IoG Day 2 journal: Peacewalls, Funeral by Tillich, some Christians are pricks, & Jay Bakker’s broken record of scandalous Grace.

Observation #4:  My own Peacewall

I learned today that walls separate many of the neighborhoods in Ireland. Kind of like walls around a castle.  Each time a conflict between communities would happen and some peace would be declared, they would build a wall between the communities.  The term “Peacewall” is kind of an oxymoron to me…. But in many ways it is really symbolic of how when we avoid building relationships with the other, but instead isolate ourselves from people with different views… we don’t grow understanding we just have temporary isolation from the conflict.

I have to call myself out on this… in yesterday’s post I admitted to my “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy with respect to sharing my doubts with my loved ones in mainstream Christianity.  I just avoid the conflict with my own peacewall.

Observation #5:  Two sides of the same wall

Some of the peacewalls are huge.  Here is a photo of one of the walls.  This side contains an art mural for the future and the other side is a memorial of the past. Will holding onto the past limit forward progress?  Will creating art on the wall cause something that must be curated, rather than simply taken down?

Are our fundamentalist brothers holding onto murals of legacy Christianity?

Are our emergent brothers curating an identity around philosophy and art?

Are we building walls rather than community?

Observation #6: Paul Tillich just hosted my funeral

The IKON event was interesting.  The shared experience was about death and decay.  It isn’t really possible to convey a shared experience of performance art.   The closest thing to explain it is Paul Tillich’s book “A Courage to Be”.

Another observation… Irish people can be deeply depressing.

Observation #7:  Christian’s can be pricks to each other

Jay Bakker shared stories of his childhood.  I really felt for him when he was sharing the loss of his childhood.  When Pat Robertson auctioned off his childhood possessions, when his friend “Tommy” left.  When Christians idolized his parents and wanted to spend time with them, but then the political bomb went off and treated them like pariahs.  He was left home to watch it on television.

Observation #8:  Grace wins

In the way Rob Bell would say “Love Wins”… Jay Bakker is living evidence that “Grace Wins”.  He was grilled by award winning BBC reporter William Crawley.  Grilled. Regardless of the backstabbing Jay experienced from Christians in his childhood he is a broken record when it comes to grace.  He is open with his doubt (even referencing Bart Ehrman and some less superficial stuff).  He was open with his lack of understanding.  Jay holds on to Jesus and holds on to Paul and shares his doubts about God.  He was openly doubtful...  At one point Jay was asked by Crawley, "Why don't you just become a civil rights activist?" ... his response was "Grace keeps pulling me back in."  One thing Jay was clear about… Jay clearly believes in a radical grace.  A grace that transcends theology.


The interview isn't done... I'm sure more brilliance will be shared but I've got to shut down... the laptop battery is about dead and I have to go to the bathroom to return a Guinness I have rented.

IoG Day 1: Fight Club, Open Mind & Rehab

-->

Most vacations involve some sort of trip journal for me… as this is an atypical vacation, this will undoubtedly be an atypical trip journal.

My first observation is the Irish are very welcoming.  Each person I ask directions from stops and answers.  Of course I have almost died 3 times while crossing the road (I keep forgetting they drive on the left side of the road here).

The pub conversations are lively and engaging.  Most people ask me “What brings you to Ireland?”  I still don’t have a good answer.  Once, I tried the honest answer, “I read some guys book.  I liked it.  I met some people on the Internet, and we all decided to meet up in Belfast.”  His response was, “I hope they don’t kill you.  The Internet is full of crazy people and flying across the ocean to meet an author sounds like you are crazy.”  I admire the Irish dry humor. 

Last night was our first event for IoG.  We met The Duke of York pub to get to know each other.  Given the conversations, this is going to be an interesting week.  The diversity of people here is really phenomenal. 

Observation #1:  First rule of IoG: Don’t talk about IoG.

I hope my journal will not violate anybody’s trust.  One of my first observations was many of the participants were not comfortable with others knowing they were at this event.  Not all, but enough that posting names & photos of participants would be poor judgment.  The reasons seems to fall into two camps:

1)   Some of us haven’t come out of the closet yet about our doubt.

