About Me

A Church-Planter asking questions about God, Culture and Church
view my profile...

Jake recommends
Books
Films
Travel


Links






























Contact Me
Jake

Site Feed

Friday, March 25, 2005

Okay, I'll try to Clarify

There has arisen some confusion about The Matrix.
Bob, the answer to your question is found in Neo's encounter with the Architect in Matrix Reloaded.

Neo: Why am I here?
Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which, despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably... here.

You see, the Architect originally wanted everything to work out perfectly, without contradiction. Unfortunately, this didn't work out for him.

The Architect explains,
Continue reading...



The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art-flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus, I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus the answer was stumbled upon by another - an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother....As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

Due to the inherent logical propositions endemic in the Matrix, some people saw the strings of the puppeteer and rejected the foundationalism of that system. They started a conversation about the control of the matrix and, subsequently, started a revolution that sought to topple the system and its control over their lives.

Bob, I know that this has confused you in the past, and I know what you are probably thinking. No, no, no! Don't forget what Morphius told Neo in the first Matrix:
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see. Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system....You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on that system that they will fight to protect it.
That is why some people committed themselves to offering an alternative to the system's ontic and epistemological controls. One would infer that once people realized that the system they associated with reality was nothing but a construct, they would seek another system that is free of such controlling authoritarianism. Yet, even at the end of Revolutions, the battle is not over. Do you remember the scene?

(Matrix: a lake. a bench)
Oracle: Well, now, ain't this a surprise.
Architect: You've played a very dangerous game.
Oracle: Change always is.
Architect: Just how long do you think this peace is going to last?
Oracle: As long as it can.
{Architect starts walking away}
Oracle: What about the others?
Architect: What others?
Oracle: The ones that want out.
Architect: Obviously, they will be freed.
Oracle: I have your word?
Architect: What do you think I am? Human?

I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion. Peace.


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/25/2005 02:55:00 PM

Thursday, March 24, 2005

That's Okay...Emergent is not for you anyway;)

My buddy Mark just posted some thoughts on the latest Southern Baptist response to the Emergent Church. The article is indicative of many similar cases in which charges are brought against Emergent that are so broad-brush that they are easibly negligible. For instance, the article reads: "Carson asserts that some Emerging Church leaders are "painfully reductionistic about modernism and the confessional Christianity that forged its way through the modernist period" and that they "give the impression of dismissing" Christianity." My questions are many: which Emerging Church leaders are reductionistic? how are they being reductionistic? how do these Emerging leaders dismiss Christianity? what is so important about the modernist period? etc.

This article is a clear example of modern, evangelical fear that the Emerging Church is going to deconstruct their capitalist market share on the Christian economy. To those espousing such fear, I say "Don't worry, Emergent is not for you anyway!" Many people in the Emergent conversation are trying to rethink Church in our postmodern world and this conversation is going to take place with our without the endorsement of evangelical leaders. If they think that by bashing Emergent they are going to build up their own churches, then by all means, have at it.

Similarly, the article recounts sound bites from our good friend Al Mohler who, in my opinion, nearly always serves as the poster-boy for 'adventures in missing the point'. He writes,
Homosexuality either will or will not be embraced as normative. The church either will or will not accept a radical revisioning of the missionary task. We will either see those who have not come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as persons to whom we should extend a clear gospel message and a call for decision, or we will simply come alongside them to tell our story as they tell their own.

Emergent will continue to deconstruct such propositionally bifurcated claims but this should not be cause for alarm. Many evangelicals have adopted a retreatist mentality to culture anyway so they can just keep doing what they are doing. As the vitriolic rhetoric of evangelicals like Carson and Mohler continues to rise in pitch, many non-Christians, seekers, and Emergers will just continue to turn down the volume.

BTW: If you are an evangelical Christian reading this blog and you agree with what Carson and Mohler are saying, that is okay. Emergent is not a threat to you. Let me be clear: if you are happy with your propositionally defended faith, with the style of worship at your church, with your authoritarian pastor, with your "Willow-back" mega-church, or with your Christ-against-culture m.o. or any other facet of evangelical Christianity in America, then blessings on you. If you are not, please try reading information for yourself rather than gleaning soundbites from the likes of Carson and Mohler. Peace!


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/24/2005 09:14:00 AM

Friday, March 18, 2005

And so it begins...

The journey has begun...


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/18/2005 06:21:00 PM

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Emergent and Ecclesial Segregation (Part 1)

We talk about the 11 o’clock hour on Sunday morning as being the most segregated hour in America. My experience bolsters this assertion. Question: Should Emergent work toward addressing the segregation that has thoroughly pervaded the North American Church? Before you offer a prompt “Yes,” think about these obstacles that must be adequately addressed in order for this to occur.

