Archive for Process Theology

Subverting the norm

April 9, 2013 Conference, Process Theology, Queer theology, Radical Theology 2 comments

Pete Rollins and Tony Jones at the Coffe Ethic in Springfield

The last couple of days I have spent at Subverting the norm II, a conference about radical theology, postmodernism and the church. It has been three days of deconstruction, radical thought and repentance.

It has been such a privilege and honour to spend three days with some of the greatest theologians involved in this ongoing conversation.

The tile of the conference “Subvert the norm” points to the fact there there is this thing, called “the norm” or normal and that it needs to be subverted. I love the idea of subversion, there is no correlating term in Swedish. So the closest I get to translate the title Subvert the norm to Swedish is normkritik – norm criticism, which of course is not quite the same.

To critique something is to stand on the outside and have an opinion about it, giving the appearance of objectivity, to subvert something is in my oppinion to engage in it and change the rules.

The conference itself was a wonderful gathering of great minds. To explore wether or not post-modernism can live in the church or maybe if the church can survive post-modernism. Here is an excerpt from the subverting the norm webpage:

Can the actually existing churches speak meaningfully and persuasively to those who aren’t so sure about the supernatural or the magical or the metaphysical, which includes the fastest growing religious demographic in North America, the “nones,” those with no formal religious affiliation?

Can the church retain a viable role in a world where God is often viewed as a relic of the past, or as a grand Santa Claus in the sky, or perhaps even as a narcotic or neurosis that we’d do well to get rid of?

And if the churches are to be faithful to the revolutionary event that gave birth to Christianity, or if they are to recover their theological voice in a compelling and transformative way, is it possible to do so by listening to voices on the margins of the church, or outside of the church, including even those who might rightly pass for atheists? And perhaps more to the point, why are voices on the fringes of the church, or outside of the church, becoming more influential on church leaders and practitioners than the traditionally “orthodox” voices inside the churches?

It has been three days of thought provocing, challenging and subverting experiences. With me home I have the strong conviction that if the church is to include post-modern thought and radical theology, then it must transform into a differnt structure than the traditional structures we see today.

Our liturgies must be transformed to allow for a radical liturgy that gives voice to a broader spectrum of human experience than todays often happy clappy evangelical liturgy.

I find that I will need some time to internalise the experience before I can capture it in words, but I want to take the time to thank all of you who made STN2 such a great experience for me. Thank you for your generosity, your hospitality, your humility and your love for a wayward Swede, lost in the bible belt.

 

The return of the blog

March 27, 2013 Bible, Christian life, Faith, Poetry, postmodernism, Process Theology, story, Theopoetics No comments

tumblr_m9pb53vJjx1rnmfgho1_500After a long hiatus in blogging I have decided to warm up the keyboard and start blogging again. Any long term reader will immediately notice that the name of the blog has changed and with that maybe the direction of the blog as well.

Personally I think the new name “Theopoetics” better reflect the direction the blog has had for a long time and that the byline: Life is my religion also reflects this direction.

The return of the blog will start with a blog series that will unpack that very statement over the course of the next few months.

If you are familiar with the kind of theologians that move in more progressive circles (process theologians and radical Christianity etc) you will already be familiar with the term theopoetics. But for those of you who wonder here is the Wikipedia entry on theopoetics:

Theopoetics is an interdisciplinary field of study that combines elements of poetic analysis, process theology, narrative theology, and postmodern philosophy. Originally developed by Stanley Hopper and David Leroy Miller in 1960s and furthered significantly by Amos Wilder with his 1976 text, Theopoetic: Theology and the Religious Imagination. Recently, there has been a revitalized interest with new work being done by Rubem Alves, Catherine Keller, John Caputo, Peter Rollins, Scott Holland, Melanie May, Matt Guynn, Roland Faber, Jason Derr, et al.

Theopoetics suggests that instead of trying to develop a “scientific” theory of God, as Systematic Theology attempts, theologians should instead try to find God through poetic articulations of their lived (“embodied”) experiences. It asks theologians to accept reality as a legitimate source of divine revelation and suggests that both the divine and the real are mysterious — that is, irreducible to literalist dogmas or scientific proofs.