Regardless of if I call it “emergent”, “progressive” or “doubt”… many participants have friends and colleagues in mainstream Christendom that would judge them as “unholy” for participating in an event like this.  Sadly, I’ve seen too many people who explore this “emergent” faith trolled by mainstream Christians on the Internet.  Some of the participants at this conference work in mainstream Christianity and are frankly scared of the Internet trolls who don’t show grace.

While I’ve never been trolled for this… I can personally identify with the concerns.  I came out to my parents (conservative Christians) about my emergent faith earlier this week when they asked me “what are you going to Ireland for?” The instant response was “I’ve read about emergent Christianity”… we immediately moved to the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy and started talking about the weather. My heart is heavy that I can’t have a real conversation about what I’m going through with people I love.

2)   Concerned colleagues will think they are a crazy Christian

Some of the participants, myself included, have circles of friends and co-workers that look down on somebody with faith.  I love where I work. I work at one of the most tolerant places in the world.  A public University.  People will fight openly for equality of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion… any religion except Christianity.  Christianity is too “mainstream” and frankly has done some pretty horrible shit in the name of God.  Where I work the only label that really causes reputational harm is “Christian”, the other labels are badges of honor and intellect.

 

Observation #2:  Keep an open mind

I had some mind-blowing conversations last night.  One moment I was talking with an individual who asserted witnessing a miracle.  The next I was talking to a person who doubted the Christianity they grew up in, and flew here because she wanted a safe place where she could ask questions and experience her doubt without judgment.  I pray that participants will grow comfortable with their doubts.  I pray they will keep an open mind.  I pray they will return home and be a safe harbor for others to express their doubts.  God is big enough for our doubts.  I’m pretty sure he can handle it.

Observation #3:  Christians in Rehab

Everybody I talked to last night had a story that went something like “I was a pastor…” or “I grew up a fundamentalist…” or “My parents thought me Christianity…” and then ended with “… I have doubts about the rules and rituals but still believe in the same God”. 

I only got to talk to about 10% of the participants… but I wonder if anybody goes from agnostic/atheist into ___ (what do you call whatever this is? Progressive?  Emergent?  Radical?)… or if people in whatever this is are just Christians in Rehab.

Enough for now… I’m sitting at a café and it is obvious the waitress wants me to turn off my computer… How American of her…

Book review of Faith, Doubt, and Other lines I've crossed by Jay Bakker

-->
I just left a party to go to my hotel to read the last chapter of Jay Bakker’s book “Faith, Doubt, and Other lines I’ve crossed”.  I’ve had the chance to meet Jay in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.  Kind of an odd duck.  Nice guy.  He told me to read Tillich.  I did.  My brain hurts.  But I forgive Jay.

As for Jay’s book.  It is awesome.  I was half way into the book on the bus from Belfast to Dublin this morning when I started texting my best friend.  The texts went something like:

·      “I’m ordering you Jay Bakker’s new book.  Read it.”

·      “Hard copy sent… couldn’t figure out how to order it for your kindle since my kindle already owns it… stupid technology”

·      “Awesome book.  Heart of Francis Chan.  Head of Peter Rollins (but a lot more understandable)” Sorry Pete.

I then start texting him photos of pages of the book (apologies to Jay's copyright lawyer).  Specifically the part about the church’s view of Mathew 18 being the antithesis of 2 Corinthians 13 (my buddy got to ‘experience’ that in front of a body of “believers” who were doing “God’s will”).

Jay talks about what scandalous, vulgar grace is like.  If you are looking for a book to affirm a certain, doubtless, inerrant view of Christianity…. this is not a book for you.  But if you struggle, doubt or are looking for a deeper relationship with God than the theistic god created in church … this is a great book.  Jay doesn’t apologize for doubting.  His God is big enough.  Jay doesn’t apologize for extending grace to “sinners” and not worrying about if they are “holy” enough.  His God is big enough.  It is vulgar.  NC17 stuff.

The one reason I give it 4 out of 5 starts is because Jay has a long segway in the middle part of the book about affirming LGBTQ in the church.  For me, LGBTQ is a label and that label is not sinful.  A person loving another person, regardless of gender, is not sin… that is just about as stupid as saying my wife is my property.  I don’t like labels.  I understand we want to call one label good and one label bad.  The problem is that I’m as undeserving of God’s grace as the founder of the North American Man Boy Love Association (a pedophile advocacy group).  But that is how scandalous God’s grace is…

All in all … this is an awesome book.  I’ve already ordered 3 copies today for different friends.  It is clearly one for a ‘book club’ and/or discussion group.  I can only imagine how much fun it would be to talk about “you mean Jesus was talking about that guy when he was saying love everybody?  But that guys a prick… “  Scandalous.  Truly Scandalous.