Church in general and Worship in particular means different things to African Americans than it does to Caucasians.

Edward P. Wimberly, in an article entitled, “The Dynamics of Black Worship,” in this book cites three impulses that are at the roots of black worship:

1. The psychosocial need for a positive self-image as individuals and as people in a negative environment of oppression.
2. The need to be whole and grow in mind, body, and spirit and in relation to others and God
3. A worship response to a God who affirmed Black people and bestowed identity on them as individuals and as a group in the midst of oppression

It seems that worship in the African American tradition is inextricably linked to the struggle of African Americans against corporate and institutional racism in the USA. In “White Churches” race tends to not be an issue. We come to church to worship God and that usually takes on an aura of individual, spiritual edification.

What has to happen for a truly blended church to take shape in an Emergent context? Is this possible? What might it look like?

This semester I am taking a class offered by Dr. Cleophus LaRue called "Worship in the African American Tradition." As a Christian from the Southeast who is rethinking the whithertos and whyfores of church theology and praxis, I am very interested in investigating the dynamics that race plays in the Church. I am taking this class in the hopes of figuring out what worship means to African-Americans. I have invited my African-American friends here at Princeton to engage with this post and the posts that will follow in the hopes of fostering genuine dialogue regarding this issue.


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/13/2005 07:04:00 PM

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Exorcising Descartes' Ghost

In a response to a critical assessment of his work offered by the eminent evangelical theologian, Carl F. H. Henry, Hans W. Frei writes

If I am asked to use the language of factuality, then I would say, yes, in those
terms, I have to speak of an empty tomb. In those terms I have to speak of the literal resurrection. But I think those terms are not privileged, theory-neutral, trans-cultural, an ingredient in the structure of the human mind and of reality always and everywhere for me, as I think they are for Dr. [Carl F. H. ]Henry. Now that may mean indeed, you see, that I am looking for a way that doesn't exist between evangelicalism on the one hand and liberalism on the other hand. If that's the case, well, so be it. But it may also be that I am looking for a way that looks for a relation between Christian theory and philosophy that disagrees with a view of certainty and knowledge which liberals and evangelicals hold in common.

This is one of the reasons I am hopeful of the Emergent/Missional conversation.


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/08/2005 12:45:00 PM

Monday, March 07, 2005

Jogger Etiquette

Okay, so I know that I'm supposed to be a post-foundationalist and everything but I think that there are certain, unequivocal standards of etiquette that must be maintained across cultures, ages, sexes and political parties. One of those universals is that if you are running/jogging and you pass another runner/jogger you are obliged to wave at her/him. You don't have to smile but you do have to offer a wave, which is the universal gesture of mutual solidarity and appreciation for the common path both runners tread. When I would run in the South this was never a problem. The only question was, who would be the first to wave. The South is so friendly that people pretty much kept one hand at the ready at all times just in case they passed another person. I know that I am in New Jersey and I know that this is a different culture. Furthermore, I know that I will only be living here for another 18 weeks and 3 days. But please, for the love of God and all that is holy and sacred, wave at your fellow runners. Thus endeth Jake's rant, please resume whatever you were doing. Peace.


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/07/2005 04:40:00 PM

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Cultural Hermeneutics

This post is a bit out of sequence for me. My plan was to first trace the history of interpretation and then examine in greater detail the role that contemporary awareness of, and even fascination with, culture plays in interpreting the Bible. My friend Adam has recently posted on Cultural Hermeneutics and he asked me to respond to the opinion of our fellow PTS classmate Corey.

You can read Corey's take on Cultural Hermeneutics here. Below I offer my response to his critique. Corey's perspective is, by the way, a very common reaction to interpretation methodology that is aware of the role culture plays in the act of interpreting.

