catapult magazine

In response to Dave’s comments on the terror and freedom topic, where he says that *cino could be interesting if Christians who have a common ground offer a different perspective than the Hannity-Colmes debates we’re used to hearing on the media:

Actually, I think it’s the lack of common ground that could be *cino’s strength. We don’t have agreed upon doctrine. Many of our members come from the same sort of feeling of being an “outsider” in the Christian community. I do think we need to try to develop an alternative voice to the liberal vs. conservative “coversation” we’re used to hearing in the media. I would say that dan and anton’s discussion on defining terror has been better than most typical discussions on the topic in the media but, as Christians, we ought to try to define things according to the Word of God. This is what I was trying to say, not as a criticism of dan or anton, but as a criticism of Bush. If Bush is going to claim to be a Christian, he had better give a Word of God definition for freedom and terror, not a politically conservative one!

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas is very vocal about how the American church has too easily given in to the American way of life by adopting the American belief system into its own politics and conversations. Hauerwas wants Christians to have something new to bring to the conversation because the Christian way of life is not identical with the American way of life. Even further, Hauerwas says Christians are the only ones who are capable of having true conversations in our secular society. Hauerwas says conservative vs. liberal “conversations” are a lie because neither of them acknowledge their fundamental differences (perhaps because they don’t have any). Most political conversations are based on differences of opinion about praxis: HOW we should get things done. But a Christian perspective challenges the underlying foundational convictions upon which these opinions are based, and therefore opens up the possibility for true conversation.

What the church needs is a second Reformation, basically. Then it can start to teach the altering of our system.

that’s an interesting idea. should we start drafting theses? where would we post them?

I think the Word of God is the common ground I was talking about. It sounded like we were even doubting things like what God had done in the Old Testament.

Yeah, the problem is that even the Word of God is not accepted or even understood by many Christians. Americans get their truth from Americanisms, cliches like “As long as they’re happy” or “All people long for freedom” or “you need to follow your own heart” that they pick up at school and among other people rather than conforming themselves to the Word of God. Then I hear Christians say “but the Bible can mean many things to many people” and I wonder if they’ve read it recently. Shakespeare’s MacBeth can be interpreted in various ways, but it’s still the same story. It seems people think they can figure out how to become themselves on their own, if they just follow their own good conscience. But we’re called to conform to the Word of God, i.e. to imitate and draw our understanding of ourselves from the story of God’s relationship with Israel and the rest of the world. We need another reformation? Yeah, we need to read the Bible again instead of listening to the Popes and bishops on tv and in American schools who tell us how and what to think. We need constant reformation. That’s why we need to read the Bible, read like people read their life-altering Oprah book-club books, read like young people read Radiohead and Rage Against the Machine lyrics, like girls examine Britney Spears’ every move for tips on how to be sexy and attractive, like aspiring rap artists develop their own style in response to their heroes, hanging on every word, every move, imitating the rhythmic cadences of the great ones.

But how do you reconcile with people who read the Bible in radically different ways? Gustavo Guti?rrez reads the Bible a bit differently than Pat Robertson. Those are extreme examples, I realize, but I don’t think that those saying “the Bible means different things to different people” can be questioned as not reading the Bible much. There are people who read the Bible extensively who vary dramatically in interpretation. Should we say that we need to trust God enough that if we work out our faith with fear and trembling, things will work themselves out eventually? I’m tempted to say this because I want to say that maybe we don’t trust God enough. It’s not as though I feel I have complete trust; I have the hardest time doing so.
This is an old question, I suppose, but I haven’t seen it answered adequately.

I do think you’re right on about this:

I think this is where we should start: if we can convince people and ourselves to put our cards on the table, that is when conversation can start. If we can get ourselves and other people to confess their story, where there heart is, we may be able to get somewhere, trusting that the spirit will work amongst us and in us. This doesn’t happen too often. People quite often don’t know or can’t say where they put their trust.
Hey, Dooyeweerd’s “A New Critique of Theoritical Thought” is still helpful!