Knowtown…

Continuing the political theme, here is a pretty good Diablog transcript between representatives from both sides that took place during Kerry’s speech.

Lately I have been following some interesting rhetoric about US politics all around the blogworld that I inhabit. There seems to be a pretty even split. Some intelligent people can be found on both sides. One group is pretty clear that all of the evils in the current events of the world can be traced back to George W. and the fact that he is “evil”, “dangerous”, a “madman”, a “liar” and just plain “ignorant”. This group is pretty convinced that the solution to these evils is to vote for “anybody but Bush” in November. On the other side of this chasm are people who are equally convinced that the only hope for the world is to make sure that the “liberal” and “secular” challenge to Bush be stopped at all costs. It seems fairly obvious to this group that if George W is not in the white house all unborn babies will be murdered, all homosexuals will get married and that shortly after that the world will have to come to an end of fiery judgment from the hand of Almighty God, themselves and their present company excluded, of course.

One thing that puzzles me is how much power both groups seem to give to this one person. He is single-handedly either the savior of the free world or the most evil person on the face of the earth. There seems to be no room in the rhetoric for there to be a middle ground. I wonder if it’s possible that George W, John Kerry and Michael Moore may just be a human beings a lot like the rest of us who are capable of making both good and bad decisions. And maybe they live in a world in which sometimes good decisions produce unexpectedly bad consequences and poor choices turn out surprisingly well. In any case I am certain that they do not possess some kind of superhuman ability to be in control of the events in history that are unfolding.

I guess the thing that puzzles me the most is how quickly we are willing to demonize the person who happens to be on the other side of the gulf from us. Based on what I read I am beginning to wonder if there is anything redeemable in George W, Michael Moore, or John Kerry. Why is it that we find ways to identify ourselves in such a way that these figureheads can be seen in black and white terms that allow us to be right all of the time? Why this will to be on the winning side of every argument? I am no fan of terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, the Iraqi war or the way the United States Government assumes the role of the provider of justice for the whole world, but would it be any better to not pay attention to anything going on in the rest of the world and only take care of our concerns? Should we continue to let the decisions of leaders in other countries result In the oppression and loss of life that came from their violence or the imposed sanctions of the U.N.? Certainly the oppressed of Iraq did not need us to go to war on their behalf, but what exactly did they need? What does a Good Samaritan look like through the eyes of the Iraqi people? And are those who are so quick to defend the “war” in Iraq willing to go invade other countries with tyrannical leaders?

It is easy to think that “anybody but Bush” would have handled this whole situation better but that leads us to a complex question: Better for who? Depending on which side of the gulf you are on there are both positive and negative results that come out of every decision that gets made. Only hindsight is 20/20 so how do we know whether things would have been better if a different choice would have been made. There is no way to rewind history and see how things would have worked out if Gore would have been in the white house. And I know that we have some obligation as resident aliens in the American political system to use these institutions in a redemptive way but let’s at least be honest enough to admit that the fate of the world does not rest on the shoulders of the one individual who happens to be the president of the United States of America. The events of the world are too complex to believe that one person can be held responsible. And those of us in the church will need to be faithful to our leader (Jesus Christ, for those who forget about him in the midst of our electoral process) regardless of who wins the White House. It seems to me that some of us will vilify those who are on the “wrong” side of our particular political beliefs in a feeble attempt to display our own innocence. If we can blame someone for all these problems and identify ourselves in antithesis to that person we can sleep better at night. “I didn’t vote for him” becomes our means of justifying our place in the situation. But few of us in America will wake up the next morning and fear that we are sitting next to a suicide bomber at the bus stop on our way to work.

