Tuesday, November 18, 2008

A "post-modern" opinion.

The term post-modern is just a term that can be used to describe a variety of things and even if we don't use the term with its original meaning, it is nonetheless used to describe the current cultural climate we find ourselves in. Usage of word by the masses to describe something makes it correct. Thus, I personally use the term post-modern as a way to describe our current culture, if for no other reason but to fit in and sound like I know what I'm talking about.

I want to just touch on a couple of things regarding the post-modern Christian 'in action'. This is probably going to be really hodge podge, but such is life. Please bear with me. I would also like to begin by saying that most of what follows is just my opinion. The first thing I would like to discuss is tolerance, and specifically religious tolerance. I don't really like the word tolerance, I prefer to say acceptance in its stead. I really like this one quote from Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. Ishmael, the main character, finds himself unexpectly bunking with a pagan named Queequeg who worships a little idol. They soon become good friends, and what follows are Ishmael's thoughts when Queequeg invites him to join in his worship of the Idol.

"I was a good Christian; born and bred in the bosom of the infallible Presbyterian Church. How then could I unite with this wild idolator in worshipping his piece of wood? But what is worship? thought I. Do you suppose now, Ishmael, that the magnanimous God of heaven and earth-pagans and all included-can possibly be jealous of an insignificant bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship?-to do the will of God-that is worship. And what is the will of God?-to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man do to me-that is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed before him twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed and went to bed, at peace with our own consciences and all the world."

Personally, I thought that was brilliant. Herman Melville definitely had a certain slant in his theological thinking that was much more accepting of other religions as is evidenced throughout Moby Dick. Of course his logic is somewhat interesting, as he chooses to place the 'do unto your neighbour' commandment above the 'do not worship any other god' commandment, but then again, Jesus did say that was the second most important thing to remember, but that is beside the point. Back to my opinion.

Is it possible to be a Christian and still accept other religions? Colin talked in his post about how he will dialogue with a hindu or buddhist and not think they're stupid. He thinks they're wrong, but not stupid. I also believe that is very important. I think that truth is relative, and true objectivity impossible. I also believe that proving Christianity is the one true religion is also impossible. To believe Christianity as the one true religion is different from Christianity being the one true religion. As such, as a Christian, I think that one needs to have an accepting attitude toward other religions.

I don't think that we should be necessarily targeting certain religious groups and trying to force the gospel on them in order to turn them into converts. For me, I switch the emphasis toward social action (again this is just how I feel, and I do realize that balance is important). For me, I find it somewhat disturbing that we as Christians have large buildings with paid pastors (nothing against pastors, I love you gals/guys), large bills to pay each month to run our monsterous churches, missionaries to support who are working to convert the catholics in South America (whom, incidentally, I do not think need converting), and then when the benevolent offering goes around people are scrounging out their quarters. Of course, this is not a blanket statement for all Christians and churches, it is just the impression I have gotten from the churches I have attended. I have digressed from my acceptance rant slightly, but that's okay.

Acceptance goes beyond different religions. One specific example that I can think of is the gay community. Recently (relatively recently) Canada opted to change the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I know a lot of Christians who have found this to be the most offensive and horrible thing in the world. Regardless of where one stands on the whole 'homosexuality is a sin' issue, I believe that this is not a moral issue, but rather a human rights issue (I don't want this to turn into a pro-gay/anti-gay discussion). I don't believe in mixing religion and politics. Religious freedom in our country means that we don't impose religious beliefs on the whole of the country and that we are all free to worship in whatever way we feel. Since homosexuality is a Christian religious moral issue, it is unfair to impose Christian religious views on the gay community and deny them their rights as humans. Therefore, I was very happy when the government decided to sanction gay marriage.

Regarding how we interact with non-Christians, I do have an opinion on that as well (surprise of all surprises). I have heard very recently, even in the last 2 days, how a certain Christian was feeling quite guilty about the fact that they haven't really brought their neighbours or non-christian friends to church. Personally, if I was a non-Christian, I wouldn't want to go to Church. It's just weird. They all stand and sing strange songs about blood and other strange metaphors. Then they pray these long prayers where they say 'Lord' and 'God' and 'Just' every two words. (I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to demonstrate how the things that we Christians take as normal are really very strange looking from the outside). I first noticed this 'strangeness' after living in Japan and having not attended a large English speaking Church for a very long time. When we did go, I was weirded out.

All that to say, that it seems that as far as evangelism goes, what most of us have done in the past is put on some kind of event at the church, and bring a friend. Personally, I really dislike this. The unsuspecting victim comes to the event expecting a nice meal and hanging out with their buddy only to discover they have become a project and are hit in the forehead with the gospel. It's almost like getting a free night at a time-share-condo.

