(Ir)religiosity

To say that the economy has become the dominant political issue over the last several months would be to state the obvious.  But even still there wasn’t a single mention — at least not that I know of — of an ‘anniversary’ that came and past last week.  Six years ago this month the long, arduous and costly (both in lives and money) war in Iraq began.  While the media pretended to be infuriated over the AIG bonuses and the rest of us marked our NCAA brackets the United States’ occupation of Iraq entered it’s seventh year.  Not a mention on the 24 hour news channels.  Even the blogosphere was silent.  I hope we haven’t forgotten.  I hope we haven’t moved on to the next trendy justice issue or the next big government mishap and neglected that one of the biggest justice issues and the worst government mishaps in recent memory continues on our watch.

I have hope that under President Obama this will end.  We shall see, but I have hope nonetheless. And until then I will — I hope we all will — continue to push and pressure my government to sever the tentacles of imperialism and put to death the attitude of exceptionalism.

Last year I organized and participated in war protest/peace demonstration in Oklahoma City and gave one of the speeches.  I’m re-posting it unedited (some of the language and statistics are now inflated) today as way of remembering that even in the midst of our economic crisis the war continues. Read the rest of this entry »

There is a lot of talk in the emergent/ing church — and postmodernism at large — about the project of deconstruction, mainly as a critique of modern models of “doing” church and theology, but also, though often not as popular, as offering a constructive response to those systems.  In even narrower conversations, there is talk of what can and cannot be deconstructed.  So for Derrida, “justice” is the undeconstructible nucleus (though he would surely object to that word) of the “law,” which seeks to be justice, but can always be deconstructed.  Likewise, Caputo speaks of the church as the deconstructable sign pointing toward the kingdom, which is undeconstructable.

I think these sort of conversations are very helpful.  We can’t stop deconstruction our own systems and ideas.  Sometimes I think part of my personality is naturally deconstructive.  Which is good…and bad.

What do I mean?

I’m wondering if sometimes, in our efforts to deconstruct “something else,” we miss the opportunity to let ourselves be deconstructed.

For example, for a long time now I have categorically rejected Augustine and his writings.  Original sin, latent — or not so latent — misogyny, sex as utility only, I could go on.  For all these reasons I simply wrote Augustine off completely.  Not that those aren’t good reasons.  I believe they are.  And I still disagree with Augustine about them.

But recently I’ve rediscovered Augustine’s mysticism and his ascent into himself in search of God who is beyond his comprehension.  And in doing so, I’ve been deconstructed.  I’ve allowed myself to be worked over by a tradition I had previously dismissed.

All this has to be done in moderation of course. Because we can just import Augustine uncritically into 2009.  But I wonder if sometimes we are too critical and miss the opportunity to have ourselves criticized?  I wonder if sometimes, under the auspices of deconstruction, I undermine the very heart of the deconstructive project.

That is not to say that I reject the deconstructing of historical figures or systems of thought.  Not at all.  I’m only suggesting that perhaps there is a tension between our deconstruction and our being deconstructed.  The key is learning to live and embody that tension well.

What to do you think?  Have you had similar experiences? Or am I just blowin’ smoke?

I’ve been out of the loop for a few weeks now.  My original “week” long break from blogging turned into two — and it’s been great.  I didn’t make as big of dent in my stack of books as I would have liked, but oh well.  Time off is good.

I’m sure it’s old news to most everyone now, but a piece by Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk) in the Christian Science Monitor titled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” has made asizable splash in the blogosphere over the past few weeks.
His predictions are bleak (or encouraging, depending on your point of view.

In the opening paragraph alone he claims that a “major collapse” of evangelicalism will occur within 10 years that will “fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West” resulting in a new “anti-Christian chapter” of our history in which “intolerance to Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible.”