Theopoetics makes significant use of “radical” and “ontological” metaphor to create a more fluid and less stringent referent for the Divine. One of the functions of theopoetics is to recalibrate theological perspectives, suggesting that theology can be more akin to poetry than physics. It belies the logical assertion of the Principle of Bivalence and stands in contrast to some rigid Biblical hermeneutics that suggest that each passage of scripture has only one, usually teleological, interpretation.

Whereas these strict, literalist approaches believe scripture and theology possess inerrant factual meaning and pay little attention to historicity, a theopoetic approach takes a positive position on faith statements that can be continuously reinterpreted. Theopoetics suggest that just as a poem can take on new meaning depending on the context in which the reader interprets it, texts and experiences of the Divine can and should take on new meaning depending on the changing situation of the individual.

 

 

Christianity, faith or science?

November 16, 2012 Christian life, contemplation, postmodernism, Process Theology, theology 2 comments

It seems that most people are upset by uncertainty, and more specifically Christians get really upset if one where to say that we cannot know. I was taught when I first came into the church about this “blessed assurance”, to know that you know that you know that god is real/good/loving etc.

At the same time I was taught about faith and hope none of which speaks about any such knowledge or assurance. Conviction, yes, but not certainty. The very essence of having faith is to put our trust into what has yet to be proven. And for many of us, myself included that trust grows and deepens year after year as more and more of our experience points us in the direction of the divine.

I know that I have written it elsewhere, but I will stand firm claiming that once something is fully known we stop experiencing it, we stop being present to it and it fades out into yesterday. We then assume that the thing, the person simply is the same and we stop listening and interacting consciously. In a sense we kill the relationship when it is consummated (and by that I mean once we have fully explored the depths of it). The thing is no-one can be fully known ever, as people constantly changes. God does to, and even if we hold the belief that god does not change (not ever), we still hold that god is infinite and therefore to know god fully would take an infinite amount of time. So whether we actually believe god changes or not, the reality is still the same, we cannot know god fully. This is why we must trust, hope and have faith.

To believe (as we understand it, that is intellectually to be of the opinion that…) is a modern way of thinking, the etymology of the English word believe comes from to belove, to have a relationship to, to love to trust. In Swedish the word for faith (tro) comes from the word safe (trygg), to be safe with to trust. Either way it is not knowing for a fact.

Again I want to end with a beautiful poem from Tukaram:

Certainty undermines ones power, and turns happiness
into a long shot. Certainty confines

Dears there is nothing in your life that will not
change – Especially all your ideas about god.

Look at what the insanity of righteous knowledge can do:
crusade and maim thousands
in wanting to convert that which
is already gold
into gold.

Certainty can become an illness
that creates hate and
greed.

God once said to Tuka,

“Even I am ever changing -
I am ever beyond
Myself,

what I may have once put my seal on
may no longer be
the greatest
Truth”

 

Marriage is meaningless …

September 7, 2012 Christian life, Family, Marriage, Process Theology, theology One comment

After years of deconstructing both my worldview, my faith, my theology, my sexuality and every other aspect of my faith I have come to this conclusion (among many others to be sure), marriage is meaningless.

Marriage has meant many different things in many different times and many different cultures. Most of the time marriage has been mainly a business transaction, a way to secure land, possessions in a word ownership. It is clear that the “protection” of marriage in the decalogue is purely protection of assets: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ….. Possessions (wife included).

Jesus both protects and deconstructs marriage/family, you shouldn't divorce on one hand against a child will leave parents etc on the other. It seems to me that Jesus protection of marriage was an act of justice. No you cannot just leave a person (your wife) unprotected and with no financial security, destitute and unwanted.

Today all these reasons for marriage are void, in our post-modern, post-secular society the individual can live alone without the family unit for financial security and protection. The institution of marriage (not instituted or even commanded by god) is very much a human, cultural invention.

Therefore marriage today holds only the meaning we give to it, it contains only the magic and blessing we bring to it. The rules, the shape and structure of marriage, whatever we decide it to be.

In other words, if you want your marriage to be blessed, be a blessing in your marriage, if you want your marriage to be a sacred adventure, live a sacred adventure. If you want your marriage to be an isolated duet close the doors. If you want to include more people (friends, children, co-workers, fellowship), open them. If you want you marriage to be a joint business venture, make it so and if you want it to be your closest friendship work hard to make that happen.