I don't believe that non-Christians are projects to be converted. Why can't we all just have real friendships with people who don't believe the way we do without having some secret agenda? People aren't stupid. They can see right through stuff like that. I personally will not invite a friend to church or to an event. If they ask me if they can come, and its their initiative, that's all fine and great. I am more interested in helping people if they need it (although I'm not always good at doing that), having conversations about spirituality (without saying I think they are wrong), and if somebody is interested more in Christianity and wants to check out Church, so be it. But again, I'm not a bean counter for how many converts a church gets. We do ourselves no favours by doing aggressive evangelism. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This goes back to Queequeg. Ishmael did for Queequeg what he would have Queequeg do for him, and that, I think, speaks more than evangelistic events.

Moving on. I have another quote for you from the Brian Mclaren's book, Finding our Way Again. The discussion is regarding why Buddhism seems to be so popular. Dr. Senge, when talking to a book store owner, asked what the most popular books were. The second most popular books which were bought were about spirituality, and in particular Buddhism. The question is then posed to Dr. Senge by Brian Mclaren, "why are books on Buddhism so popular and not books on Christianity?" The answer that was given was this. "I think it's because Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, and Christianity presents itself as a sytem of belief. So I would want to get Christian ministers thinking about how to rediscover their own faith as a way of life, because that's what people are searching for today. That's what they need most."

It was this quote that kind of inspired me to ask the question I did. I think that it is very true that the general image that Christianity gives off is that we are a system of belief. We tell you what and how to believe regarding God and that's pretty much the jist of it. Of course Christians will argue that we are much more than a system of beliefs, but that does not negate that the world views us otherwise. How can Christianity become a way of life and not a system of beliefs? Brian Mclaren goes on in his book to discuss the Ancient Practices of the Christian faith as a way of life which I do find to be very useful. I don't really have a good answer to this question and would be interested in hearing everybody else's thoughts on this as well.

Unfortunately, I have found myself in the 'system of belief' camp for most of my life and am just trying to work through this question for myself. I think as well, that if most of us are honest with ourselves, what we believe is more important than how we live out our Christian lives. Just look at how fast our conversations on this blog turn to technical theological issues which don't really influence how we live our lives. I am definitely guilty of this myself. I am by nature a thinker, and thus I become very analytical trying to work out my 'system of belief'' to the detriment of working on my way of life. I of course have my soap boxes (social action and acceptance being the main ones) but as far as spiritual practices go, I am very much lacking. Sorry, this post got kind of long. I thought it would be quick.

14 comments:

Jon Coutts said...

Some helpful stuff there Trevor.

That Melville quote was really intriguing!

However, in the end I don't find Melville's view all that compelling. I'll try to explain why: It seems to jump from tolerance for another's religion to participation in it pretty easily. I do not wish that everyone participate in my religion insincerely, and neither do I think I'm doing others any favour by participating in their's insincerely (especially when I'm not a big believer in worshiping more than one God).

Furthermore, Jesus command wasn't a ranking, it was love God and love neighbour. But loving neighbour doesn't necessarily mean doing what your neighbour wants because you would want them to do what you want. That is nothing even close to love, in my view. That is just "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

I am perplexed by comments against theological technicalities. Its not like we're talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here. We discussed the place of the Bible and now we are discussing Christian action in postmodern setting. Seems to me if we aren't doing theology in the process we may just as well be settling for vague notions illustrated colourfully but perhaps of no direct Christian consequence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to be asked for clarification on a theological phrasing (if I'm copping out and relying on textbook short-hand) or pushed on the "so what" ramifications of a view, and I'm assuming that's what is meant, but I don't really care to keep the theological technicalities out of it so we can get practical. The dilemma doesn't compute for me.

So I'd encourage you to keep it theological and keep thinking Trevor! If that's how you are wired, go for it! Let others push you for ramifications to living, and push for that yourself. But let's not apologize for thinking theologically about living. Theology that is not lived is useless and Living that is not theological may be valuable to varying degrees but is in no way clearly or consciously Christian.

Jon Coutts said...

I have to confess that I think one of the things holding me back from getting really practical is not being sure which aspect to focus on. Lots could be said about devotions, prayer, worship, missions, relation to those outside the faith, boundaries, etc . . . but we are all fairly scattered and i'm thinking we could come back to each of those on their own and really get into some "everyday living" kind of discussion. Just a thought for those who might be frustrated by how we may seem to be beating around the bush a bit here. Who wants to decide where to start?

D+ said...

Helpful thoughts, Trevor.

I think I hear you on a lot of the things you are saying. I also think that a lot of your concerns legit, at least the way you have identified some of the problems.

