Observation 12: It is OK to explore changes in theology … just be
careful
Barry Taylor shared Pitirim Sorokin’s
philosophy and Berry’s opinion that we are in a sensate period. Sorokin
classified societies according to their 'cultural mentality', which can be
"ideational" (reality is spiritual), "sensate" (reality is
material), or "idealistic" (a synthesis of the two). He also shared
that Marshall Mcluhan
views on technology change the world.
Barry shared that we live in a different environment than
past ages. God is still just as unknown
and unfathomable as He always has been, but we have changed. Barry asserts if you want to redefine
Christianity, you have to go back to Paul.
Barry is looking at reviewing the Christian theology. According to Barry the thing we think
is least in need of change - the story of our faith - is the thing that needs
to change the most. Christianity is
willing to change its forms a million times over, just so we can avoid having
to change the story we're telling. The focus of Barry's talks was not on
reviewing the practice of Christianity, but the theology. I think we need
to review both practice and theology. But
this talk was about changing the theology.
Clearly most Christian’s are afraid of discussing changes to the
theology. The emerging change to theology is not a change to God, but a change
to how we understand God.
Paul’s initial interaction with Christianity is that he was
struck blind. Barry’s reinterpretation
of Paul is focused on Paul’s three days of blindness, not about seeing. Paul had to begin again in darkness. The darkness disempowers Paul. There is always an outsider… that is where
God is. We are all broken. As we come to an understanding of brokenness
in ourselves we can accept the other person.
“If I ever become a
Saint — I surely be one of ‘darkness’. I will continually be absent from Heaven
— to light the light of those in darkness on earth.” – Mother Teresa
Barry/Pete had a discussion about sin not being a moral
failure, but rather a “failure to look at your own brokenness. It is the pursuit of anything good/bad that
prevents you from looking at your own darkness.” I see sin as the moral failure that is not
choosing to do good for the benefit of the other even at the expense of
yourself by overcoming (accepting) your darkness. For me it is the failure to love the other,
not the pursuit to overcome darkness of self.
Maybe it is the same thing, but I don’t think so. I can be OK with my own darkness (I think I just
admitted to being a narcissistic sociopath).
Some of the greatest change happens when you realize you can’t change
and that is OK (grace). My darkness is
not the area of focus for me… the area of focus for me is focus on helping the
other. I suck at that. When done correctly (Kingdom of God) I can
help others overcome their darkness, and they help me overcome my darkness. But first I dismissed my darkness and love
the other. For me sin, is failing to selflessly help the other.
I have inner darkness. I’m being really honest here and it
will probably get me in trouble…. I’ve had a strange relationship with my
internal darkness. Given that for most
of my adult life I have had take a “lifestyle polygraph” two times a year where
nothing is off limits (perverse sexual preferences, etc) and admit my inner
darkness to some stranger from the US Department of Defense who cataloged it in
a computer… I have had to learn that my inner darkness is just part of me. For the last 5 years I had to adjudicate other
peoples confessions. After 20 years of openly
talking about my inner darkness I found nothing to be emotionally ashamed of,
just intellectually aware of (I am very dark… so this isn’t a dismissal because
I have ‘good character’… it is a statement of being OK with my darkness). If you are not aware of your darkness, I suggest sitting for a lifestyle
polygraph. It can be liberating to have
to face how dark you really are. I find
it ironic that to get access to a nations greatest secrets one must be willing
to have no secrets of their own. But I
don’t think sin is being unable to except ones darkness, I think it is failing
to act in kindness to the other at the expense of self.
Here is an example: I
can totally accept my desire to go see naked women dance (strippers). While I have no issue with that desire,
others may call it darkness. Frankly I
don’t have issues with strippers, if that is what they want to do with their
time. However, I’m married and know it
upsets my wife if I even go to the strip club.
To me the sin is not desiring to see a stripper, seeing a stripper, or stripping.
The sin is failing to love my wife enough to give up something I want because it is hurts her.
Yes, I sin. I can be a real prick (especially at work). When I do
it bothers me. God has grace. This bothers me more because it doesn’t feel
justified. But I have to acknowledge it
and use that acknowledgment to share it with others.
Question 2: Is sin the failure to look at ones own brokenness,
or is sin the failure to love others over self?
Pete also talked about if the crucifixion was not (just?) an
atonement but an event to demonstrate the removal of all cultural identities
(when people were crucified their cultural, social and religious titles and
identities were stripped from them).
We spent the afternoon in workshops. I attended on on magic. It was awesome. After dinner we are going to hear Katherine Moody talk. Sadly I won't have my laptop to take notes as we are going to a concert (Duke Special and John Hardt) directly following Katherine's talk. I'm excited to hear Katherine talk because I hope she will be able to shed some light on Question #1.
No comments:
Post a Comment