Existential Punk

Starting With Our WEAKNESS. . .

My good friend Peter (www.emergingchristian.com) and i are beginning a cooperative blog series of posts writing about what it means to argue from a position of weakness. We resonated deeply with and were inspired from my dear friend, author/thinker/lecturer/philosopher, Pete Rollins:

______________________________________________________

What we tend to do is… whenever we are in an argument I will argue from the place of strength, the strongest part of my argument, and direct is at the weakest part of your argument. And you will in turn take the strongest part of your argument and attack the weakest part of my argument. And what I really want to do is to enter into dialogs where I can talk about the weakest part of my argument and you can talk about the weakest part of your argument. and I can accept and celebrate the strongest part of your arguments and visa-versa.

Peter Rollins, from a Nick and Josh Podcast Interview

_____________________________________________________

i think Rollins hits the nail on the head. We like to hammer people with our insights, revelations, and opinions without really listening to the other person(s) even though we say we are listening. Thus, we end up being narcissistically focused on our own strengths and relish in the weaknesses of others we are in conversation/dialogue with at the moment. i agree with Peter when he says, 'This is probably less about egotism, and more about the brokenness and insecurity of most people. We protect “our weak” by overemphasizing “our strong.” And in doing so, we’re not being entirely honest, are we?' That is what narcissism is, being broken and insecure, which as imperfect human beings, is a big part of our DNA.

i am like Peter and definitely have weaknesses built into me. i tire of inauthenticity and hiding, even though at times that is easier and are masks i will put on to protect myself. Yet, because i am tired of hiding my weaknesses, i'd like to share them with you. As Peter says, 'This demands a difficult level of vulnerability and transparency. It means you’ll have an opportunity to attack where I’m least “defended.'" ' So, we have decided to take the leap and reveal and share our weaknesses with you for the sake of open dialogue/conversation.

i quote what Peter says so eloquently:

'In turn, you have strengths that may frustrate me, confound me, or directly refute something about my beliefs! But they are strengths, nonetheless. And by ignoring or underestimating them, I don’t just weaken my particular “position” (we must get beyond these adversarial identifiers) but I also underestimate and even undervalue your worth, and the complexity of your experiences that have led you to where you are.'

Over the next couple of weeks, Peter and i will be co-op blogging on our own weaknesses, on the strengths we find in opposing DIFFERING viewpoints and belief systems, and we will be reflecting on why this is such a radically different way of dialoguing!

YOU are invited to join us at either...

* www.ExistentialPunk.com OR
* www.EmergingChristian.com

The Simultaneity Of Deconstruction & Re/Construction

Wikipedia has the following to say about deconstruction:

'...an approach (whether in philosophy, literary analysis, or in other fields) which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or impossible.

Deconstruction generally operates by conducting close textual readings with a view to demonstrating that the text is not a discrete whole but that it instead contains several irreconcilable, contradictory meanings. This process shows that any text has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point...'

Many Christians, in my opinion, even within emerging church circles, misunderstand what deconstructing our faith really entails. Often they say it is time to stop deconstructing and that it's time to move on to reconstruct and rebuild what has been deconstructed. Then there are those Christians who believe deconstructing and reconstructing becomes an exercise in relativism and creating the scriptures and G-D in our own image. i do not claim to fully understand deconstruction in the Deriddean philosophical vein, but Pete Rollins crystallizes deconstruction so clearly in the emerging church construct for me (HT: Jonathan Brink):

'A lot of people talk about deconstruction like this.They say, “Well we’ve got to deconstruct and then once we’ve deconstructed, we can rebuild.”

And I want to stop at that point and say, “No.  We never cease to deconstruct.  Deconstruction is not like knocking down a building so we can clear a space to build something new.  Deconstruction is like the heat that keeps our ideas fluid and molten and moving and dynamic.” '

For me, deconstruction and re/construction are a simultaneous process that need each other. We must constantly question, rethink, seek, search, doubt, dig, knock, push, tear, rupture, deconstruct, reconstruct. We must also allow the Divine to invade, rupture, embrace, invade, transform, deconstruct, reconstruct us in ways we might expect but also in unexpected ways that are beyond our human imaginings. We are imperfect humans who can never claim to fully comprehend and understand the Divine. We, as people of faith, MUST and NEED to make room for the Divine to invade us without our preconceived notions. There can never be any human being who can claim absolute knowledge of everything about this life and the Divine. i don't care how knowledgeable, studied, gifted, et al any of us are, we are still fallible, imperfect humans who always screw up and get it wrong. No amount of knowledge, theology, Biblical literacy, intuition, etc. can outdo what G-D designs to accomplish. G-D is a relational Divinity that is not stagnant and stuck in a certain epoch.

i am mesmerized and humbled when Rollins boldly says that, 'I do not believe Christians are called to believe in the resurrection of Christ.  I believe we are called to be the resurrection of Christ.  To be the site where resurrection takes place.' That statement is amazing and has such deep implications for our faith. Take time to mull on those 33 words and allow them to really sink down into your being, your soul! This is deep stuff people.