Diagram of frankenweenie

I think in abstract pictures.  I'm still trying to mentally work my way through my last post.  These pictures help me, but I think they are less accurate than the last post.

as-is diagram:

to-be diagram:

For me "God" is a state that exists in the red box.  

This morning I had a discussion with a friend about knowing "God". His assertion was that God can be known (at least in part). I'm still of the opinion that God is not a 'known' but a state expressed in something analogous to a wave function of unconditional love & scandalous grace. Similar to Plato's cave... I can only understand the shadows on the wall, and not know the True character of God.

The dialog started with somebody at the table asserting that if compassion for a sinner harms the one the sin is against the act is unjust. The example of the prodigal son returning and how killing the fattened calf took away something from the good son that stayed home. I think the assertion that the good son is being wronged is antithetical to 'unconditional love/grade' and therefore the person asserting the moral high ground is not as holy as they would think they are.... I'm sure none of this makes sense.  I can also see the other side:

• Was the 'holier person' wronged when something was taken from them (the calf) to give to the unholy / misbehaving prodigal son? By social norms; yes. There is a truth to that wronging that I have to acknowledge.

• Was the loving gay couple wronged when they were told they can't marry in the church they attend?  By social norms; yes.  There is a truth to that wronging that I have to acknowledge.

However in the state of Truth (capital T) another behavior that is also wrong is the hard-heart of the holy person who is failing to provide unconditional love and scandalous grace to the other.  Humans can’t act in a state of Truth all the time.  We can aspire … I am an expert at failing at living in this state…  my point is ... we are all unholy.  My point is that for me, God is not a 'known' but a unrealizable state based on a shadow on the wall.

Frankenweenie, life's purpose, God, and other existential ramblings

In 2013 America it is the norm to work-hard and play-hard, not because we are more industrious or playful than our ancestors but because we are on a treadmill that keeps speeding up. When I take a moment to pause the treadmill, I notice the silliness of our actions, and far worse I hear the sound of my own anxiety and fear of standing still.

The total anxiety found in staring down meaninglessness in that stillness is beyond my ability to deal with for anything but a brief moment.

I guess many ages ago when the treadmill was slower, people would slow down more often and turn to religion in these moments of anxiety. The old theologies and pieties offered certainties which I can't believe in light of modernity. During this age modernity has unhorsed the god of theism and the treadmill has accelerated to the point we have lost our societal ability for existential exploration. At the dawn of the post-modern age I don't find it viable to believe in the emotional arguments based on pre-modern fundamentals.

When I step off the treadmill and experience the bone chilling anxiety of nothing, I have to find a hope that appears when the situation is beyond hope.  If I concentrate long enough and dig deep enough I can experience a moment of staring at my being.  In that anxious moment I either succumb to the depressive nothingness or I start to reach out to the theistic god of my youth.  But that god is an idol I have made to comfort me. Post-Modern religion will not be tied to the idolatrous version of deus ex machina but rather a belief in a something greater than the god of theism.  

In that moment of existential crisis caused by staring down my non-being, my being feels separated—separated from others and separated from my being itself. Simply separated.  During this moment, the courage to accept myself or act in a way that benefits others to the detriment of myself requires faith. Not the faith of a promised reciprocation, but the faith that the grace I extend in love is enough. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. lived it. This is like the love I have for my wife of 20 years. I do not love her unconditionally because she reciprocates my love for her; I simply love her unconditionally. This grace I extend is in concert with a grace I experience by choosing to be accepted. This choice is not by a rational reason, but simply the choice that I am accepted and the courage to be while staring directly at my meaninglessness. I am accepting being accepted by something greater than me, the name of which I do not know.  Frankly I don't care what it is called: god/God/Jesus/frankenweenie. My absolute faith is not a theoretical affirmation of this uncertainty; it is the existential acceptance of something transcending ordinary experience.  My faith is not an opinion but a state.  I can affirm myself because I know I am affirmed by the power of being. I have a radical doubt about God, but a faith in God that transcends the theistic idea of God.

