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

UnBound

This is a blog. I think it's safe to say you know that by now (If not, well, welcome to the digital world of free-floating opinions).

But let's take a moment and understand what exactly a blog is. It's not a book, a newspaper, or a magazine. This isn't something that's printed and delivered; this is not a physical, tangible thing. It's a bunch of words on a web page beamed to your computer. Actually, even that is a gross oversimplification. The text is translated into data packets that are translated into a binary coding, sent through a series of non-centralized relay points to your computer or phone, and eventually reconfigured back to their original format. Mind you, this happens in seconds.

But let's take this up one more level of abstraction. What you receive is a set of paragraphs made up of sentences made up of words. Each word is comprised of letters, lines that represent phonetic sounds. The combination of these sounds themselves represent ideas, something we observe or point to, without actually being those things. The word "Duck" is not a feathered, flat-billed friend, but points to and reminds us of that bird. 

So, this blog is data that makes words that represent ideas.

And yet, despite all this, you (hopefully) understand. You can read this. You kind of get what I'm pointing to. The actual letters, data "packets," nuts and bolts of the thing doesn't matter. Despite being ripped apart and glued together in your computer, despite being a set of squiggles and circles, despite the barrier of language, what I'm saying is still (somehow) coming through this blog post. This post isn't bound by words or data or language; rather, this post is that reality, that idea that lies behind the mechanics of syntax. You could call it the "heart" of the post. And, while the nuts and bolts certainly help define this post, the post itself is more than the words on the "page."

This blog is unbound. UnBound is unbound (get it?).

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son,full of grace and truth

Just as you are trying to understand the heart of this blog, the meaning of this post, from behind the mechanics and syntax, so too are we as Christians trying to understand the Word of God. The references above point to a "spirit of the law" rather than a "letter of the law." God Himself is unbound.

Jeremiah dreams of a day where the law of God is not kept in scrolls, books, indeed maybe even in words or strict adherence to them; rather, he paints the picture of a people with a new Law, one written on their hearts. God consciousness, ethical living, for Jeremiah, is so much more than rule following. The Word of God is unbound.

Saint Paul, in writing to the "church" in Rome, makes a bold statement about circumcision. Circumcision, in Jewish communities at the time, was a religious practice that identified the followers of God; to be circumcised was to be a light-bearer. Yet the Apostle Paul says that a Jew is not one who is physically circumcised, but one who is circumcised "inwardly." He spends a good deal of time in this epistle carving out room for those who are not ethnically Jewish to still participate in the Kingdom of God. The Word of God is unbound; it is for everyone who chooses to follow.

The writer of John (we'll just call him John, for simplicity's sake) goes a step further still. The logos (sometimes translated "Word" or "logic" or more liberally "natural/governing law) is that reality that underlies or governs patterns of existence; logos is that heart of reality that makes gravity work, that makes your heart beat, that bonds carbon together. That logos, that eternal, underlying Reality, Being in and of itself, came into the structures of existence (you can think my theological great-grandfather, a Mr. Paul Tillich, for that language). The Word is Unbound.

So what am I getting at? Maybe, after thousands of years, with countless translations and revisions of translations, with all the baggage of every sermon we've heard...

Maybe after all of this, it's time we stop limiting God to the Bible

Now, I don't mean to say we should throw out the bible, or that we ought to adopt pantheism, or anything else of the sort. 

What I want to advocate is a step away from Biblical literalism. I want to forgo worship of the Bible for worship of God. The Bible certainly defines God, gives language to talk about Him, but it does not contain Him; the Word of God is vibrant, it is living, it is more than a strict adherence to a dead tradition. It is thoughtful, it is convicting, it is sharper than any two-sided sword.

Theologian Karl Barth, known as more of a conservative, orthodox theologian, noted that the Word of God lives equally in the Bible as in preaching/proclamation as in revelation; our experience of God is Unbound.

Micheal Gungor once tweeted "There is a trend in modern society, no more than a trend...a religion, an idolatry that elevates scripture above Jesus."