We get so wrapped up in what we believe and don't believe so much that we are failing to really listen to the indwelling of the Divine and the radical transformation that the Divine desires to bring forth and rupture in our souls. We get in this us vs. them mentalities, argue over who has the right/correct beliefs, who is in and who is out. So often we are all so very ungenerous, whether conservative, liberal or in the middle. i know i am very guilty of this and for that i am truly sorry. My pride and hurt feelings get the best of me more often than not. i truly want to be a site where Christ's resurrection takes place. i am human and will fail often. At least i acknowledge my weaknesses and human frailties although it is very difficult and humbling. Sometimes i don't care that i fuck up and treat people ungenerously. That is one of the many dark parts of my soul where i need the Divine to rupture and transform me. Even in my unwillingness i need G-D to embrace me, transform me, deconstruct and reconstruct me.

These are merely my musings, thoughts, rants. Maybe i am wrong or just maybe i am on to something. Either way, i hope i challenge you, dear readers, to chew and ponder. i am not attempting to sway you to my way of thinking, lead you astray, or change your minds. This is simply my space to throw out what is ruminating in my soul and my being. i am just trying to make some sense of my feelings, thoughts and meanderings inside my little ol' mind! If you are here reading this and find yourself vehemently disagreeing with me, i am ok with that. Even if i am way off track, i trust the Divine G-D of the universe will gently nudge me back on track. That is how i have always lived and walked with G-D, and so far G-D has been the faithful one!

What do you think?

Irreligiosophy Podcast

Leighton and Chuck at Irreligiosophy have their interview with me and Pete Rollins up today. Check it out as it's billed as their best podcast to date! Thanks guys!

The Difference Between Literalism & Fundamentalism

i have never read John Dominic Crossan but have always heard wonderful things about him and plan to read him in the future! HT Pete Rollins for this interview clip with Crossan where he discusses the difference between religious literalism and religious fundamentalism. i think he is spot on and i really resonated with what he said from my own personal experiences!

Pete Rollins Muses on Emergent Churches

Shirley Hoogstra interviews Pete Rollins on an Inner Compass Episode at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Just scroll down to Episode #909 and enjoy the informative conversation. It's about 25 minutes in length.

Publisher's Weekly Review Of Pete Rollins' Upcoming Book

 Pete Rollins' newest book, "The Orthodox Heretic: And Other Impossible Tales", will be released this April by Paraclete Press. Publisher's Weekly recently reviewed "The Orthodox Heretic" in it's Religion section under Nonfiction Reviews.

The Orthodox Heretic: And Other Impossible Tales Peter Rollins. Paraclete, $19.99 (164p) ISBN 978-1-55725-634-8

Don't be fooled by the slender spine of this unusual book. Rollins, the Irish philosopher/po-mo theologian who has previously published How (Not) to Speak of God and The Fidelity of Betrayal, upends some of Christians' most cherished platitudes about God in his newest outing. He cautions readers that the book is not to be read quickly, for acquiring information, but to be savored slowly for possible transformation. Mostly, the book lives up to this billing. Rollins recasts some of the most familiar parables of and stories about Jesus, sometimes subversively—as when he proposes a version of feeding the 5,000 that shows Jesus and his disciples pigging out on meager resources while the multitudes look on, starving. His point? That Christians are the body of Christ, and when we oppress the poor and hoard scarce resources, we are saying that represents the kind of God we serve. Although not all of the parables work equally well—some could use further illumination—Rollins is a tremendously talented writer and thinker whose challenges to Christianity-as-usual should be well-received by the emergent church crowd, if not beyond. (Apr. 1)

Lessons In Evandalism Tour

Pete Rollins is returning to the USA for his upcoming tour entitled 'Lessons In Evandalism', which will include a visit to Richmond, VA the end of February. He describes the tour as:

The current religious landscape is cluttered with various expressions of faith that claim to rethink Christianity at the dawn of a new cultural epoch. However such groups often accomplish little more than the repackaging and redistribution of faith as we currently understand it. A repackaging that involves flashing lights, video projectors and ‘culturally sensitive’ leaders who can talk about the latest mediocre pop sensation.

