[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Why wait for sonoman? He said he has not struggled with deconstruction. David started this thread in response to Bill's searching about what is still valid within Christianity.

I just finished looking up quotes about the quest for meaning. We're having a coffee shop discussion about that tonight. I ran into something interesting that may contribute to this discussion. The question was whether or not we can find true meaning in life without God. It made me think of the relationship aspect that has been being discussed in this thread:

(H. Gollwitzer, a theological student of Karl Barth)
1. The question of ‘What am I living for,’ is given a satisfactory answer only if it is a quest for something to which I can be in human communication: people whom I love and by whom I can be loved.
2. I ask about what survives me. Comfort must be able to bridge the gap that is brought by death.


On the basis of these two criteria, it can be established whether something can give us sufficient meaning. Does some good, like money or employment or sexuality give meaning? It does not meet both requirements. Can an idea or a collective - socialist society or one’s country serve as an instance that gives meaning? It meets the second criteria, but not the first. And God? The Christian answer meets both requirements. You can have a relationship with God, and God can withstand death.

Relationship with God (loving God with all my heart) makes me want to glorify God with my life. What drives those people who do not have that motivation to love sacrificially? Is it just a general love for humanity? There are a few humans I can only see as loveable if I look through the eyes of the creator. :-) When I look around, many humans are fully consumed just loving those in their pack, which is an animal instinct.

One of the historical benefits of Christianity was that it encourages us to root out sinful behavior and try to reflect God's goodness. I understand that self-help can also break people of undesired patterns of behavior. Since there is a direct benefit to self, people are pretty interested in it. Are the changes asked for by pop-psychology the same ones that are asked for by Jesus?

[David]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on May 27 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

Why wait for sonoman? He said he has not struggled with deconstruction. David started this thread in response to Bill's searching about what is still valid within Christianity.

It is evidently a weakness of mine that others evidently do not share although some who before said they do not want to post in the same area as DavidK are now strangely silent. You need to review “Complaint to TCPC” and “Posting in the Protected Area” for some of what is going on but you will not see it all because some of my posts have been censored. Bottom line is that I do not feel that this “protected area” is being protected. If Sonomon posts here then I will not (although I have communicated with him in other parts of this forum and will continue to do so hopefully in a civil manner). I’m waiting for him to check in.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I certainly wasn't trying to imply by your words that you have a weakness I don't share. I hope we can keep these message boards on topic, because I think this is such an important topic for us progressive Christians to talk about together. Essentially, I've been asking people not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we need to come up with how to communicate what the baby is. What do we have to share with the world if we don't believe we have the "inerrant word of God" or an exclusive right to heaven?

[minsocal]

David, on May 27 2009, 08:19 AM, said:

Minsocal,

I will not be posting on the primary focus of this thread until Sonomon is able to check in but I thought I would send a quick note to you.

It seems to me that I look at postmodernism from a theological point of view and you approach it more from the field of psychology. I found your comment from that point of view interesting.

I see the move in theology towards postmodernism as a move from theological language to the language of psychology, anthropology and sociology. So I could see how there was not a comparable shift in the field of psychology. In theology the conversation went from Tillich to Jung. But it moved past Jung so that the important questions were “contained” by individual context (I see no evidence of even Whitehead being discussed much on holy hill anymore—but I’m not there as much as I used to be).

David

David,

I am assuming here that the term "deconstruction" used here is the same as defined by Derrida. That being the case, I never found any use for it. For Derrida, "meanings that are fully present to consciousness are in principle impossible (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)." I chose the work of John Searle instead to form a bridge from Jung to cognitive science and emerging trends in psychology. Searle, by the way, is a major opponent of Derrida and postmodernism. Derrida is decidedly anti-psychology. The version of post modernism I am familiar with follows Derrida and is agressively anti-psychology.

Is it possible that theolgy has it's own definition of these terms? I once heard Fred Plummer say something to that effect.

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on May 21 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

No, it's source is from those who oppose postmodernism. In fact, it predates postmodernism. The issue has to do with individual differences. Faith is a psychological state and no individual psychological state has necessary and sufficient conditions. I suppose, for some, "faith" can be an intellectual enterprise, in which case the rules of "faith" could be worked out by logic. Even then, there must be a "condition of satisfaction" that is an individual psychological state. If we discard "true" and "false" as the condition of satisfaction, we have an interesting picture. Instead, insert an emotion as the condition of satisfaction (this is what usually happens). Perhaps there is a sense of joy associated with faith, or elation, or ... ? To proceed into "depth" is almost always to proceed into emotion and intuition. This is a core assumption of Process Theology.

