{{{{{{ Ambiguity of lifes porous boundaries }}}}}}}}

As I was reading a blog recently I got to thinking about some of the issues that were brought up at least indirectly. The issues was a question asking to define the difference between emerging and emergent. I really valued the response that was given by Tony Jones which basically critiqued the incessant need to label and categorize everything(typical postmodern critique). Of course this in my mind has a lot of value. But at the same time this thinking scares me immensely. This here introduces a trend that I see in my culture and in a lot of conversation that partake in. This fear and hatred of "labeling", or this overwhelming resistance to any kind of categorization, beurocracy, or even structure. (ex. What are you?? oh I am not part of a denomination I am non-denom.. or I'm not anything I am a Christian) And obviously the impetus for this thinking is the damage caused by excesses of the modern age (boxing people and life). But I am so afraid of this postmodern critique becoming the answer and then we are just in the same place again only looking differently. The fact is that our minds are built to categorize, we define and label everything throughout our day, that is how we think, and to try to move into some totally ambiguous blob of no boundaries seems to me to be somewhat foolish. Isnt there a proper place for label/defining/categorizing things even people??? Can these not be useful tool during some times and in some places.

This is where I like to concept of the hermenuetic circle which bascially means that we move from the whole to its parts and back to the whole again in a type of free flowing dance. Here it seems to me that labels and categories and structure are valuable tools or metaphors(dr. wright:) ) that allow us to think and speak rationally about reality. But at the same time we remember that they are just that, a metaphor, or a tool and should be put down when necessary.

The beauty of the metaphor is that it opens some doors and closes other doors. The emphasis that I wish to use here is that it "opens some doors"!!!!!

I'm just afraid of simply being apart of yet another historical reaction that just jumps to the other side and misses Jesus once again, but at the same time claims to have him. lol

>>>>> 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..

********Hermeneutic of Humility**********

So I have noticed (Me being an observer, thinker and analyser) that those of my friends, or those that i simply know about, that are of the postmodern/emergent persuasion (what ever that means?) have an almost smothering emphasis on a hermeneutic of humilty. What i mean is that life is not simple, perspectives and the sociological environment have a huge impact on what one does and believes, sees or thinks. For example for one to say that the issue of say... homosexuality is just wrong, and the answer is simple, would be an overt act of arogance. The word arrogance seems to be the vice to the virtue, to the point that arrogance is almost the greatest sin, and openmindedness is the highest virtue.

Now obviously I really resonate with this way of thinking. However as I have observed this way of thinking has not been characteristicly a life virtue but only a conversational or verbal one. From my perspective a glaring example of this is at sporting events. Go to any MVNU basketball game and sit with out fans and you will notice a complete change of character. Listen to the attitudes towards the referees, and observee the things said to and about them. Suddenly there is no such thing as a hermeneutic of humility, but instead there is a clear, absolute, objective, and final decision on every play, and the fans of course can see and know exactly what it is. But for some reason the referees suddenly become incapable of seeing and knowing what is so obviously true. Therefore the referees are obviously ignorant and are obviously maliciously biased.

But the thing is the referees job is inherantly subjective, and they inherantely have the more accurate persepective.

I guess that I just dont know what to think when I or others are attacked for our supposed arrogance and narrow mindedness, but then when real life situations come, suddenly things change dramatically.

So what is wrong with this picture????

Which one is better to have hermeneutic of humility that is lived out in actions, and example but at times seems absent in intellectual conversation..................or to have a hermeneutic of humility that is blatently present in conversation, but seems to be absent in ones life???????????

///////////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...........