The New Christians

The New Christians


Comment of the Day 2

posted by Tony Jones

Peter Rollins and Stephen Shields have begun a bit of a back-and-forth under the post, Ten Years of Emergent/ing.  Here’s Pete’s response to Stephen, and here’s hoping they’ll continue the conversation (here or elsewhere):

Hey there

Would love to chat, and I am sorry that my tone in the comments sounded so strong!

I am also aware that my own thoughts here may not be representative
of how many people who adopt the term ‘emergent’ think. However I guess
one of my projects is to develop Bonhoeffer’s ‘religionless
Christianity’ and show how it is an important source for the most
radical form of emergent thinking.

For me religionless Christianity operates without any metaphysical
guarantees. There is doubt, complexity and ambiguity throughout. And so
there can be no final foundational claim to an external source ensuring
that everything will work out well in the end (one can, of course, hope
that there is).

I do argue however that there is a type of non-foundational
foundation in faith of the type that Pascal hints at in his statement,
‘the heart has reason that reason does not know’. This I think can be
termed ‘rebirth’. But that rebirth is such an immanent event that it
does not give itself over to epistemic justification or other-worldly
guarantees. For me the story of the man born blind is a representation
of this. He says he can see but refuses to make any absolute claims
concerning the person of Jesus. To put it in another context one could
say,

‘I have been reborn, transformed, renewed by God, but then again I wonder who, what or even if God is.’

I guess I was worried that the above statement might do the same as
some types of mystical apophatic theology… namely give with one hand
(unknowing) what it takes with the other (an ultimate knowledge). This
is why Derrida ultimately found negative theology too positive.

Instead of saying ‘I am not sure God is there in my day to day life
but I know that God really is there’ (i.e. everything is ultimately
going to be o.k), I am more prone to say that Christianity allows us to
claim, ‘God is here in our midst, although I am not sure God exists’
(i.e. God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is
‘out there’). While the former justifies faith via a metanarrative the
later lives Christianity as a meganarrative (a grounded story)

Hope that is useful.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
emergent pillage

posted January 21, 2009 at 5:12 pm


–For me the story of the man born blind is a representation of this. He says he can see but refuses to make any absolute claims concerning the person of Jesus.–
John 9
35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
36″Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”
37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”
38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
Mr. Rollins, please do that completely radical thing which is actually READING THE BIBLE before spewing nonsense which it doesn’t say.
–Instead of saying ‘I am not sure God is there in my day to day life but I know that God really is there’ (i.e. everything is ultimately going to be o.k), I am more prone to say that Christianity allows us to claim, ‘God is here in our midst, although I am not sure God exists’ (i.e. God is what we live here and now without guarantee that God is ‘out there’). While the former justifies faith via a metanarrative the later lives Christianity as a meganarrative (a grounded story–
Mr. Rollins, please show an ounce of intellectual honest and confess that you are an athiest who is using Christianity and religions in general to promote your own ideas and agenda. At least be that honest.



report abuse
 

Kafka

posted January 23, 2009 at 12:13 am


LoL, I think Peter is a/theist. And how dare you Peter – in the future please dumb it down for your audience. Nothing past a pipsqueak of thought is allowed.



report abuse
 

emergent pillage

posted January 24, 2009 at 8:46 pm


–LoL, I think Peter is a/theist.–
Yeah, how much though does it take to put a slash into a word to try to look cool? Or as “a/thiest” simply a pomo way of saying “fence-straddler”?



report abuse
 

emergent pillage

posted January 24, 2009 at 8:50 pm


Btw does beliefnet/Jones know that they/he (see, even a non-pomo like me knows a bit about using slashes) has an ad for “California Psychics” on the side? Heck, they’ll give you one free reading.
Or is that ok?



report abuse
 

Nancy

posted December 22, 2009 at 10:28 am


What Bonhoeffer meant was that society as it was in Nazi Germany made it almost impossible to be a Christian, it was quite outlawed…as we are beginning to see in Ameica today…children in schools are silenced from mentioning Christs name…the public square scrubbed of any evidence of him…even though our Founders quoted from the Bible constantly and said w/o religion (Christianity) our Republic would not survive).. Here is his quote:
“What is bothering me incessantly is the question what Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us today. The time when people could be told everything by means of words, whether theological or pious, is over, and so is the time of inwardness and conscience–and that means the time of religion in general. We are moving towards a completely religionless time; people as they are now simply cannot be religious any more. Even those who honestly describe themselves as “religious” do not in the least act up to it, and so they presumably mean something quite different by “religious.”



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

My Blog Has Moved
Dear Readers, After a year with Beliefnet, I've decided to move to my own domain for my blogging.  It's been a fine year -- some things worked, other things didn't.  But in the end, I'll be a better blogger on my own.  My thanks to the Bnet editorial staff; they've been very supportive. Ple

posted 12:13:57pm Nov. 13, 2009 | read full post »

The Most Important Cartoon of the Year
By Steve Breen, San Diego Tribune, October 18, 2009

posted 8:51:22am Oct. 25, 2009 | read full post »

Social Media for Pastors
Following up on Christianity21, we at JoPa Productions are developing a series of boot camps for pastors who want to learn about and utilize social media tools like blogging, Twitter, and Facebook.  These are one-day, hands-on learning experiences, currently offered in the Twin Cities and soon

posted 10:45:52am Oct. 22, 2009 | read full post »

Ending Christian Euphemisms: "Fundamentalist"
I've taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday's post on "unbiblical" and a "higher view of scripture" as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. Ther

posted 10:15:41am Oct. 21, 2009 | read full post »

Why You Should Get GENERATE
Last week at Christianity21, GENERATE Magazine debuted. With the tag line, "an artifact of the emergence conversation," it fit perfectly at the gathering. When I actually got around to reading it last weekend, I was truly surprised at how good it is.There have been several efforts to begin a paper j

posted 3:14:37pm Oct. 20, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.