinking out of. If you were thinking from the medival time period then of course the pope has the authority to declare what is and isnt a sin, because human authorities are also God's authority on truth. If you come from the Modern time then each individual person can decide with his own rational mind what truth is because, each person is his or her own final authority on truth. And of course if you are of posty persuasion then no body can know anything anyways and its all hopeless so who are you to presume to have any kind of answer to the question or to even ask it lol :) . I'm sorry thats not fair, its just really hard to know.

So the pope being part of the church that has fossilized part of the medival past I would like to think would have all the authority in the world to make this declaration. At least as much as anyone else from other way of thinking. I wonder if (them or us(I like the posty thinking)) of the posty persuasion are adopting the arrogance of the modern age in assuming to have the higher knowledge or better perspective than those ages past. I dont know just a thought.

Friends what do you think about this or Travis's comment, or the pope declaration???? I would like to know..

///////////Caught in the Middle////////////

So I was listening to some podcasts from Emergent Podcast the other day. These particular episodes were from a conference where two of the worlds top philosophers, Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney, were discussing some of the history of philosophy and more particularly the progression and the characteristics of modernism, and post-modernism. Both Jack and Richard should be thought of as "post-modern" philosophers.

There was about 5 hours of material, and on the whole I greatly benifited from their discussion. However at the end they talked about something that to be honest made me shiver for a moment, because I was so surprised by it. One of the most notebale qualities of post-modern thinking is a deep rooted suspicion and often abandonment of metanarratives of any kind, and I can understand why. Now these two men are deeply Christian, and are trying to find Christian truth mind you. But at the end they made this comment,

"I want to be absolutely clear, we are saying the Christianity is unique and there is nothing else like it, but it is not the only way to God, there are many other ways. .... If Jesus and Buddah met, Jesus wouldnt have told him to follow, but instead would have asked to follow Buddah to learn from him. It is arrogance to think that the Christian Faith is the only way!"

Wow....what do you do with that? I think that this illustrates something that I have noticed recently amoung those who have reacted to Modernism, and are pursueing something different.
It seem to be that many of us have idealized post-modernism, and have made it into a God-send. Now I'm all for reactions, and the emotions that go along with it. But It seems to me that many of the reactions that I have seen are simply swirving to the other side of the road. It seems that we define ourselves as anything that modernism is not, as long as we arent like that then we are good. As opposed to defineing ourselves by Christ and his teachings.

I dont know I guesss that Im just scared when I see my fellow followers reacting so strongly that they throw out everything modern with anything and any one that might have something to do with it.

Have we been controlled by reactionism? Do we really Think this new culture is a God-send? Have we jumped into bed with Post-modernism??

Am I the only one that sees the great danger that is coming with this new culture shift??????

Does anyone else feel caught in the middle, fighting a two-front war???? (its a lonely place to be)

Post-modern Gospel???

So I've been thinking a lot about the gospel, and more recently I have been thinking about how this relates to culture, more specifically modern and post-modern culture.

I was taught recently, and I believe it to be true, that every culture has 3 parts. 1.) that which Christianity affirms, 2.) that which only Christianity can truly fulfill, 3.) that which Christianity much reject or deny.

The second, and third part is what interests me. What is it in culture that the Gospel fulfills? -or- What in the culture is the Gospel??? Then what in the culture must we oppose???

As I think (with my limited understanding of) about the difference between modernism and post-modernism I see a dividing issue, or a balance between two ideas. Truth, and Relationship.

Modernism : places "truth", head knowledge, absolutes, science as the highest value and minimizes relationship and community.
3.) we obviously reject the minimalization of relationship
2.) Modernism pursues truth as its highest goal, but in reality it can never attain it because truth separated from relationship and community is not truth at all. Therefore only Christianity can fulfill this part of modernism.

**So how do you reach this culture. Like any other culture you learn to speak their language, which is "truth", head knowledge, academics, logic, absolutes. And through this medium you expose the fallacy of the culture and introduce relationship based truth. We never separate the two, but present it as one whole.

Post-Modernism : places relationship, community, friendship,experience, emotions, feelings, personalization as the highest value and minimizes and even rejects "truth", absolutes, science logic.
3.) We obviously reject the minimalization of "truth, absolutes, science and logic
2.) Post-Modernism pursues relationship and emotions as its highest goal, but in reality it to can never attain it because relationship/community separated from truth is not relationship/community at all. Again only Christianity can fulfill this part of post-modernism.

**So how do you reach this culture. Again you learn to speak its language, which is experience, relationship, emotions. Then through this medium you expose the fallacy of the culture and introduce truth based relationship. Again we never separate the two we live and present them as one whole.

The reality is that the two cannot not be separated from each other, they are two sides of the same coin. One defines the other, and both are only true when they exist together. My point is that when it comes to culture we must understand which door to enter, or which side of the coin to expose. Because when we hand them the coin the may see the side they recognize but in reality they are getting the whole coin, The GOSPEL...........

Gospel and War?

I just got out of a very long yet, good conversation with my good friend Kris Browning. Basically our conversations centered around war, and the defense of others. Now I have been wrestling with this issue for years now, and have been back and forth. But during the journey that Christ has been taking me through about what the gospel is, I think that now I have a much different perspective. While I was challenged in some of my thinking(which I am very grateful for) and had to re think, I walked away with some resounded thoughts in my head. Is the gospel only relevant or needed in the majority of situations, implying that there are some situations that we must act differently?

See I believe that the gospel (the good news) is the restoration and reconciliation of all of creation back to wholeness. Its the good news that brokenness doesn't have to be perpetuated, and that wholeness in all of life is offered freely. Didn't Christ more than exemplify the gospel in His life and His words? And as followers or disciples of Christ our lives are on the journey towards becoming whole, in the image of Christ.

So then, How can I justify hurting or killing someone else to protect someone, or to defend something? How can the gospel and the giving of brokenness ever be reconciled??????

"But when you fail to protect the lives of others, you are letting any other chance of them coming to Christ be put to an end! And Christ would have stopped it at all cost" I'm told. But here I must ask - Are we assuming that the gospel is based on results? Has modernism tainted our understanding of the gospel? Where does God's sovereignty come in?

All that I know is that as a follower of Christ I am on a mission. lol My entire purpose is to pursue the reconciliation or wholeness of All of creation. And I can't believe that Christ would have me inflict more brokenness to accomplish this end. Brokenness + more brokenness does not = wholeness! Brokenness + Sacrifice = Wholeness. At least that's my limited understanding of the Gospel.