Continue reading...
Corey,
I appreciate your lengthy comments and your commitment to understanding hermeneutics more fully (aren't you writing a thesis on this now?). Anyway I want to challenge your perception of the Cultural Hermeneutics class. I have the course now so I cannot comment on your experience with it two years ago. Nevertheless, I see Professor Blount's task in the course differently than you. You write,
"I want to go on and challenge Taylor and Blount to recognize the most serious omission of their method. They are ultimately advocating a form of radical contextualization whereby each local situation and finally each individual becomes sovereign in itself."
I think you have let yourself fall down the slippery-slope of relativism and it scares your Newbiginian understanding of the Gospel in a pluralist society. I tend to look at Blount and Taylor's aim from a different angle. Its not that "each individual becomes sovereign in [herself]" as you suggest...quite the opposite in fact. The point of wrestling with cultural hermeneutics is done in the service of dialogue and community; i.e. it is done so that we DON'T become sovereign unto ourselves! The problem Blount and Taylor seek to remedy is that white males (such as you, Cleave and I) have controlled the interpretation of the Gospel. We have ignored the fact that we are beholden to our OWN cultural situation and that we read the Text through those lenses. The Gospel does relate the Truth of Jesus Christ to us. It is a living word that meets each of us in our uniqueness and in our connectedness with our own communities. Cultural Hermeneutics strives to dispel the myth that there is only one mode of interpreting the Bible "correctly". That does not mean that we cannot speak concretely about the texts meaning or meaningfulness. What it does mean is that when the living word meets you, Cleave and I (as North American white males) it encounters us in a different place than it does the Latin American migrant worker or the African orange-vendor in Cameroon. Cultural Hermeneutics respects a point to which you have already conceded above:
You write, "The best thing about this class is that so many things about it are good and true- the principle thing, of course, being the recognition that all of us come to the text with our own cultural and experiential lenses that shape and perhaps even determine our interpretation of Scripture. Even the central question of theology, which I take to be “What is the gospel?”, must be asked in culturally particular ways. Our understanding of the gospel is always formed by the particular epistemological, social and even political assumptions that we have inherited implicitly in our contexts. Any attempt to deny this fact, and to seek instead a context-independent repository of eternal theological principles that give shape to the gospel, is a recipe for cultural accommodation, theological reductionism, and even oppression.")
Another point of contention I have with your assessment resides in your understanding of the ontological divide and God's self-disclosure via cultural mediums. You write:
"It does not take the possibility that God is able to reveal Godself in and through the contextual nature of all reality with half the degree of seriousness as it takes the contexts themselves."
You seem to be so scared that by opening up the channels of dialogue across cultures ('making room at the table' so to say) your own androcentric, white dogmatic insistence that your interpretation is the right one, damnit, might be challenged. I want to rephrase, in my own words, the last statement I just quoted from your comments and maybe this will show you another way of viewing this course's purpose:
Jake thinks, "[Cultural Hermeneutics] takes the possibility that God is able to reveal Godself in and through the contextual nature of all reality seriously and appreciates that we are called to live in community and dialogue with our neighbors. We need each other and we need to truly hear the other's interpretations, respecting that the same Spirit is at work in their communities as the Spirit is in our own. Cultural Hermeneutics appreciates God's ontic otherness compared with humanity and respects the fact that God, in God's amazing love and grace, has chosen to reveal Godself to us. Yet this Divine self disclosure is limited to the extent that we are limited, finite beings who are incapable of understanding apart from language. Since languages are culturally bound we must respect the fact that other people's interpretations will necessarily differ from ours. These socio-linguistic fetters are actually the keys to liberation, for they enable us to respect one another's perception of that one great Truth via dialogue. I can think of few things that are more exquisite in God's creative design than to limit us socio-linguistically so that we are forced to listen, respect and love one another. What a sneaky and beautiful ploy!"
Corey, please don't kick against your socio-linguistic goads! Don't fight to protect your hermeneutic so that you do injustice to other interpretations. But at the same time, don't feel that your own culturally conditioned perception of the Truth is worthless... it's not, it's just not totalistic and universal.
This seems to be the tendency for my white brothers involved with cultural interpretation. They either 1) pucker their assholes up so tight that they even go so far as to dismiss culture as a factor of interpretation altogether or 2) they abandon their own culture en toto and pretend that they are actually a marginalized Latina or that they truly identify with the transgendered paraplegic. Both of these miss the mark. The purpose is to recognize that we too have a cultural identity that we bring to our task of interpreting the biblical witness. It involves an acknowledgment of the history of domination and oppression done to other interpreting communities over the years. It calls us to repent of this methodological dogmatism and to enter into true dialogue with other marginalized interpretations that threaten both our own sacred understandings of Truth and our status as dominant power-players that still participate in subjugation of minorities."


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/05/2005 12:58:00 PM

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Conviction as Fashion

Some of us do "wear our convictions on our sleave"... or wrist. Is the new braclet fad about conviction or fashion?




















































And for those of you who are not satisfied with these options, don't dismay. We've got your fashion conviction for sale right here.


Permalink posted by Jake at 3/02/2005 10:46:00 AM

Friends w/ Blogs









































































My Reading Queue





























Just Finished























The Looooong List
















































































































































































Previous Posts
Next Theology on Tap-Oneself as Another
------------
Next Theology on Tap
------------
Amahoro Africa-Day One
------------
Amahoro Africa
------------
I love being a daddy
------------
.bE Service
------------
On living close to the airport… and not flying to ...
------------
A Blogger with a Baby
------------
Alt Worship in Little Five Points
------------
Easter and the Lost Tomb of Jesus
------------

Archives
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007

 

Powered by Blogger