Throughout his Spring 09 tour Peter will be arguing that, in the midst of this arid landscape, there exist small but fertile sites of resistance. Groups who offer a way of thinking that not only challenges the way we express faith but fundamentally ruptures the way we understand it. He will argue that these pockets of resistance represent a growing, organic movement that are proclaiming the death of God, church and religion as we know them in preparation for their resurrection in a radically different form.

Through a mix of parables, philosophy and discussion Peter will be exploring the theoretical kernel of this emerging movement and addressing its dangerous, revolutionary and transformative potential.

For more, read here.

Queermergent

 

i just created a new blog called Queermergent. It's a play on the words Queer and Emergent. Here's the very first post:

i have been a part of the Emergent conversation both in the UK and the USA for the past 6 years. After years of white-knuckling and repressing my sexuality through a Religious Right conservatism, charismatic, fundamentalist Christianity that lived by literal interpretations of the Bible in dogmatic ways, Reparative Therapy and ex-gay ministries, where the mantra became, “Pray Away the Gay”, and years of depression and suicidal tendencies, i FINALLY came to terms with my sexuality and G-D. Through a very long journey with many peaks and valleys, i decided, through much counsel and prayer that reconciling my same-sex attractions and my Christian faith was a reality where i could exist.

Here is a brief summary of my journey:

Twenty years ago this month I had a ‘born-again’ experience at a charismatic church where an American missionary to S. Africa was speaking. Hell was one of the topics being preached, so at the end of the evening I went forward for the altar call to ‘receive’ Jesus into my heart. I did this because I was afraid of going to hell. Thus, I was purchasing my ‘fire insurance’. I attended Pat Robertson’s graduate school in Virginia Beach, Regent University, to obtain an M.Div so I could be a youth pastor. I began to seriously look at my life-long struggle of same-sex attractions. The school and my therapist along with my charismatic church back home always communicated that being gay was a sin, a choice, and those who actively pursue it will go to hell. I was shell-shocked and confused. I attempted suicide and spent a month at two different times in a psychiatric hospital. I even did reparative therapy and attended ex-gay ministries to pray away the gay, which never worked. In 1997 I moved to Los Angeles and began living a double life as a Christian and as a gay woman. I began to read Brian McLaren and found him writing things I had felt inside but was very afraid to express outwardly to anyone. In 2002 I went to Northern Ireland to do a DTS with YWAM. I met the great Peter Rollins and we developed a great friendship. His teachings and writings on postmodernism and Christianity radically shaped how I viewed my faith. I could no longer hang onto certainty with regards to interpreting scripture. There were more important things in kingdom living than where we go after we pass from this world to the next, like poverty, AIDS, the environment, etc. About 2.5 years ago I FINALLY came to terms with my sexuality. I found peace with myself and with God. Coming out was fairly painless with the exception of a few people who still think I am in sin and going to hell. I no longer hold this view and I am ok if people think that about me. I hate labels as they are so limiting, but are sometimes a necessary evil. After being a right wing Republican most of my voting life, I now consider myself an independent that leans more liberal than moderate.

Queermergent was created today in order to create a safe space for those Christ-followers who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Queer to partake in mature discussions regarding the LGBTQ community of faith within a 21st Century, postmodern, emergent/emerging church context. Queermergent is also a space for those that are not from the LGBTQ community but desire to understand us more, ask questions, and contribute to the queer conversation in a life-affirming way. As we journey along together we will hopefully be changed for the better. Thanks be to G-D!

'Mohammed Made Me An Atheist'

i have looked into other religions before but have always come back to Christianity, though i no longer hold onto dogmatic beliefs and interpretations. Sometimes i consider myself, in the term Pete Rollins uses, an A/theist in that i no longer hold my beliefs so tightly that i think i have all the answers figured out. Faith is what it is, which means belief in G-D takes faith in something not seen or felt in this life. i deeply resonate with what Rollins says about A/theism, in his book, 'How (Not) To Speak Of God':

'Not only is Christianity atheistic insomuch as it rejects ideas of God which stand opposed to those found in its own tradition (the early Christians were called atheists because of their rejection of those deities worshipped by the Romans), but also there is a sense in which Christianity is atheistic because it rejects its own understanding of God. For a Christian who does not simultaneously reject the idea of God that he or she affirms implicitly claims that the one he or she worships can be held within his or her systems of belief.

This does not mean that Christianity teaches us to reject our religious beliefs but rather reminds us that we must engage in a process of 'de-naming' God every time we name God, acknowledging that God's name  is above every name that we could ever ascribe . . .This process (of naming God) reminds us that God transcends all earthly names and, as such, escapes our attempts at absolute understanding. God is nominated and then de-nominated, reminding us  that our understanding of the term 'Father' is profoundly affected by our background.