Which strikes me as odd, considering we had Christianity before we had a Bible (for about 300 years, in fact!).

See, the Word of God thrives, it lives, it IS, even before we can put language to it.

It's unbound.

Are we willing to be?

- Logan Long

Bound Up

The Lord said to Moses, “Bring the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest to assist him. They are to perform duties for him and for the whole community at the tent of meeting by doing the work of the tabernacle.

When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.  

When I was approached to be a contributor to this blog I was apprehensive. I am in two graduate programs, have a part time job, am married, and I have a three month old dog who has yet to distinguish between inside and outside. Although I appreciated the offer I was initially going to turn it down. What eventually led me to take up the offer was the respect and admiration I have for the other contributors. As I asked questions I came to a realization that I liked the concept, the ideas, and the people. Something that I did not like was the name. Ohhh, the name “Unbound Christian” aggressively upset me. Instead of appealing to the other contributors about changing the name (which they would have gladly done) I thought I might be able to put an ironic spin on it. I am thankful for this opportunity that I have been given by the other contributors and indebted to you, the reader, that I might write something others are willing to read.

            I doubt the other contributors are going to use the word “unbound” in a similar manner as I. They most likely will point out that the meaning is derived from not being held to any sort of editorial distinctions. Such a freeing experience allows individuals who are interested in the sorts of things that we bloggers are to reflect freely, and maybe as Luther quipped, “Sin Boldly.” Now let me tell you what I do not like about it by drawing from the scripture verses utilized in the header.

            The Lord said to Moses, “Bring the tribe of Levi and present them to Aaron the priest to assist him. They are to perform duties for him and for the whole community at the tent of meeting by doing the work of the tabernacle.

            This appears at the beginning of the Book of Numbers in the Pentateuch. Israel is trying to establish governance and God is delegating tasks to the specific tribes through God’s Prophet Moses. The Levites are delegated to be priests; they tend to the matters of the Tabernacle. The Levites are the ones chosen by God to carry out the particular religious matters in the community. In contemporary society we might call the Levites: Priest, Pastor, Reverend, or Preacher. They had a special designation and an enormous responsibility which is symbolized by them tenting at the center of the community. That is to say, the ones who carry out the religious responsibilities in a community are at its center.

            When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

            This verse comes from chapter 19 in the Book of Judges. The verse comes from what is perhaps the most shockingly violent story in the Bible (although there are many candidates). For the sake of brevity I cannot rehash the entire narrative here, so please go read it. Essentially what happens is that a concubine belonging to a Levite man is gang raped and upon returning to the Levite the Concubine is slashed into 12 pieces and flung across Israel (I said it was shocking). Any good historical Biblical critic will tell you that this story is obviously allegorical, which doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have actually happened (a debate for another time). The point being that a man who is a descendant from the tribe who was supposed to be at the center of religious life, a teacher of the law, a spiritual leader acts in such an atrocious manner. Remember he was a Levite and sent the concubines remains to all twelve tribes.

            In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit

These words are the last words of the book of Judges, a book about failed leadership, political disarray, and outright social dysfunction. So, what happened? What are we supposed to have learned? How in the hell does the tribe of religious leaders turn into a people that would give up their concubine to be raped and then mutilate and discard them? A question more relevant to contemporary culture is perhaps, how did those who were supposed to be the spiritual and religious leaders degenerate into disarray, confusion, and dysfunction? The punch line perhaps provides the answer. Israel has no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

A first inclination upon picking up the subtleties of my argument might by cynicism. Before accusing me of trying to bring everyone back into the Catholic Church first answer the question, “What is doctrine?” Christology, eschatology, ecclesiology, homiletics, hermeneutics, Trinitarianism, etc…What do Christians believe about these things today? Writ large, the answer is nothing. Christian doctrine today is so broad that it either says nothing, or is so narrow that denominations need to be so sectarian as to have a paragraph explaining who exactly they are. To be an unbound Christian is to be a Christian in America today. Not truly understanding what you or your fellow parishioners believe, not reciting creeds, and not being beholden to an ecumenical body larger than “these people that I put on the church board.”