The core of the Christian messages resonates with my analysis of my human experience. Not the dogmatic and liturgical codes of modern christendom.... but the core of the Pauline message of justification by faith and the Jesus message for me to love others even if they don't reciprocate because I have faith in being accepted by something greater (Frankenweenie?).  I'm sure other religions that I have not studied would resonate as well, but I was raised in the Christian faith, lost it, and now found a way to use it that is meaningful to me. 

Acknowledgments:  Ben for editing this and making it look like I attended college by fixing my random punctuation.  To Francis Chan for introducing me to a crazy love and Davis Mitchell for demonstrating what it looks like. To Peter Rollings for helping me recognize my idols of certainty. To Doug Pagitt for introducing me to Tony Jones.  To Tony Jones for introducing me to Jay Bakker.  To Jay Bakker for introducing me to Paul Tillich.  To Paul Tillich for showing me the courage to be.

Happy Easter: What was the purpose of the resurrection?

Easter is almost here. Personally I find this the most awkward time of the year in quest to understand God in the ways of Jesus… put simply the resurrection just isn't that important to my faith.

In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Over time multiple theories of atonement of come and gone…

1) The Ransom Theory / "Christus Victor" view of the atonement. Let me see if I can get this theory correct… Adam & Eve screwed up creating original sin. As a result mankind became subservient to the devil… in order to redeem humanity God sent Jesus as a "ransom" so that the devil would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection.

In this version of atonement God appears powerless to God’s holiness and is somehow negotiating with the devil….

 

2) Satisfaction Theory view of atonement. In this one it appears that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor. Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive.

In this version of atonement God appears to not find justice (When would it be just for a judge to take the sentence of a criminal… that is selflessness, but not justice).

 

3) The Last Scapegoat. This theory seems to be based on the idea that all of our desires are borrowed from other people (memic desire) and the only way to release the resulting conflict between two people who desire the same thing (memic rivalry) is a scapegoat mechanism. For the scapegoat mechanism to work something must be sacrificed to release the mimetic rivalry. In this theory of atonement Jesus is presented as the last scapegoat to demonstrate the power of selfless love over the memic desire/rivalry model.

In this version it is not us trying to appease God, but rather God crossing the chasm to us. I like that.

 

4) Moral Influence view (not active atonement, but passive influence). In this view Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience to a broken sacrificial model and was given as an example to affects the intentions of those who come to know about it. To fully grasp this version one first has to redefine ‘sin’. What if ‘sin’ is not a list of bad things to avoid? What if ‘sin’is the failure to do the positive things that bring a reconciliation of all things? In the same way dark is not the opposite of light but the absence of light, sin is not the opposite of love but the absence of selfless love. What if Jesus life was not about atoning for our sins so we can get to heaven (God’s Kingdom) in some other place or time, but rather Jesus’ purpose was to teach us is to ‘love God/others over self’ as a way to bring reconciliation and wholeness to all things. What if Jesus death didn’t atone for my list of mis-behaviors but instead showed me a perfect example of loving others over self?

In this fourth model of atonement… I understand the relevance of the crucifixion… but I don’t understand the purpose of the resurrection.

Model	God	Devil	Human view of Easter
Ransom Theory	Subservient to God’s own Holiness.	Very Powerful. Negotiating with God.	Must “believe” and acknowledge ransom to be atoned for.
Satisfaction Theory	Selflessness, but not justice. Bound by need for ritualistic sacrifice.	Antagonist.	Must “believe” and acknowledge sacrifice to be atoned for
Last Scapegoat	God takes the action. God is still bound by need for atonement.	Antagonist.	Focus is still on acknowledging atonement.
Moral Influence	God’s actions are driven by establishing moral example, not rule set of atonement. Purpose of the resurrection is unclear.	Not relevant.	Action to bring forward “Christ’s Kingdom” is on shoulders of humanity. Christ’s sacrifice is an example, not a solution.

 

The fourth model seems to fit my views the best. The purpose of the crucifixion is to demonstrate the ultimate act of selflessness .. However I still don’t understand the purpose of the resurrection… Maybe it just makes a better plot line.