Semantics part “too”

Two posts ago I was rambling on about truth, absolutism, and some obscure ways of perceiving gossip. My good friend Gregg gave an interesting comment:

Truth is an interesting topic of discussion I think. It differs in first glance understanding from that of 'Good' and 'Evil'. In my opinion, it's easier to qualify an absolute in good and evil than it is in truth. However, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that there is absolute truth. I feel it's easier to LOSE absolute truth within a myriad of truths mixed with half-truths, mixed with lies. Kinda like reading Dan Brown's novels. Yet I think there has to be an absolute truth in the sense that truth can in fact be metered from complete to false. Now the real question should be what in our world views, and in Christianity can we actually hold up to the light and see straight through as absolutely true, without blemish...

Thanks Gregg. Now, being the editor of this little publication, I get to respond in kind.

I had a conversation similar to this a couple years ago in Regina, Saskatchewan. I was in a class of about six people called “Christianity and Contemporary Spiritualities.” It was the pilot of the course and so often quite open-ended in discussion (as such a class should be, anyway). Somewhere between trying to figure out the fulfilment people seek in New Age, Celtic, or Aboriginal spiritually we were discussing the force of culture.

Culture can be understood in different ways. Some see it as a hotbed of change, others as a vehicle of corruption. However, what we were talking about in that class was the idea of culture as a paradigm or local perspective. As is often the case in such discussions, my mind was freewheeling down all sorts of different ideas and questions. The one that made it out my mouth was both simplistic as well as complex: Does the Gospel exist--or can we even understand it--outside of culture?

How's that for disillusioned post-imperialism Incarnation theology? Well, for me, anyway, it was (and is) important and continually interesting. I greatly appreciate the sagacious and patient people who have not only intersected my own journey but helped direct it and are willing to entertain the ordered chaos of my thoughts. Bill McAlpine (PhD candidate) was the professor for that class and though he didn't really tell me anything mind-shattering in response to my question, he did clarify and affirm where that query was taking me.

First off, the Gospel was never meant to be culture-free. The Incarnation deals with that up front. There was no mistake, lack of foresight, or coincidence in the fact that Jesus Christ came as a first century Jew in the midst of philosophical and political unrest. The Apostle Paul understood this. In bringing the Gospel to Asia Minor he had to comprehend both the cultural ties Christ-following had to 2nd Temple Judaism as well as the different paradigm in which his contemporary Grecians would understand it.
*Please note, I'm embellishing detail upon how Bill responded as this question has been an ongoing discovery even now*

Now, I'm in the camp that thinks Constantine was as bad an experience for Christianity as the Crusades. I wont dwell on that. However, I will mention that from about 300CE on the spread of Gospel has moved in phases of the Church. That is, as Christianity takes root in a culture (being the dominant religion or a precept of the local politics) it naturally takes on aspects of that culture. I would even dare to say it “adapts.” The problem comes when the Gospel begins to spread into another culture after some time has passed. This is where we get into missiology and if you haven't heard of the movement of church planting by nationals then you need to read up.

The stereotypical imperialist missionary who brought Christianity to Africa brought it in the trappings of European culture. Unfortunately, the track record often shows that the European-ness was more important than the Gospel itself. What you end up with is a culturally bound Gospel that is no longer allowed to adapt and becomes a tool of assimilation. Just look at the residential schools debacle in Canada. “Christianity” became a shell for the warhead of “civilized-white-culture.”

Anyway, seeing as this post is way to long for anyone to actually care to read, I'll just finish off for you diligent skimmers. The Gospel: brought to us in cultural clothing; naturally adapts and spreads in the cultural vehicle; abused when restricted to any one culture. We need to remember that our understanding of truth (here I'm inferring the Gospel) is not absolute. However, its foundation is even though we do not have the capacity to understand or delineate it.
And so, Gregg, in more than a word, does that answer your question? Probably not. It doesn't even fully answer mine.