The symptoms of a Christianity without a king or an Israel without a king are the same. Everybody just simply does as they see fit. The individuals most responsible for this are the religious leaders, the Levites. Those who are too nervous to lose church members and too afraid to do the challenging that is necessary end up accepting a shallow theology not beholden to anything except their particular sympathies. It is my hope that by writing, studying, praying, conversing, and challenging through this project that I can be an agent that helps to “bound-up” this shattered Christian language. 

- Matt Loggan

We Are UnBound

I am UnBound

To some extent we—you and I—are unbound, although not completely so. Perhaps an illustration may frame what I mean:

Like you, I was born in year a, in city b, at time c. Moreover, I have genetic predispositions that we shall call d, and was raised with a set of values, e. My experiences shaped which parts of my brain was stimulated and which values, e, that I chose to value, and this we shall call f.

Here you have it, off the top of my head I have listed at least 6 separate factors that have influenced and shaped me (a-e). What is more interesting, however, is that these factors are almost infinitely broad and contain many sub-factors, which may have even more significant influence. Beyond that, I am still only limited to my own set of experiences and perspectives limited by my geographic location, historical existence, educational access, intellectual prowess (or lack thereof), my exposure to a diversity of experiences and immeasurably more factors which lead to my development.

Consequently, I am limited.

Imagine if I were born in any other year than a, or any other city than b, and so on. Naturally the variations continue on ad infinitum.  Clearly this illustration shows that I am limited.  

Then, what is it that I mean when I say that, “I am UnBound?” Why is it that I am writing with a group of Christians that consider ourselves UnBound?

My answer is simple: within these limitations I still have freedom to roam and decide freely. I will grant that I am limited; however, I am not bound. Think of it in terms of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. I am in the cave but I am unshackled; although, I am not all that positive that I am able to leave the cave or even that I myself would choose to leave it. Still, I have the opportunity to explore my limitations with as much intensity and attention to detail that I desire—and that knowledge is valuable. I can understand and discover hidden things in my surroundings.

Hence, we, you, I are UnBound.

Now imagine again reality with this in mind. To some extent we are limited by our technology, we really cannot go far form earth if you think on a cosmological scale; however, is such a criteria fair? Should we measure our limitations in an unrealistic vacuum with such a high standard of truth that we are unable to know anything?

This is why I turn my attention from the Heavens to the earth (like Aristotle, not Plato). I do this with my Christianity, and with my philosophy. I do what I can to engage in the real world trying to keep a fair standard for what is true and what is not.

I am limited, but I am still UnBound; I am free to roam my world and to see it in as much detail and to care for it with as much passion as I choose.

And since I am limited but UnBound, so are you.

No longer can we work in a vacuum. No longer can we work as if we have higher access to truth. We must be wary of our limitations, our ignorance, when we make truth claims. Instead we must work with what we have, and within our limitations—we are still UnBound. 

-Jordan Britt

Welcome

Welcome.

For our first post it is proper to introduce my colleagues and myself. We are the UnBound bloggers. Our purpose is to critically reflect on issues of our time and explore them as Christians. This is to say that we are all Christian theists, and that to some extent we all affirm traditional orthodoxy; however, it may be better to think of this blog as neo-orthodox.

This is not to say that we are the next Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer---no it is to say that we are not tied to simply settling for the status quo of Christianity. We are not against orthodoxy, but rather we are willing to explore it and explore beyond it. Hence, we are UnBound.

Naturally, assuming there is a nature to such a thing, we are not here to reinforce that which most mainline Evangelicals believe. We are not here to supplement faith, we are here to question---we are here to explore. It is our exploration of faith, that my colleagues and I believe we gain the benefit of wisdom, understanding, and deeper more satisfying piety. This is our vision statement: to question anything and everything with tradition held loosley in our hand, and to do this in order to touch closely to truth as humanly possible.

Thank you for reading. We will post once a week with our four main contributors and occaisionally a guest on Thursdays at 12:00PM. We look forward to exploring with you.

-UnBound Bloggers