In a two party system we will not find adequate answers to the evils of human political, social and economic systems. There will always be good and intelligent people on both sides and there will always be people who suffer unjustly based on the application of domestic and foreign policies. The world is too diverse and complex for it to be any other way. As the church we should be able to offer much more hope than either of the American political parties. I wonder if instead of spending so much of our energy on criticizing particular political candidates we should take a critical look at the “religious right” and compare their agenda with the politics of Jesus. Instead of looking to the President to provide world peace we could take another look at Will Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas’s modest proposal for peace and simply begin by agreeing that we as Christians will refuse to kill other Christians. In a world where the majority of Christians live outside the borders of the country I live in, I doubt they really care who I vote for. But I think, as members of the body of Christ they will be deeply impacted by my ability or inability to live faithfully following the way of the Cross. Evil and poverty will be with us until the end of the world but, if we believe the promise of Jesus Christ, he will be with us until the end as well. I do not have the ability to bring in world peace or cure AIDS but I do have the ability to live my life in such a way that it reflects the love of Jesus Christ and that ability depends very little on who the president of the United States is. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I’m probably wrong.

To paraphrase Einstien, one hour at work seems like an eternity, but one hour with these two ecclesial dreamers seems like only a second. That is relativity.

My week was reedemed last night by spending some time with them and no doubt it will be the highlight of my week. Thanks, gentlemen!!

Yesterday was the longest, most difficult day I have had at work in a very long time. The rest of this week does not look like it will be much better. I have been placed in a no win project and it is creating a lot of conflict. I can’t remember the last time I did not want to go to work but this morning is definitely one of those days. I can’t wait until Saturday…

On a happier note, we did a baby dedication on Sunday for my nephew. I forgot to take my camera but as soon as I get some pictures from my sister-in-law I will post some.

Here is an update about the one gathering I really wanted to go to this year and was not able to.

bq. The Grain of the Universe flows with Jesus’ way, not against it. That contextualizes our discourse as a proclamation of Good News, of a positive Christology (as opposed to messages that the world and faith are uniformly grim and frightening) — otherwise, Christians internalize and reproduce the assumption that the temporal world is the only world that counts, that the temporal world sets the agenda for our lives; that the bondage to decay and frustration that characterize temporality are not the last word. Christian theology is about the good news that entropy does not govern the cosmos.

I am so glad people are blogging about this and am hoping to hook up with someone from Colorado who went, once he gets back. Based on this first post from AKMA I would have enjoyed this discussion very much.

***blowhole warning****

Karl always asks great questions:

bq. What exactly do people who have radically contradictory ideas of what truth is, actually “stand together” on except for the least common denominator?

My first instinct is to respond by saying, “What’s wrong with the least common denominator if that is Jesus Christ?” (Galatians 3:28) But I know that Karl is a gracious guy and is not trying to argue with me personally but is pushing me to do some theological reflection. He is getting at something important in this question so I will at least attempt to give an answer that hopefully gets to the issue.

For me, that issue is recognizing that truth is only known contextually (interpreted from our own perspectives) and never exhaustively. Because of this, there is no person or group that owns “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” (As one simple example, I do not think that the understandings of truth Karl and I have are as “radically contradictory” as he does. From my perspective Karl and I have much in common. From his perspective, I have more in common with Muslims, Mormons, and NewAgers.) Additionally, I believe that history has a real affect on our understanding and, like truth, history can only be interpreted from our perspectives. This is why the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church can look at the same historical events but tell two different stories. Finally, since matters of faith within a community are relational, the answers to the questions posed are relational as well. The answers are not simple either/or types of answers. The answers are complex and diverse because the members who make up the community are complex and diverse.

Let me try to flesh this out as Karl requested. I do not have the same relationship with Jesus Christ that Peter or any of Christ’s first disciples had. This is not because I have a “wrong” Christology but because I live in a different time and place. I have a different context. While one could argue that Peter’s experience of Christ contains more fullness than mine the reality is that, being finite, both of our experiences and Christologies are in a very real way incomplete. I think this admission allows an important theological truth to come to light. It is only when our incomplete understandings are joined together with other incomplete understandings that we begin to see the whole truth (Hebrews 11:40). This is why I agree with Volf that this side of the eshaton there can be no church in the singular.

But on this side is there any way that we can conceive of Christ holding us together? Until the future assembly of ALL the people of God, is there a metaphor that can describe how we can “stand together” “in Christ”? 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 talks about the body. Imagine the parts of a body as they experience a banquet table. The eye will behold the presentation differently than the nose or the tongue not because there is no real banquet but because they are designed to be and to act differently from each other. But that they are, act, and experience the banquet differently does not mean that they are not part of the same body.