Postmodernism of the kind you have been exposed to seems to have failed. I think it failed simply because it offers nothing other than "destruction". This was not the original intent when the concept was first developed. If you look at the Eight Points you see what I think represents a reaction in opposition to postmodernism. In their current form, they are positive "we are" statments rather than negative "we are not" statements. I am not sure about this, but I think this was deliberate. This parallels a shift in psychology that is still taking place. The emphasis has shifted from the the study of what makes us "abnormal" to a more positive perspective of what makes us "normal". And, guess what, spirituality is back in psychology.

P.S. It was Nietzsche who first discussed the "necessary and sufficient" issue in modern times.

It has been ages since I posted on this site but this topic really grabbed me. I'm surprised that no one in this thread has referred to John Cobb's or David Griffin's ideas labeled as "Constructive Postmodernism". This issue is an epistemological problem. Although I can hold no intellectual belief with certainty, I do not agree with Kant that "knowing" only comes about through sensory perception. There is a pre-cognitive knowing, a "soma awareness", an intersubjective awareness, which won't provide logical, or empirical certainty... but it does provide a ground for faith.

This post has been edited by PantaRhea: 27 May 2009 - 03:49 PM

[David]

So where have you been? I would rather not get into a detailed description “about” what you are talking about since that would be a form of “correct belief” discussion. But when you say “There is a pre-cognitive knowing, a "soma awareness", an intersubjective awareness, which won't provide logical, or empirical certainty... but it does provide a ground for faith.”, that’s exactly what I am pointing towards.

[David]

Janet,

I thought again about my post which is really not fair to you and others that may want to move on with this discussion. So let’s move on. If Sonomon posts I will revisit my decision.

I like your lifting up not just “love” which can easily become a “correct belief” but you lifted up “love your enemies”. “How do I give to everyone who asks”? Jesus talked in parables it seems to me because the “deeper foundation for faith” can not easily be approached directly with words. Words are too often associated with “correct belief”. When you posted this I thought of the word “compassion”. It seems to me that “compassion” may point to that which is deeper than correct belief or correct action.

I am uncomfortable about the “quest for meaning” pointing towards that depth which is deeper than correct belief. That is because the quest for correct belief and the quest for meaning can be seen to be the same quest. You probably did not intend that. You stated that the depth for you is associated with what is worth dieing for. But even there many have seemingly died for correct action or correct belief.

Thanks for suggesting that we move on.

David

This post has been edited by David: 27 May 2009 - 04:47 PM

[David]

For me one word that points beyond itself to the depth that is deeper than correct action or correct belief would be the word forgiveness. You obviously can approach this word from the direction of correct belief. You can provide many words that help us understand more about forgiveness and arguably provide a more “correct” understanding of forgiveness. Or you could do many things that would seem to be a “correct” action that reflects forgiveness. Some actions arguably could reflect forgiveness more “correctly”. But it seems to me that the experience of forgiveness goes much deeper than correct action or correct belief. It would seem to me that the experience of forgiveness therefore needs to be included in that “deeper foundation for faith” that we are talking about.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Can we get personal here? Can we share what we each have ended up with so far during our rebuilding process, rather than talking in broad terms or quoting theologians?

TCPC is concurrently running a blog through Open Path. http://tcpc.blogs.com/openpath/
There is a related post on that site, where a member is asking if we are on thin ice dropping basic tenets of Christianity and at what point the ice breaks. Considering those questions may help us to understand what we truly have left, if we break with orthodoxy.

Personally I see the search for meaning as different than the search for correct belief. Jesus calls us to invest our life with meaning by serving others and trying to reflect the glory of God in our lives. The motivation for this is to be love for God. It is not about what is good for oneself, but rather what is good for the Kingdom of God. Also, the idea of the Kingdom and it's ongoing mission gives us a legacy to leave after we die. It is a challenge that motivates me to be better than I am and to live life abundantly.

[David]

minsocal, on May 27 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Is it possible that theolgy has it's own definition of these terms? I once heard Fred Plummer say something to that effect.