Why?  He lists seven reasons, chief among them the reality that evangelicalism has — rightly or wrongly — been close related to fundamentalism and the Christian Right resulting in politicization and a reputation for intolerance and anti-intellectualism. As Spencer succinclty observes, evangelicals “fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.” As we saw in last presidential election, the political power of the Christian Right is crumbling.  Combine that with the rising disenchantment of many “cradle evangelicals” with what they perceive to be the politicization and co-option of a vibrant and robust faith, and the outlook for evangelicalism as a cultural and religious monolith is not good. Read the rest of this entry »

Hmmmm. Not so much.

I ran across this thought by Moby reading something else last night and I can’t get it out of my head.

i actually think that the teachings of christ accomodate most of the new ways in which we perceive ourselves and our world.
the problem is that although the teachings of christ accomodate this, contemporary christianity does not.
here’s more seriousness dressed up as flippancy:
christ: acknowledging quantum realities.
christiantiy: depressingly newtonian.
does that make any sense?
well, to me it does.
and to some of you it might make sense, also.

That’s rich.  And interesting.  What do you think?

There has been a recent surge in publication of various “special-interest” bibles.  For the comic book and graphic novel geeks there is the Manga Bible, for the hipsters the Bible Illuminated, and for the Methodists the Wesley Bible. Don’t fit into one of those groups?  No problem. There’s always the all-purpose People’s Bible

It just not cool anymore to have plain Jane NRSV or NIV.

The Green Bible is another of these new, hip bibles.  I have mixed feelings about it.  Now, to be sure, all of these new bibles can be useful.  Each of them takes seriously the need to speak in contemporary language with contemporary images and metaphors.  The Green Bible goes a step further, understanding the need, if we are to be faithful bearers of the good news, of taking seriously contemporary problems and providing alternatives.  Many Christian, especially younger ones, are tired of the old ways of “doing” church and “living” theology.  They wonder if their bible has anything serious to say about contemporary issues and if their God cares about what is happening in the world.  And these new bibles communicate that much more effectively than King Jimmy.

According to its website, “The Green Bible will equip and encourage people to see God’s vision for creation and help them engage in the work of healing and sustaining it.”  Which is wonderful; that is indeed part of our task — to understand and take seriously God’s dream for the entire world, the entire cosmos even, and participate in the actualization of that dream in our own peculiar way and in our own particular contexts.  That is good.  That is important  I get that. Read the rest of this entry »

(ht)

Brilliant.  Absolutely brilliant.

“How long? Not long! Because no lie can live forever.”
– Martin Luther King Jr.

I’ve posted on homosexuality before, but I think some of that sentiment bears repeating.

I am a white, married, heterosexual male who attended one private institution for undergraduate work and is now attending another private institution for graduate school.  I was born into and continue to occupy a position of overwhelming privilege.  Simply the mere fact that I have both the time and the money to “blog” rests the case.

I don’t have the slightest idea what it feels like to be oppressed, subjugated, or marginalized.  I don’t know what it feels like to have fundamental rights stripped from me nor do I know the feeling of being told I cannot marry my partner.

That being noted, I feel that the least I can do is speak the truth as I see it and to stand in solidarity with those who struggle.  For me, silence is simply a ghastly affirmation of the status quo.  The written and spoken word are the tools of my trade so I feel that the least I can do is use them to raise my voice in opposition.  It is with that in mind that I wrote this post, because to not speak out would be dishonest on my part.

November 4 was a bittersweet night for me.  I was happy that Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States, but at the same time I was deeply saddened to learn that Proposition 8 was passed in California.  Propositions banning same-sex marriage were put to vote in four states this year: Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California.  To be honest, I expected the first three to pass by a wide margin. What I didn’t expect was the outcome in California, where Prop 8 passed 52% to 48%.  I assumed that a state like California, with a high gay population, would maintain it’s open and progressive policy.  But it did not.  It’s one thing to deny a person or group their rights outright, it’s another to strip those rights from them after the fact. Read the rest of this entry »

[Ht]