I am with Jon, though, that theology and life are much more interconnected than we often care to admit. And, from what I can tell, it is a characteristic of the Enlightenment (ie., Modernity) to reduce religion to "lived life" apart from cognitive belief. It for sure goes at least as far back as Spinoza, who understood the essence of all religion to be the command to love God and neighbour apart from any specific content of who that God is and what shape that neighbour love ought to take. The cognitive stuff was left to reason, religion was there just to motivate ethical action and "piety." The "fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man" became the chief "creed" of the religious moralism of the bulk of Protestant theology in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even the ecumenical movement in the early part of the 20th century was sure to proclaim, in good enlightenment fashion, "doctrine divides, service unites." The irony is that even behind this seemingly pious talk was... a theology, usually uncritically smuggled in through the back door!

What I'm trying to say is that this trend to set aside creed in order to have life is a MODERN phenomenon. And, it is one that post-modernity has, from what I can tell, adopted whole-heartedly.

What I just can't figure out, is how to love someone without knowledge of them. To take a mundane example, it is hardly love of my wife for me to buy her books of theology written in German. I know that she doesn't like reading books on theology. I know she doesn't read German. That is ME (...and my German is pretty feeble). To buy her a gift just because it is something I want is a form of the worst ignorance and selfishness... certainly not love. A good gift for my wife, one that shows her love, presumes that I know her intimately. And while this intimate knowledge is certainly not reduced to mere cognitive propositions, it does have some cognitive content (ie., she doesn't like large German theology books... but she does like contemporary novels).

I'm just saying that love of God and neighbour presumes knowledge. Knowledge of God comes through his self-revelation. Articulating that knowledge is the work of theology. And, in God's self-revelation we also learn some important things about the neighbours whom we are to love, knowledge that we couldn't have gotten elsewhere. Love of God, love of neighbour, knowledge of God, knowledge of neighbour... it all goes together.

That's why, as much as think I get your concerns, I can't apologize for wanting to think about theology... even "doctrine" and "dogma." That said, I do want to heed your reminder that, if I can phrase it this way, brute knowledge is no end in itself. On that I think you are entirely right.

Colleen said...

Hi,
I think I just need to say (to clarify for Trev, cuz he's at work) that I don't think he meant to say that theological discussion is bad or that he is dissapproving of the discussions that have been going on here. In fact these conversations are the kind of stuff he loves. I think his emphasis on the practical vs. the theoretical have just been stemming from what our current converstions at home have been about - and he's just translating some of those thoughts here...

Colleen said...

Oh, and BTW, I just want to say thanks Trevor for this post! It probably goes without saying (but then again, maybe not!) that I totally agree with you. And its nice to see some of my jumbled thoughts of late put down in writing. I've been trying to do that to prepare for an upcoming talk with my mom & I think I will be borrowing from this post!

Anonymous said...

This takes the conversation in a bit of a different direction, but the paragraphs that got me thinking were the ones on the weirdness of church.
This has been a great struggle for me over the past years - and I too am of the belief that bringing my friends to church might be the exact opposite of what they need in their journey. While what goes on on a Sunday morning might "do the trick" for some people, I can't help but feel that it just totally misses the mark for the majority of those in our culture.
But my diagnosis of the problem isn't that the church is weird - but instead that it's weird in the wrong ways. And I think that's what Scripture point us to in 1 Cor 14:22-25. The kingdom of God isn't "normal" in the common sense of the word - it's a different reality that God calls us to be a part of - and so church should seem, in many ways, "weird" to our world. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in church is to pursue normalcy as a piece of relevancy - and give people a wholly bland taste of our God.

Tarasview said...

hmmm... I found this post very interesting Trevor. First let me say I completely relate to church feeling weird- I didn't grow up in it and it still feels strange once in awhile. An in particular how people pray in public tends to drive me nuts. I just don't "feel" it. I used to wonder what was wrong with me that I didn't FEEL as "in love" with Jesus as everyone else sounded.

Also I struggle with bringing non believers to church- largely because I am a tad too much on the discerning side and I can TELL when people are more judgemental than loving... calculating how to convert someone is obvious.

However I do think that for some generations (age wise) church outreaches and functions work fabulously. I once listened to a lecture about how older generations all have a shared religious history culturally- ie 50 years ago it was normal to go to church on Sunday. It was expected that you would do "christian" things like not have sex before you were married, not get divorced, not have affairs, not gamble, etc. It is far less a part of OUR generations shared history. So for those people who had some exposure to church as a child coming to a service can trigger that early childlike faith they once had and thus bring them to Christ as an adult.

In our generation the majority of non-believers have a very limited understanding of church culture. It seems strange, unrealistic, judgemental, patriarchal, sexist, etc etc etc. For those folks it is ALL about relationship. We are simply too cynical to take most things at face value. We need to see how it works first.