In opposition to the fundamentalist, wh can be defined as one who believes what they believe, the Christian can be said to operate with an a/theistic discourse , which makes claims about God, while simultaneously acknowledging that these claims are provisional, uncertain and insufficient. This a/theistic approach is one that understands how our questioning of God is never really a questioning of God but only a means of questioning our understanding of God. It is a discourse not unlike that of the original cynics, who, in opposition to the common caricature, were deeply moral individuals who questioned truth as presented by society precisely because of their deep love of truth. An a'theistic faith thus acknowledges the importance of both theism and atheism in faith.

This approach does not stand above faith, nor does it undermine it; rather this a/theistic approach is born from, and subservient to, faith. it allows us to maintain an unflinching belief in God 9as one believes in a person one trusts) while maintaining humility when attempting to describe what exactly God is. This is summed up powerfully by Augustine when he wrote, "What do I love when I love my God?" - a phrase that captures a profound passion for God amidst doubt and unknowing. By exploring how fidelity to God requires an acknowledgement of the provisional nature of our beliefs, "a/theism" was designed to offer us a greater appreciation of God's greatness, a renewed openness to learning from other people's understanding of God and a deeper commitment to a faith that is enhanced, rather than enslaved, by a particular Christian tradition.' (pp. 97-98)

HT Andrew Sullivan for this riveting article from Douglas Murray, a former Anglican from England.

'Douglas Murray says that he stopped being an Anglican after analysing Muslim texts and deciding that no book — of any religion — could claim infallibility'

'Many people hold on to belief as an unquestioned part of their make-up. They never have to confront the source of their belief, and as long as nothing actively pushes them into addressing it, they keep it as something which rarely does much harm and might actually do some good. I have been an Anglican since birth — and not just a cultural Anglican but at times (rarest of things) a real, worshipping, believing Anglican. Like a lot of believers, I knew that there were parts of my belief that wouldn’t stand up to analysis. But that was fine. I didn’t need to analyse them. I only lost faith when I was forced to . . .

Some years ago I started studying Islam. It didn’t take long to recognise the problems of that religion’s texts — the repetitions, contradictions and absurdities. Unlike Christianity, scholarship on these problems in Islam has barely begun. But they are manifest for anyone to see. For a holy book which in its opening lines boasts ‘that is the book, wherein is no doubt’, plenty of doubt emerges. Not least in recognising demonstrable plagiarisms from the Torah and the Christian Bible. If God spoke through an archangel to one illiterate tradesman in 7th-century Arabia, then — just for starters — why was he stealing material? Or was he just repeating himself?

Gradually, scepticism of the claims made by one religion was joined by scepticism of all such claims. Incredulity that anybody thought an archangel dictated a book to Mohammed produced a strange contradiction. I found myself still clinging to belief in Christianity. I was trying to believe — though rarely arguing — ‘Well, your guy didn’t hear voices: but I know a man who did.’ This last, shortest and sharpest, phase pulled down the whole thing. In the end Mohammed made me an atheist.'

Your thoughts?

Pete Rollins' Take On Moving Beyond The Colour Of Each Other's Eyes

Here's a fresh post from Pete Rollins, that is quite interesting, entitled "Beyond the colour of each other's eyes", where he talks about having "just completed two draft chapters for a forthcoming book featuring Jason Clark, Kevin Corcoran, Jamie Smith and Kurt and Lori Wilson. These chapters will be presented at a Calvin College conference taking place at the end of January. The chapters have been provisionally entitled, ‘Beyond the Colour of Each Other’s Eyes: The Worldly Theology of Emerging Collectives’ and ‘Transformance Art: Reconfiguring the Social Self’."

". . . indeed, in the spirit of the text, what if we could offer an interpretive translation  of Paul’s words that would read,

You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither high church nor low church, Fox nor CNN, citizen not alien, capitalist nor communist, gay nor straight, beautiful nor ugly, East nor West, theist nor atheist, Israel nor Palestine, hawk nor dove, American nor Iraqi, married nor divorced, uptown nor downtown, terrorist nor freedom fighter, paedophile nor loving parent, priest nor prophet, fame nor obscurity, Christian nor non-Christian, for all are made one in Christ Jesus

…One of the fundamental gifts that the nascent movement called emergent has to offer the wider church is a way of locating the power of that eschatological vision of Paul within the here and now. While we cannot step out of historical time and enter the eschaton, while we cannot enact this radical negation today (for we cannot really forget our gender, our job, our sexual preferences, our political opinions, our nationality etc), some emerging collectives have developed a space in which we are able to symbolically enact this step. A place where we engage in a theatrical performance of Paul’s vision. It is the creation of what we may call ‘suspended space’."

Read the entire piece here.

What are your thoughts?