{{{{{{ 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..

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...........