28 October 2004
Hum.
I have an interesting tendency. Whenever I hear of a ‘new’ theology, or a ‘new’ (I put ‘new’ in quotes because few Christians would argue that the concepts are new; but they are treated as if they were new, toyed with with a gushing manner... like a child with a new toy) way of viewing the Christian world, a view which people grow excited about, my tendency is to jump right in and rip it to shreds, to utterly destroy it. Why? Because, generally, these positions tend to be taken out of enthusiasm, out of the sense that they are true. And where does this sense come from? The general spirit of the age, society, the world we’ve grown up in. Note the people who spend time in other countries significantly different than their own, how they initially have a feeling of ‘wrongness’, as if things ought not be viewed the way they are, or done the way they are done. The ‘right’ way is the place they’ve come from, though eventually that changes as one is immersed in the foreign society. The point is, when people feel rightness or wrongness, it is -- as often as not -- based not upon analysis of how things ought be, as it is based on how their society says things ought be. A sense of rightness, instead of (necessarily) actual rightness.
And, therefore, when I read any number of the more ‘pop’ Christian books entering in society, and see the enthusiasm with which Christians gobble them up, I tend to believe that the books are accepted not because they are true, but because they are an adaptation of the society, cloaked in Christian language. -- Which isn’t to say that the books are utterly bankrupt, or completely wrong. It means they are incomplete.
Look at the swinging tick-tock of society, and you’ll discover certain shifts, certain philosophies which come and go, come and go -- leaving only to return in a slightly altered form. Examine history long enough, and that shifting will become evident. It’s my contention that these societal shifts always occur between two extremes, neither of which is complete, one without the other. Logic and passion. Science and religion. Objectivity and subjectivity. These shifts occur again and again, though it seems to me that they grow increasingly intense and extreme as the years go by. But these shifts occur.
The church’s movement tends to lag behind culture’s, being more closely bound to tradition and history. And well that it is so -- the lag prevents the majority of the church from fully adapting whatever trend is occuring. But the church catches up, eventually... just in time to fall behind again. And we are fools for even trying to keep up. The goal should not be to keep up with society’s philosophical shifts, but to develop a philosophy which captures the completeness of life as it is, in its fullness and richness.
Right now, the shift in the church is toward subjectivism. I see it in the books today, and the Christians today. I see its basis in Kierkegaard -- it is only the one who is passionate about their truth, no matter how little they know, is closer than to the truth than the dispassionate theologian.
Like that? Probably. We love the idea of passion, emotion... life. But Kierkegaard would add this the statement: the passionate pagan is closer to the truth than the dispassionate theologian. “Wait,” you might say, stopping for a moment. Others of you might agree, sadly enough, even without the context. But such were Kierkegaard’s statements in the 1800’s.
Vanities of vanities. All is vanity. There is nothing new under the sun.
But we see the end of Kierkegaard’s argument; it was not his intent to create utter subjectivity. He was a reactionary who over-reacted to the dry scholasticism of Hegal. But look at the end -- look at the end of reactionaries; no matter their intent, the end goes further than it ought. Kierkegaard used his powerful mind to fight against the over-intellectuallism of his day; the use of his mind to defeat the mind, his intention to show the inherent subjectivity of man... all fell apart as a result of that societal clock.
Back and forth we go, back and forth. The clock ticks along and we shift.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
There is truth to Kierkegaard, a great deal of truth. There is truth to what Christian writers of today say. I’ll not argue that. But how far to the left has the pendulum swing? How far to the right? It matters not -- persue, give chase, until we’ve reached the end of that path and come swinging back!
Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
Is this motion how things ought to be? Can we not know truth that does not change? Or must we always follow along, adapt, change, swing back and forth? Do we have a way for understanding all societies for what they are? Or must we ride along, swinging and shifting, shouting in joy at nothing but fragments of the fullness and truth of life?
And so I grow tired of these pop books, the churning out of new philosophies and religious interpretations, treating old things as new discoveries and new discoveries as old things. Vanity of vanties, there is nothing new under the sun. The books of today will be laid to rest, empty and useless, historical paper good for study and reflection on the world as it once was.
And, soon enough, the church will play catch-up again, chasing after the new old thing, the old new thing, ever running, ever forgetting that there is nothing new under the sun, and the fullness of truth is within their grasp, and that the things which seem to delight them are merely fragments of truth. But they’ll cheer and smile, jeer at the foolishness of those just years removed from them, and continue to wonder why the things that worked so well just years ago do not seem to resonate the same way today.
Tick-tock.
Here is a mystery: the wholeness of life found in the swing of the pendulum is not found in any given point in the swing. To say, at any point of the swing, “That is the esssence of the swing” (or, better: “That point is the fullness of the swing.”) is self-evidently foolish. In trying to describe the wholeness of the the pendulum, describing a point misses the point. One can only state that the whole pendulum swing is what makes the whole movement. Clear, no? More clearly: to enthusiastically accept the point of movement within Christian society today as it misses the reality that society only exists, philosophically, on (I’m being broad here, of course) one point between the broad range of what the fullness of life is.
It is (Life, that is) emotional, logical, subjective and empirical. Empty and full. Loving and hating. Knowing and not knowing. Mystery and revealing. Life and death. Subjective and objective. And so it goes. But none of these points are truth in and of themselves; God as a God of love is incomplete without the concept of Him being a God of wrath. Passion apart from dispassion has no basis for passion -- no solid object to be passionate about. Subjectivity cannot exist without an objective thing to subjectively consider. Objective things are have no meaning apart from the consideration. The fullness of Israel’s worshipful creed declaring, “One God” is incomplete without the reality of three seperate entities. I’m not sure I can even express the grandeur and fullness of life, or the incompleteness of life that is bent towards any single one of these views without fully considering the other.
And this is why I hate the new thing, the enthusiasm with which people approach the new thing, which is old, will become old, and will become new again. It goes through this cycle because man knows not truth. Certain Christian writers have had it, in its near fullness. Chambers. Bonhoeffer, also, I believe. Their theological and spiritual writing will probably never date; because it is ever eternal, being based in the eternal, in that thing which comprises the whole pendulum shift. That thing which is the paradox. Chambers knew the Life, and so wrote the Life. The world could shift about him, and he’d be in it but not of it, for the thoughts of the world are of the One Chambers served, but not in that one... and I’d argue that is the paradigm for Christian philosophy, for Christian thought -- for the truth, the way we live in this world.
Parodox. Confusion. Conflict and correlation.
Reality.
Tick. Tock.