The movement that I am trying to describe is really basic epistemological skepticism. But the movement has been associated with post modernism. From Wikipedia: “Deconstruction is a term which is used to denote the application of postmodern ideas of criticism, or theory, to a "text" or "artifact", based on architectural deconstructivism. A deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact…The more common use of the term is the more general process of pointing to contradictions between the intent and surface of a work and the assumptions about it. A work then "deconstructs" assumptions when it places them in context.” Literary analysis or textual criticism is one of the many forms of “criticism” that has been used to look at the Bible but the post modern skepticism did not stop at the Bible. It went on to “deconstruct” (in the non technical/common meaning of the term) theology. Context trumps content everytime. There is no reality beyond words and words are stuck in context. So I use the word “deconstruction” in a very common way because that has become it’s context—the context of stating that no “objective” truth exists and the way to show that is to attack the words that supposedly provide “objective” truth. Of course the natural response is that Truth was never constrained by those words to begin with.

[David]

I would like to take a word and try to point to that Reality that is beyond deconstruction. If there is such a Reality then it would seem to me that “reconstruction” has a chance. That word is gratefulness. One can see how this word can be approached from the point of view of correct belief and also from the point of view of correct action.

Here from the website “Gratefulness.org” is a fantastic “correct belief” about gratefulness: “The practice of gratefulness moves us in four directions. Aimed inwardly, it restores courage; aimed outwardly, it inspires generosity. These subjective qualities are matched by objective ones: Gratefulness reconciles relationships; and it has the potential to heal our Earth through interfaith dialogue, reverence for nature, intergenerational respect, awareness of opportunities to serve a world in need. These four directions add up to a commitment to live in the light of all we’ve been given – that is, fearlessly and therefore non-violently.” Many progressives would just want to stop here. Here we have a great “correct belief” about gratefulness. What more could we want? Well first of all, any “correct belief” is fodder for deconstruction. I’m not going to ruin these words by doing that here. But it can be done and it is done to all of the great words from all of the great authors and thinkers. My point is that we are looking for what is “deeper” than correct belief.

Gratefulness can also be approached from the point of view of correct action. Just the mere courtesy of saying “thank you” is much needed in our world today. There are so many actions that would help us live together based upon gratefulness. Again, many progressives would want to stop here. If we can just learn to live together based upon things like gratefulness what more could we want? Again skepticism can respond that context trumps content. It is just a power play after all. People will be used and abused by the process.

My point is that correct action and correct belief will always be subject to skepticism. The question is whether there is anything “deeper” than correct action or correct belief that is beyond the reach of skepticism. I have suggested in a previous post above some words that point towards a Reality that can only be called God. That is what we are searching for. If there is no Reality that can only be God then we all are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship called post modernism.

My response is that gratefulness is all about that which is deeper than correct action or correct belief. When one truly experiences gratefulness there are no words. I am reminded of what Bill reminded me of—the birth of my child. I remember just breaking down and bawling at being overcome by gratefulness. There were no words. It was truly an epiphany.

[David]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on May 27 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

Can we get personal here? Can we share what we each have ended up with so far during our rebuilding process, rather than talking in broad terms or quoting theologians?

TCPC is concurrently running a blog through Open Path. http://tcpc.blogs.com/openpath/
There is a related post on that site, where a member is asking if we are on thin ice dropping basic tenets of Christianity and at what point the ice breaks. Considering those questions may help us to understand what we truly have left, if we break with orthodoxy.

Personally I see the search for meaning as different than the search for correct belief. Jesus calls us to invest our life with meaning by serving others and trying to reflect the glory of God in our lives. The motivation for this is to be love for God. It is not about what is good for oneself, but rather what is good for the Kingdom of God. Also, the idea of the Kingdom and it's ongoing mission gives us a legacy to leave after we die. It is a challenge that motivates me to be better than I am and to live life abundantly.

Yes, please. Let’s get personal.

It may not be true for you but for many the path of orthodoxy is a search for correct belief. I had a Professor of Christian History for which this was not true. Christian History was not about the search for correct belief. It was about the search for meaning as you lift up as being different. So I can understand what you are saying.

I would suggest that every generation, and by implication, every person has to go through the same process that persons in Christian history went through. Understanding “orthodoxy” in this way can take it beyond the reach of skepticism. But if “orthodoxy” is suggested as the way to provide meaning without this process then I think it is doomed to the power of post modernism.

