(Ir)religiosity

Hi David. Thanks for stopping by.

I agree with you. And though I can't speak for him I think Dr. Clayton would agree as well. I don't think he is suggesting or advocating simple naivete that is wholly uninformed by the past. Indeed, we must stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us and we must always remain in community. Rather, I think he is posting that we avoid accepting tradition uncritically and that we should always be constantly reevaluating our theology in light of our contexts.

Thanks again for the comment!

"The heresy of orthodoxy" is a powerful phrase. However, if I sit with my group and have only the Bible and contemporary issues to discuss, my unconscious orthodoxy is the only way I have to understand this ancient text which leads to mostly rejection of the scripture as irrelevant. Presuppositions that the text is relevant would be based on orthodoxy. I need the best research on the Jesus movement of the 1st century to make sense of the scriptures (Marcus Borg et al) when real people encountered Jesus relative to their issues. Also I need the best historical writers to reveal the struggles of Christians over the years ( Karen Armstrong et al) in addition to the deepest spiritual writers of our time (Henri Nouwen et al) that reveal the mystery of and wonder of God in everyday life. With these tools, a group of Christians can indeed do constructive theology.

"The heresy of orthodoxy" is a powerful phrase. However, if I sit with my group and have only the Bible and contemporary issues to discuss, my unconscious orthodoxy is the only way I have to understand this ancient text which leads to mostly rejection of the scripture as irrelevant. Presuppositions that the text is relevant would be based on orthodoxy. I need the best research on the Jesus movement of the 1st century to make sense of the scriptures (Marcus Borg et al) when real people encountered Jesus relative to their issues. Also I need the best historical writers to reveal the struggles of Christians over the years ( Karen Armstrong et al) in addition to the deepest spiritual writers of our time (Henri Nouwen et al) that reveal the mystery of and wonder of God in everyday life. With these tools, a group of Christians can indeed do constructive theology.

The concern for me in orthodoxy is always the mandate that "we" will think for "you". And I just don't buy that anymore.

Right on. I think that is exactly what he is addressing.

The problem is how do we interact with historical theologies? There's a tremendous amount of hubris if I say that I can glean as much from God as a latin monk who spent 60 years reading and writing. Like a video I posted recently said, "you've thought about God for 25 minutes and have come to some interesting conclusions, eh?"

Tradition is a value, but it shouldn't be a crutch. So how do we let it inform our conversations while not holding them up as a baseline for all to believe?

I agree. But I would ask why we assume that God privileges those in the past (and they're almost always in the past) who read and wrote for x amount of years and why what they thought should automatically trump everything. I'm not suggesting that we ignore those in history, what we do is made possible because we are standing on their shoulders.

Here I think the I like the UCC's catch-phrase, "God is still speaking" is helpful. Does that mean we simply dismiss what God has said in the past? No. It means that theology is fluid, it's local, and I might even say temporal (I need to think about that last one a bit more).

I think it can be approached really simply: we stop assuming that our tradition(s) are infallible. They are rich and complex yes, but not infallible. These were human beings and they, like us, were products of their contexts.

That's really easy to talk about. But when it comes to actually taking that step I think a lot of people are reluctant. I think some of that may have to do with our lax attitude that we can let someone else think for us instead of critically engaging tradition. It takes time to remedy that I think.

I'm with you that tradition should not be a measuring stick, the baseline upon which theology is compared. What I worry about is that tradition offers some ecologies of theology that give us the freedom to play in.

For example, if I had to pick between emergent and process theology as my primary conversation partner, process would be it by a nose. But nothing in the great diversity of process would be possible without its tradition that gave it the worldview. Emergent would say that Process is bunk because its radical claims on worldview are untenable with an un/known God, but it gives me a nice playground to really wrestle with the concepts. I feel free in it to think.

I just want permission to play in a process worldview (formed by tradition) without emergent saying that the worldview must be displaced.

I can hardly speak for "emergent" (whatever it is!), but as an emergent I wouldn't say that your worldview should be displaced, just that we all recognize that we are choosing one worldview among many.

Here's a question: would you say that there is still room for reinterpretation and re-appropriation within your process worldview?

For me, that's the best question. Worldview are great. But I think it's still helpful to think critically about them and hold them loosely.

And as far as that goes, I'd say what's wrong with borrowing from more than one? I myself tend to be a mashup of several traditions/worldviews.

IN my opinion and in my understanding, re-interpretation adn re-appropriation is all there is in the process worldview. Reality is in process. God is in process. Something in process has different parameters than it did when this sentence began. It's Einstein's relativity theory applied to God as well as the universe. This keeps us off balance, but perhaps that vertigo keeps us from casting a golden calf from our own knowledge. That being said, St. Francis of Assisi had things right--you can tell from any perspective. I privilege the opinion and experience of those who I perceive as having walked the walk. Perhaps that's how sacrifice fits in the spiritual life. Wherever we see knowledge leading ot sacrifice, that's the path of Christ.

Nathan, thanks for stopping by. Put that way, I agree. The reality is in process in undeniable. We're beginning to understand more and more just how that works. Pretty fascinating. That being said, when it comes to theology, I still find it helpful to borrow from other perspectives that though they do not hold the process worldview out front, either hold it tacitly to be true or are compatible with its outlook.