Which brings me to the Melville quote. I really liked it. I don't entirely agree with it- like Jon said earlier I wouldn't want someone to pray without their heart in it. But I LOVE the thinking- it reminds me of how Paul went and used the alter to the "unknown God" to tell about Jesus. He said "I know this God, let me tell you about him" he didn't say "you all suck, there is no such thing. Ditch all your idols and just believe in Jesus". He took it one step at a time. Brilliant.

Actually, loving your neighbour as yourself is why I am not bothered at all by gay marriage. I wouldn't want any other group deciding whom I can or can not marry so I choose not to decide that for them. And honestly I think our society has a lot bigger issues to worry about. I'm not saying I'm pro-homosexuality... but I am pro-human rights. Years ago women did not have the right to vote because some men in charge decided we couldn't think logically enough to be trusted. They really believed that God didn't want women to vote. Years before that they believed that God wanted them to own slaves. I don't think the gay community needs more judgement. I think showing them true love is far more likely to bring them to Jesus than telling them they can't get married. Why would they ever seek out church or God with judgement like that? I think God is the only one capable of judgement in this case.

As for practicality discussions- I wouldn't mind hearing some practical suggestions/ discussions on how those of us IN church can inspire/work toward needed change. How can we make the systems that are ALREADY in place work better- since abolishing them altogether is not a good plan.

Jinny said...

Trev, You said that you think truth is relative. Did you mean that it's always relative or that it's relative depending on which truth it is? That's the only part here that confused me a bit...

Trevor said...

Hey Jin,

What I meant in this instance is, that I think religious and spiritual truth is relative (ie. Christianity being the one true religion is relative). If you were to ask a Buddhist if theirs was a true religion they would answer yes, the same as a Christian. That's what I meant. Did that answer your question?

Colin Toffelmire said...

Is it possible for truth to be relative? I would agree that we have imperfect access to truth, but I would not agree that Hinduism and Christianity are different ways of articulating a common truth. I think that kind of relativism (really this is traditional liberalism) is reductionist. It bulldozes over both the beliefs and traditions of the Hindu and of the Christian, and I don't think either of them would be super pleased by that.

I absolutely agree, however, if you mean that our decision to be Christians instead of Hindus (or agnostics, or atheists, or whatever) is based on imperfect knowledge. As I said in my post, we choose based on the knowledge that we have. We cannot say that we know for certain.

Trevor said...

Colin,
Yes that is what I meant. We choose based on faith (because we cannot know for certain). However, my point is that members of other religions believe just as strongly as we do that they have made the right choice as well based on 'imperfect knowledge'. I choose to be a Christian (I'm somewhat of an existentialist) because that's what I have to do. It's kind of hard for me to articulate my thought process about this but I'm trying.

Because other religions believe just as strongly that they have made the right choice the same as I have, it's hard for me to justify trying to evangelize them and convert them to Christianity.

I believe that God listens to and answers my prayers in a very real and tangible way. If you talk to a Muslim, they would say the same thing. They too have made their choice based on imperfect knowledge, it is just a different choice than mine. That is why I tend to use the term 'acceptance' of other religions, rather than 'tolerance' or 'respect'. I'm slightly more left of the center of the highway, but I don't think I'm in the ditch. :-)

Jinny said...

So even though what we believe may be imperfect, do you think we are right?...that we are at least on the right path with our choice of beliefs? I know the word 'right' seems very black and white and fundegelical, but at what point to we get out of the grey?

Trevor said...

Jinny,

That is a question that I ask myself almost every day (or at least every other day). Are we right? To be very brutally honest with you (at the risk of sounding like someone of very little faith), I don't know. I want to believe that we are, but there is a large part of me (albeit not the majority, but enough to make me excessively uncomfortable) that thinks that maybe, just maybe, we are just one religion among many. Perhaps God does reveal himself to humanity through other religions.

I'm not saying that is what I believe, but there is that part of me that acknowledges that possibility. Perhaps this pushes me into the ditch, but I hope not.

Colin Toffelmire said...

Trev,

Is it possible that the reason this question torments you so much is that you have accepted an unrealistic definition of knowledge? I think one of the problems with modernist epistemology (the philosophy of how we know what we know) is that it pushes further and further towards defining knowledge as total certainty. Actuality over plausibility.

The post-modern solipsist is the ultimate, reductio ad absurdum, version of this argument. A solipsist refuses to acknowledge that anything exists beyond him/herself. Everything in the universe is a psychological projection from the mind of the solipsist. This radical (and very uncommon) philosophy is, I think, a product of the idea that only things that we can say with absolute certainty can fall into the realm of facts.

What if we simply accept that knowing is always a little fuzzy and proceed from there?