[David]

For those of you who need a map of where I’m going with this let me offer this without further explanation at this time. Reconstruction needs to have a “deeper foundation for faith”. We are only beginning to see what that may look like. But so far the “foundation” does not look like the one that was deconstructed. In fact it does not look like a “foundation” that one would expect could hold a construction called the Church.

OK we can throw out the word Church if you would like. But we need some way of coming together for many reasons including the spreading of the "good news". So we can find a better name later but for now let me use the word Church.

It would seem that the Church requires correct belief and correct action in order to exist. The Church is an organization. Can an organization have as it’s foundation this “deeper foundation for faith”? How do you do that without looking like any other organization that is either based upon correct belief or correct action? The biggest question for me will be how can you organize what can not be organized?

By the way. You don't have to follow this "map". There is much more to say about the "deeper foundation for faith". And the consequences of that discussion could go in other directions. If so let's go.

This post has been edited by David: 28 May 2009 - 07:36 AM

[PantaRhea]

David, on May 28 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

My response is that gratefulness is all about that which is deeper than correct action or correct belief. When one truly experiences gratefulness there are no words. I am reminded of what Bill reminded me of—the birth of my child. I remember just breaking down and bawling at being overcome by gratefulness. There were no words. It was truly an epiphany.

It seems like I am just beginning to come out of my wilderness wanderings - but there have been cycles of wilderness wandering and..., what to call it? Public ministry? Maybe it has been simply cycles of confusion and clarity, lostness and discovery. Anyway, I stopped posting back in 2005 because I became discouraged with the quest for correct belief. The search for correct belief seems to be simply another form of domination and control.

Quote

In its search for truth, reason operates via conquistadorial dialectic: One idea, or one person's "truth," is confronted and overcome by an opposite idea or someone else's "truth." The clash or struggle between them produces the new synthesis-perceived as a creative advance in knowledge.

Trouble is, I love ideas. Recently I ran across some research by E. Richard Sorenson whose work was referenced by Christian de Quincey in his book, Radical Knowing . Yes, I know... more books, more searching for correct belief. But what Sorenson, de Quincey, and Whitehead point to, is a "knowing" that is non-rational. The answer to the deconstructionists who question whether there is any reality which is not constructed is, yes. We have just forgotten how to access it.

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

[fatherman]

Quote

It’s that “deeper foundation for faith” that I want to explore as the basis for construction after deconstruction. So I would suggest that we begin by thinking about what is “deeper” than correct action or correct belief?

First, a general comment about deconstruction and reconstruction. If your experience is anything like mine, you will prove yourself a fool a thousand times in this process....that is, if you choose to anoint your current perspective (which will change tomorrow) with any kind of blessing. So either cherish all of your perspectives as a valuable step in your journey, or assume that you are a fool even today; otherwise, you will despise yourself and others.

[The general comment section of this post is concluded. The remaining comments are either a reflection on cherished perspectives or utter foolishness ]

This is a great thread, friends. So many thoughtful replies and impassioned sharing. :-) I feel responses to a lot of different comments on this thread, but I'd like to just start by responding to the OP and his thread seed. We're like that kid who is sitting in his room 2 weeks after Christmas with a disassembled remote control car. At first, he's fascinated with all the cool junk that goes into a remote controlled car, but the novelty wears off quickly because he can't play with a bunch of car parts. He's thinking "Why did I take this thing apart anyway?". The answer is that either he was bored with it because it wasn't that much fun to begin with or it was broken. What are his options?

1.) Throw it away (seems like the easiest way)
2.) Figure out a way to put it back together. Maybe get some help.
3.) Make it into something else entirely.
4.) Sit and whine about it.

[Ok, Fatherman is scratching his head. This is not the post he intended to write. He was expecting to address the OP's thoughtful question and then proceed in sharing the inspiring story of his remarkable path of destruction and reconstruction, but instead he is going with the broken car metaphor and referring to himself in the third person. Oh well.]

I thought maybe I would figure out some way to point out that the car is, after all, a vehicle, and in the end we need to get in and ride. But since it's just a toy, the best we can do is play, so that didn't really work out. Also, I'll resist the temptation of painstakingly and tediously hashing out the meaning and implications of the 4 options that I've listed.