For me, all of this means we need to be open to the idea of the corruption of our understanding of truth and the occasional need for someone outside our own limited perspective to bring correction. For this redemptive conversation to take place I think we need to hear the voices of those who disagree with us as much as those who agree. If we dismiss those who disagree because they are not like us we are placing ourselves in a realm that is above correction and judging all others from that perspective. This fails to acknowledge our own limitedness in matters that require infinite certitude.

I wonder if we can contrast two metaphors for the unity of the church by looking at a bowl of water. If we focus on the bowl we will see differences as taking some of the water out of one bowl and placing it in another bowl. In this view the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church could be seen as some water being in the “right” bowl and some water being in the “wrong” bowl. (Which bowl you are in, of course, being determined by which tradition you are part of.) The physical difference of the two bowls prevents any mixing of truth and error, anything not being in the “truth” bowl automatically being error by simple definition.

But what if we focus on the water? In this light we could see the Great Schism or any “division” as a breaking of the bowl and a spilling and scattering of the water. All we have is the water, and it is now separated in a very real way. No one collection of part of the water can make a claim to be complete by itself. There is no longer a bowl that separates truth from error. Each collection of water will see only in part. Each collection will have truth but also be susceptible to corruption. Who will adjudicate between the various collections of water? How can one collection claim to be complete and uncorrupted? The only way is for all of them to be open to one another. To dialogue about differences from an equal place. To listen for the truth and error in each other. But like Peter in Galatians 2:11 we are unlikely to see the error in our selves so we must be willing to accept correction from those who are like us but paradoxically, not like us.

But Karl has a very valid concern. Does this second option of the broken bowl allow us to identify error in anyone at all? I think it does. It is still possible, metaphorically speaking, to distinguish the water from the table it is spilled on. There may be real differences of opinion between groups of water because each is open to possible corruption, but this does not mean we treat water and non-water as being the same. What this view does is humble us and allow us to recognize that without someone gathering all the water we are incomplete. We currently see through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). We will have disagreements that cannot be adjudicated by appeals to our perspectives no matter how beautiful our perspective happens to be. We must be open to the possibility that correction can come from the other. Or to look at it another way, we must be willing to look in ways that allow us to see that we are all faithful heretics. There is no simple line in the sand that separates truth and error. Even the pagan’s Paul addressed on Mars Hill were capable of worshipping God, incomplete as it was. They did not only need their heresies revealed to them but they needed to discover their “Unknown God”.

Perhaps, if the greatest of faith, hope and love is love, the more we “stand together” in love, the more we can have hope to see an ever increasing unity in faith.

Yesterday was our 12th anniversary. According to the gift lists I had two options. If I followed the traditional list, I should have got my wife silk or linen. If I followed the contemporary list, pearls. In the end it does not matter because I cannot outgive my wife. She has given me more joy in twelve years than most men could experience in twelve lifetimes. She is a great gift from God.

From this post on Hugo’s blog:

bq. “We believe God is calling us to find our place of meeting in Christ rather than with those who agree with us in order to stand against those who disagree with us.”

This is what I was trying to say. Thanks for sharing this, Hugo!

I can’t believe that I forgot to comment on this article!! Here is an excerpt:

bq. The dialogue with the Orthodox on “truth” and “charity” must continue despite “problems and misunderstandings” or “divisions and conflicts.” Mindful of how hard the relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church is but also pleased with the signing of a common declaration with Patriarch Bartholomew I, Pope John Paul II reasserted in today’s Angelus the need for a reawakened ecumenical commitment not only to the unity of the Church but also to the renewal of the work of evangelisation, especially in Europe. “Catholics and Orthodox,” the Pope said, “are called upon to work together lest Europeans forget their Christian roots. Without them Europe cannot truly fulfill her role as a bridge between civilisations or as global herald for justice, solidarity and guarantor of creation.”

Talk about ecclesial dreaming!! I love it.

This should be a great event for anyone looking to engage in some great ecclesial dreaming.