So, before we talk about how the church can function communally, and before we can discuss growth, we need to define what being a christian means. And I agree. I guess this post is to get the ball rolling.
The difficulty, however, is trying to refrain from using cliche-ish language, lists, etc, to define a christian. All of those are usefull, I suppose, to some people, but it seems that 'being a christian' has more to it than can be contained in principles. I cringe every time I hear someone say, "If you just follow these principles..." Ok, so if I do, and then Hurricane Katrina comes and destroys my house, what then?
Anyway.
I may be wrong, but maybe we should go back further than what it means to be a christian and start with Jesus. Whatever it means to be a christian is pretty much based on what/who Jesus was/is(/is to come). Or should we go back even further than that? To creation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
certainly we must continue to press back. i think that creation is still not far enough, and that is why we end up with Jesus (Trinity, God, theology proper). but we cannot talk Jesus until we talk creation because we (humanity) do not show up on the scene until creation, and we can speak of nothing beyond our own experience.
And even when we do speak our own words betray for they have already been shaped (and in our case shaped forcefully) to categorize and formulize and cauterize our experiences into a set interpretation. so how do we speak of Jesus, or anything other and have any meaning. if yall want to deconstruct we can deconstruct. but i dont know where to go from there. i need to read some derrida and heidigger and wittgenstein and saussere.
so we need to speak of jesus-in-creation, and our being-in- creation. i think that it is out of the dialouge and tension between our otherness that we can begin to make some headway.
sorry if this post makes no sense and is completely worthless, but hey thats what im good at.
"we can speak of nothing beyond our own experience" Someone has been reading Schleiermacher.
Through the Spirit we can speak to the experiences of all those in Christ has witnessed. We have a unity in God (John 16 and 17 speak to this unity)that supercedes any "human experience". We have all glimpsed these moments when we knew things beyond our own experience. We have been in a worship service when our experience ends and we are lifted to another place to worship with those in the Book of Revelation. We stand with all of those beneath the altar and their experiences become ours. A prophetic utterance comes forth, we have a supernatural dream and suddenly our experiences are burned away as we begin to speak and see things outside anything we can imagine. We begin to hold the imagination and experience of God. We stand with Isaiah in his experience and realize that only a coal from the heavenly altar will allow us to speak with unclean lips these divine revelations.
Dear Dr. Gause would remind us that all revelation is divine. So anything that we know of God was initiated by God. Our own experience may be the vessel or the "filter" but the content of our knowledge is divine. We can know beyond ourselves.
Isn't faith just that. The evidence of things unseen/unverifiable/unexperienced? Faith says move beyond what you know or what you have experienced and believe in what you can not speak to.
maybe we need to redefine experience.
but then again, how do their experiences become ours. is it not our "experience" of the HS that brings us into relationship with them. (now i know this notion can sound quite modern as i am trying to hold up the 'self', so i dont really know if i believe this or not, but it is also evident of the modernity that liberalism was in)
we also experience this relation through the HS who is filtering it anyways. so if we know anything it can only come from God (third person), but then can we trust our own perceptions.
I don't think we can trust our own perceptions. If by perception you mean interpretion of the experience. You either run the risk of trying to be objective or subjective and failing at both.
The role of community in interpretation is central. Included in that community should be the Holy Spirit.
And maybe we shouldn't "define" anything. If by definition you mean a dogmatic, concrete definition in words. Why not allow things to stay liquid and flexible. I know it's good to have a foundation but perhaps our definitions should be more like a trampoline than a floor. You can stand on it, it doesn't let you fall through but it gives and flexs with you.
i agree totally. language is flexible, and meaning is only found in relation. thus there is no meaning outside of relation. that is why social trinity is so important.
certainly perception is hermeneutical at the core. but in order to communicate we fix on one point or word and then talk out of that. knowing that the fixed point or word is relative.
can there be a non-interpretive experience??
does HS backdoor behind our experience? do community and HS mediate word?
What do you mean by does the Holy Spirit backdoor our experiences?
As far as non-interpretive experience, I don't think it can exist. Interpretation is not a voluntary action. Unless you're clinically brain dead, then you are interpreting/perceiving an experience. I think the best we can hope for is honesty in our communication of the experience. I realize that my perception or interpretation of things is just that...mine. And I am open to allowing you (the community of the Spirit) to broaden it or reveal the hidden things.
It's Open source. Linux Theology.
an experience of HS that is base or pre-interpretive. one that i foundational.
i dont know if there is one. so we bring our own experience to bear on the work that God is doing to/for/in us?
i'm working on "We have a unity in God (John 16 and 17 speak to this unity)that supercedes any "human experience". We have all glimpsed these moments when we knew things beyond our own experience." in that these uber-moments of HS are interpreted through a framework that has been shaped by our experience already. so that "we can speak of nothing beyond our own experience."
Is it possible that we can receive pre-interpreted experiences? By that I mean moments which have already been interpreted-at least on some level.
Perhaps in these 'uber-moments" the revelation is so direct that God allows for no misunderstanding. I don't mean interpretation of tongues, or the preaching of a sermon which interprets the message "God lays on ones heart". I mean an experience which doesn't get explained. Above words or reason. The experience itself is transformative and does not allow itself to be explained or interpreted.
I'm also not sure if I like the term 'uber-moments' which suggests that the breaking in of the HS into our world is not normative but somehow above the norm. Pentecostal Theology should see these moments of "anointed clarity" as normative. Not in the sense that they are routine or not special, but that they are a natural part of who we are and what we do.
perhaps, but if the moment is pre-interpretive then it is extra-ordianry. and maybe the HS packages them in a customized way to fit each epistimolgy, or the communites epistimology. i dont know just talkin this thru.
we could say that there are moments above reason, that are moving on a different level. and i "would" say that i have experienced such. but still there is a point of interpretation because these moments are relational. meaning that we are both at the table.
I'm not sure about all of this 'pre-interpretive' stuff either. Epistemology is not my strong suit.
In reference to the original post, 'defining a Christian', speak about Christ and the relationships.
I don't think you have to keep tracing steps backwards. God is not held by human temporal or logical constraints anyway and so your path would be circular or spiral but never ending.
God is the Lover, the Beloved, the Love. Talk about the relationship and perhaps that 'defines' what a Christian is. I think to avoid the cliche of 'christian' many now use the term Christ-follower which brings to mind one who is a disciple of a teaching or simply one on a journey with someone Him.
Perhaps that is a Christian... someone on a journey following after Christ. He is not only the guide, He is the way.
im with you there ... the journey stuff ... but it is good to talk about the rest
just having fun on the way
Post a Comment