Swerving from the ordinary...

...into a bridge enbunkment...

Well, not to detract from the thoughts I've posted (or have yet to post) but I decided I would like to post this video.

Oh, if you were wondering what to get me for my birthday or Christmas, now you know.

Semantics & my own "ancient/future" ramblings

If you are familiar with the community movement known as Emergent then you will have an easier time figuring out what I'm talking about today (here is an interview done with some Emergent people by Relevant Magazine). As an article I was reading brings to light, some members of Emergent Village are criticized as being "too postmodern" in that they seem to reject absolute truth. However, (if you read the interview this is clear) it is actually more an issue of semantics than pure relativism. As Tony Jones says in the interview:

Emergent surely has people in it who strongly believe that there is absolute truth. I'm on the record as laying out a pretty complex understanding of why I think putting the qualifier absolute in front of truth is a modernistic fallacy. Truth is not qualified by adjectives like absolute. So for me personally, talking about absolute truth is a nonsensical way to talk, and surely Christian theologians shouldn't talk in that way. It isn't helpful, because it doesn't make sense.

Now, where he is going with that is deeper and in a slightly different direction from my current thoughts.

I am currently living in a small town working at a church that is 3 parts old-fashioned Nova Scotian conservative. Most of the church-goers have never even heard of Emergent, Relevant Magazine, Tony Jones, or even Brian McLaren. In fact, most probably don't have a good grasp on postmodernism or relativism. So, with such a crowd, obviously denouncing the adjective "absolute" when in conjunction with "truth" wouldn't fly, right?

In conscious practice, that's correct. Culturally, however, these small-towners (especially the church-goers) are far more postmodern than they realize. You see, though the local 'credo' may tote precepts like "foundational" and "fundamental" the daily interactions and communication are constant re-creations and re-interpretations of things that may or may not be true in some sense (sounds pretty relativistic to me).

The only reason, however, that this sounds odd for a small town is, again, because of semantics. In small-town culture, it's not called "relativism," it's called "the rumor-mill" (but it adds up to the same thing). A warning I received just after we got here was that sometimes people will tell you things that seem to be true (and, indeed, they will project it as such) but may be so corrupt in details or layered in opinion that either it isn't true or I need to sift through the "messenger's" paradigm to get a sense of what is "probable" truth. Of course, I performed such a "sifting" experiment on the very warning-givers and, hence, came to blog about it.

Further down this rabbit-hole I would like to discuss the idea plagiarism as well as my thoughts on 'purpose-driving' youth ministry. However, since the sun rises in the East it sets there earlier. It's late. Maybe I'll do a part two.

"This is not a love song..."

"...it's a sonnet."

Music is unbelievable. It has such power to enrage, impassion, encourage, and even annoy.

Lately I've been listening to a guy that goes by the moniker Matisyahu. He's a Hasidic Jew (curls, beard, hat, scarf, and all) who does reggae (very well, I might add). I know, I know, you've already heard about him and I've missed the boat; Well, my point is I like his music and his lyrics are great and deeply spiritual. Here is a link to a video of a live performance.

Besides Matisyahu, I've been listening to K-Os, Gnarls Barkley, Deleriou5, and Simon & Garfunkel. Click here.

[Don't forget to subscribe.]

Presenting...

Subscription service on my Blog!
No, it doesn't mean you have to pay to read my blog. If you look on the right-hand tool-bar of "my profile," "links", "archives," etc., at the bottom is now a simple form to subscribe via email. Basically, like community newsletters and such, you can now have your email inform you when I've posted something new rather than find out for yourself.
And... it is easy to unsubscribe--just hold onto the confirmation email or follow the instructions and make your password something you can remember. The service I used for this is called "bloglet" so (*especially hotmail users*) make sure the updates don't disappear into your junkmail box.
Let me know if you are having difficulties. Otherwise, this link will take you to the form.