Whatever you do, do not think that marriage can be all of these, human beings are meant to live in tribes, collectives of people who connect with each other in different ways, transactionally, emotionally and or sexually. Some people will have friends outside the marriage with whom they are more intimate than their spouse. Most people especially parents with young children, spend more time at work or with the children than their significant other, these connections are natural and valuable and whether you like it or not part of your marriage. Don't like it? Change!

Marriage is an empty container that will hold whatever you put in it, if you put discontent and resentment that is what you will have. If you put in grace, loving the other, that is what you will get.

Marriage is a piece of clay that we can shape together (Ghost, anyone) to whatever shape we like for it to be.

Let me put this in a different way for my more “churchy” readers. If we by sacrament mean “an outward sign of an inward grace.” Then a marriage is only a sacrament when it is a sacrament. That is, marriage is only a sacrament when it is a positive environment that nurtures and enables each person involved to grow and become the person they where created to become, that is, when the marriage is filled with grace and love. There is no secret magic in the marriage ceremony, no automatic bliss that comes with tying the knot. Marriage just like your Christian life and spirituality takes a lot of work, and while I am sure we get help from god, as so much else, in the end it is up to us.

Personally I think this is good news!

Marriage, if taken as a carte blanche, a contract we have yet to fill with conditions, stipulations, dreams and visions, becomes an amazing adventure of becoming. Where we as partners, co-creators of our lives shape the future we wish and hope for in the turbulent currents of our lives.

Doesn't god have any place in marriage then? Of course, god will be as involved in our marriage as we are. God works in us and through us, when we create our dream marriage god is right there creating along with us, luring us into the future and accepting with loving, forgiving grace whatever we make of it like a loving parent receiving the toddlers squiggles.

If god truly is omni-present, immanent, Emmanuel, god with us then god is already at work within your marriage. The marriage is sacred because you are holy, divine images of the godself. Just as god is also at work in your friendships, business relations and in every other relation in your life, equally sacred because of the presence of the divine in every place, every moment of your life.

 

Taking the G out of the kingdom ….

August 14, 2012 Ponderings, Process Theology, Queer theology, theology No comments

I was listening to a Homebrewed Christianity – Theology Nerd Throwdown (TNT) when I was struck with this beautiful idea.

It was Tripp Fuller who said (Not the exact quote, though these are his words)

If you take the G out of Kingdom you get kindom with no cock and no crown.

The kindom of God, the extended interdependent family of god not ruled by a Patriarch or King but by a loving nurturing parent who is genderless or rather transgendered (as I have written before, not trans as in going from one tend to the next but as in more than both the one and the other).

We are invited, not as loyal subjects and subordinates, but as family members and co-creators. We are invited into the perichoresis the divine dance of interdependence and mutual, loving submission.

 

A larger container

July 31, 2012 Christian life, postmodernism, Process Theology, theology 4 comments
energies

Often in these theological conversations we are presented with a set of polar opposites. Monica Coleman states in a recent Homebrew podcast that when presented with polarities in conversation all you need is a bigger container.

Think of the earth (or the Earth as Jeanine Slettom and John Cobb would have it), a globe with two opposite poles the Arctic and Antarctica on opposite sides of the globe. There is no way they can be reconciled (brought together) but they are in fact connected and together not only in that they are on the same planet but in the larger container of the universe, they are infinitely close and interconnected. Just as we are all connected or rather an integral part of the eco system of this planet.

In church, the larger container should be god, or maybe, to make it more applicable, love (god is love). This I think is Christ centred, Pauline, process theology. All of the created exist within godself so that god is always present and at the same time transcendent. God is intimately present in me, in you in everything and everybody. But because god is always present in everywhere and everybody it also means that god is always bigger than the present situation (conversation, polarised debate) we find ourselves in.

This also means that everyplace is holy, because god indwells it, and every person is holy, because god indwells them. This means that different opinions, or theologies (or maybe even religions) only need a bigger container to find that they are in fact intimately interconnected.

Exasperated Paul cries out, don’t you get it? You cannot say you love god and then turn around and hate your brother. If you are in love, you are swimming in this bigger container and have the opportunity to se how we are al interconnected and interdependent. Love is the true god-particle that binds us all together and gives us mass.

Why can’t our different theological perspectives be in the words of Bruce Epperly, contrasts, different colours and streams of thought rather than mutually exclusive polar opposites?