Bound and unbound?

If you haven’t noticed yet, the authors of this blog are split on its title, but we are not split on its importance. Each author is committed to quality work regarding our posts and relationship to both the world and the church. However, I don’t agree that we should think in categories of bound and unbound.

I wasn’t raised in the church at all, and my first exposure was at 21 years of age when I became a Christian. I learned quickly, and within two years I was off to Olivet to study theology and philosophy. While I was in the church for those two years I developed a very critical perspective on church goers and lay people, which I carried with me throughout college. With so many critical questions raised against the church and its doctrines, I felt everyone had a responsibility to, “Always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask you….” Why wasn’t the church prepared to answer? Was it because they were bound by something?

Just over a year ago I took over an adult Sunday school class at my local Nazarene church. At first we were using the FC Adult literature, but I got approval to change the curriculum and we choose the book of 1st Corinthians. We took the book at our own pace, talking about the text and issues that arise from it. I was surprised by how active the Sunday school class was in engaging and asking questions. Through the class everyone has been challenged to think critically about their beliefs.

During the year I have been with this Sunday school class many of my assumptions about church goers have been challenged, and I think back about how critical I was of these people and I didn’t even know them. What gave me the right to be so critical of so many people? Each and every individual in the church has a story, and to criticize them without knowing it is doing the church a disservice.

As individuals we are limited; we have biases and assumptions that we assume from a multiplicity of places. Some individuals do more than others to challenge themselves and develop a reliable set of beliefs, based on evidence or perhaps a different and more reliable set of assumptions about things. However, is every individual called to pursue this knowledge to the same extent? I do not think so.

Individuals are created with strengths and weaknesses; a unique set of properties that is part of what makes every human being special. Are these individuals bound by their life experiences; their economic status, quality of education, parents, friends, fate, and chance?  Of course they are! How could they not be? These experiences are what define you as an individual, and everyone has a different set of them. Through these experiences we develop our strengths and our weakness, and we bring these into the church. We write on this blog as individuals defined by our own unique bondage, but it is because of this bondage we write, not because we are free from it.

I don’t place myself into bound and unbound categories, they are not useful. We are simply individuals; we are not bound or unbound. We just are. Every individual is going to engage and challenge themselves on different levels and at different paces. However, this does not negate the responsibility of those who are called to serve the church. Moreover, these individuals are important in developing those who have a calling to pursue service in the church.

This blog seeks to challenge those who are willing to listen. Not everyone is called to this challenge, and some of those who are will not be ready to engage, but there are some who are ready. We hope that these people will challenge us as we challenge them. We are here to learn and grow and ultimately strengthening the body of the church. The church needs this challenge. We ought to have a coherent answer to the world and its questions. We should be prepared to give an answer, but we do this as a body, not as an individual.

-Rick Briggs

Engaging in a Postmodern World

Ascertaining meaning is a tedious and difficult task.

This is the issue that surrounds one today. Buzzwords like, truth, purpose, or meaning have been replaced with words like relative, worldview and interpretation. This is the rise of the age of postmodernity. The word itself, postmodern, elicits a strong reaction. It has become a lightning-rod for conflict especially in the conservative, religious community, and rightfully so due to the problems the postmodern worldview presents.

Christians particularly (although I imagine that we are not the only ones, I’m sure practitioners of Judaism and Islam run into similar problems) have a tough time with postmodernity—particularly the postmodern understanding of language. Let us for a moment examine postmodernity’s view of language.

For those who ascribe to postmodernism, language loses meaning. This is not to say that it means nothing, that is impossible and impractical, and, if it were so, how would we communicate with one another? On the contrary what postmodernism claims that language has no inherent meaning nor truth-value. Words or, more broadly, all forms of communication do not own meaning but are ascribed meaning by individuals and by social groups. Therefore, language has no objective meaning, but it does have relative meaning. In other words, the word ‘church’ to me is different than the word ‘church’ to you. Richard Rorty sees it in terms of irony. If postmodernism is true then we must communicate it using faulty irrelevant symbols. Naturally, the work deconstructs itself as Derrida would claim.

Now that one sees the problems of language one can see how Christians find this problematic when these same critiques of language are placed on the biblical text. The Bible begins deconstructing itself revealing itself as a document meant for certain people at a certain time. It is here that we begin asking ourselves is there a solution to this problem? How do we as Christians live within, or deal with a postmodern society?

In the past many people have tried to combat postmodernity with clever retorts. I am sure you have heard this conversation or ones like it before:

The Postmodern: “I don’t believe in universal, objective truth. It is too hard to know.”

The Christian: “Well that was an objective truth statement right there, you’re not being consistent; therefore, your claim is false.”

Although this is clever and probably has more merit than I am willing to give it, I do not think that this argument solves or proves anything, except that one is clever, arrogant and ignorant of the movement of postmodernism. If this has been you, I apologize; however, I stand by my statement.

Instead of trying to combat the postmodern movement on our own ground, which they claim is not even present—metaphorically giving us no footing for our claims—why do we not speak to them on their terms. Let them critique language as inherently meaningless, but respond with asking about the comprehension of ideas. If one were able to comprehend an idea within a text based on a solid understanding of what the language typically means and given many examples and a wide understanding of the cultural practices, could one not at least ascertain some general principles?

Perhaps our defense is not to argue for the text and its truthfulness—that does not seem to get anywhere. It is like asking an American to speak Chinese. It will rarely happen and most attempts will be hysterical to watch. Instead we can argue for the process of understanding language. Perhaps this becomes an argument for the process of exegesis. Clearly the postmodernist thinks that language is culturally construed, if that is the case then one can make a case that they can understand the culture. This is a difficult process and it must not be brushed off as simple or easy; instead it challenges us as Christians to know and deal with history as it is and to understand our text in light of that—that is how we truly begin to have a general idea of what the authors of the text are saying.

If this is to work, two things will be needed: 1) the Christian community, myself included, will need to be prepared to have an educated understanding of the text and the culture surrounding it at the time of its creation. This means we need to know what Paul is trying to get at. This does not mean that the answer is clear cut; instead, it calls us to deeper inquiry into and dialogue about the text. This is what 1 Peter 3:15 speaks of:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect… (NIV)

The last sentence of this verse speaks to the second thing needed. 2) Willingness to be respectful of different worldviews and not to destroy their worldview, but to build ours as true. If we genuinely believe that our worldview is true and that we are the bringers of hope to this world, we must not speak as if we have some form of moral superiority. In the Gospels the only people Jesus speaks harshly to are the religious leaders of the day. Let us follow him and speak into the postmodern conversation as He would. 

-Jordan Britt