[Closing thought begins here]

In the end, as many of you have pointed out, it's a relationship that matters. The story's you use to form that relationship are important...they matter...just don't forget that they are stories.

[David]

PantaRhea, on May 28 2009, 06:00 AM, said:

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

Thank you. I think there are many, many, many examples of that which can not be deconstructed. So many that for me there is no other name than God.

[billmc]

Here is what I am wondering, in a analogous nutshell:

People used to be "Ptolemains" (okay, probably not a word, but I'm just using it for illustration anyway). Their view of the universe was that the earth was the center and everything in the heavens went around the earth. Ptolemy's view was a package. It was a way of interpreting reality and even the Bible supports this view.

Along comes Copernicus and he basically proves the Ptolemy's view, despite centuries of being "the Truth", is wrong. Now, except for very few pockets of people, we are almost all "Copernicans", believing that we live in a solar system, not a Terra-sytem. The reality of our solar system has not changed, but how that reality is seen and interpreted has. So none of us are "Ptolemians" any more, that view is obsolete in view of something different, something that we think comes closer to actual physical reality.

Can this same reasoning being applied to Christianity? Or are Christians still basically "Ptolemains"? Are we moving into some kind of spiritual "Copernican" view that changes how we view either reality or spiritual reality?

And, probably my most important question on this subject, does it really make a practical difference in everyday lives? When Copernicus' view started to replace Ptolemy's view, did it really affect society in a pragmatic way? I'm not so much interested in what a new label might be, I'm just what difference the recontruction makes in one's daily life? Any thoughts?

billmc

This post has been edited by billmc: 28 May 2009 - 09:43 AM

[fatherman]

My recent comments to not reflect my deep compassion for folks who are sitting in front of a disassembled Faith and who are suffering the loss and who are not sure where to go from here. Know that this is not the end of the journey. This is the beginning. Groundlessness is the state in which we learn.

[JosephM]

PantaRhea, on May 28 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

It seems like I am just beginning to come out of my wilderness wanderings - but there have been cycles of wilderness wandering and..., what to call it? Public ministry? Maybe it has been simply cycles of confusion and clarity, lostness and discovery. Anyway, I stopped posting back in 2005 because I became discouraged with the quest for correct belief. The search for correct belief seems to be simply another form of domination and control.

To me that seems to be a very astute observation. It seems to me that the search for correct belief is merely the search of a different and more subjectively acceptable organized man-made religion. In my personal view, the original masters/teachers which are now regarded the founders of a particular religion never intended it to be such but pointed to something beyond the word religion which required no written words.

Quote

Trouble is, I love ideas. Recently I ran across some research by E. Richard Sorenson whose work was referenced by Christian de Quincey in his book, Radical Knowing . Yes, I know... more books, more searching for correct belief. But what Sorenson, de Quincey, and Whitehead point to, is a "knowing" that is non-rational. The answer to the deconstructionists who question whether there is any reality which is not constructed is, yes. We have just forgotten how to access it.

I agree that the experience of gratefulness can not be deconstructed. But isn't that simply one type of experience? Why only that one type?

I believe both experiences previously mentioned "forgiveness" and "gratefulness" are indeed an important and deep experience found in reaching beyond correct belief to which it in my experience and view points to yes, 'radical knowing'.

Thanks for a wonderful post PantaRhea and good to hear from you.

Joseph

[David]

fatherman, on May 28 2009, 06:03 AM, said:

If your experience is anything like mine, you will prove yourself a fool a thousand times in this process....

Been there. Done that. Seen and heard many other fools. Hope in the end we can all just laugh.

But, your list of options does not include the one I am suggesting. Certainly there is a sense that we need to “make it into something else”. It’s the word “entirely” that I don’t like. It seems to me that the process repeats itself over and over throughout history. In that sense there is a continuity. Furthermore, I am suggesting that there is an underlying Reality that we do make fools of ourselves in trying to describe. So the stories are important as you say because there is something that the story is saying. Some of those stories are about people that actually lived and died and left something of their story that speaks to us. Some stories are fiction but nevertheless speak to us as being True.

The fundamental difference between the post modern conclusion and what I am trying to point towards is whether things like the “relationship” that you lift up connect us to that Reality or whether the stories are just words that relate us to each other.

This post has been edited by David: 28 May 2009 - 09:26 AM