Author: an absurd monk

… all voices sound different in solitude!

OUNCE!

Every now and then someone will stand up in the media or in the church and rehash the old science vs faith debate. I often feel like the discussion is more about power than truth – the power to sway people into a certain direction of blind obedience. These discussions will use terminology like “truth” and “reason” and simply assume everyone is on the same page. Also, of course, these discussions will often assume that faith is a matter of epistemology, of knowledge without proof, rather than of a life lived before God.

So today I was thinking about the discussion (since it recently popped up in church) and what people understand by “truth”. Yes, all “truth” comes from God but followers of Jesus see truth as a Person and not an item of knowledge.

A book that I read a couple of years ago: The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context by Myron Bradley Penner, came to mind. (BTW: I am an Amazon Associate so if you buy via the link, I will get some money to buy more books.) The book is an exceptional read – well discussed and reasoned. It points to some of the fundamental issues in relation to rationally defending the Christian faith. To be honest, while the author does a great job defining the problem, his solution (for me) is not as convincing.

So in his defining the problem, he writes:

In the modern philosophical paradigm, then, reason forms what I will call the “objective-universal-neutral complex” (OUNCE).

Myron Bradley Penner. The End of Apologetics (p. 32).

I like the acronym OUNCE. This modern philosophical paradigm wants “truth” to stay at arm’s length. Truth, when encountered, does not change me – it is altogether outside of me and completely independent of me. And it is that independence of me that makes it the truth. But is the truth really truth when it is not truth for me?

I want to explore this further. And I want to explore the connection that modern Christianity makes between objective truth and God, often making the two equivalent. It is not the truth about Jesus that brings me into a relationship with Him but the encounter and experience of the very Person of Jesus. Fundamentally I think there is a difference between knowing something to be true and experiencing that truth in my life. Maybe this quote from T.S. Eliot puts it best:

Every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself.

I want to embrace the paradox and not run away from it. Because it is in the paradox that I meet Jesus.

communication and me

I have been meaning to write on this topic for some time. I have written previously on Kierkegaard’s insights on sermons. Today I stumbled across this blog post, Soren Kierkegaard and Preaching…, and it reminded me that I wanted to write on the topic. But, as I reflected on preaching, it struck me that topic is much larger. Rather than preaching, it is about how to communicate the faith since it is faith in a Person.

Pursue love and strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy. For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, those who prophesy speak to other people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

1 Corinthians 14:1-5

Paul writes that those who “prophesy speak to other people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation“. The older Prayer Books used to call it “edification”. Kierkegaard would maybe call it indirect communication.

The aim of prophesying or preaching is not supplying of information but rather the upbuilding (towards God) of those who are listening. It is done to encourage the listener to do what they believe. And to find consolation when things do not work out in Jesus. Modern sermons are too often academic discourses that speak little to individuals. And all too often do not require a response from the individual in their daily life.

Preaching is an impossible task because it is a Person who is experienced that is the aim and end. This Person is not an absent past reality but a present person in the community. And this Person calls me to communion with Him. He calls me to intimacy now. And He speaks a very simple command, “Follow Me”.

I want to keep this topic open as I think it is very important for me to thinking aloud.

SK vs the internet

I just wanted to share an article I read online: Inhuman communication: Søren Kierkegaard versus the internet by Patrick Stokes.

Just the last paragraph:

Equally, the fact that we are human beings dealing with other human beings is essential for maintaining the integrity of communication if we’re going to use this disproportionate talking tube. Indeed, a great deal of the abuse we encounter online ― though by no means all or even a majority of it ― seems to be a function of just this sort of abstraction from interpersonal communication, losing sight of the face behind the avatar, so to speak. Kierkegaard knew what it was to be attacked from all sides. But he also knew how to take responsibility, and how to engage with his neighbour even amidst the tumult.

All of this is another example of levelling. And the internet is very much the abstraction that kills the individual. But Stokes points out that the internet can become very impersonal – forgetting that there are people behind the keyboard. Impersonal communication is not only reserved for the internet. I think we live in a world of impersonal communication and religious communities are not immune. A “personal relationship” cannot be separate from personal interaction – some large communities can become extremely impersonal.

I think the article has many things to ponder. I do not think we need to abandon the internet (and technology) and live in the woods like Ted Kaczynski. (Yes, I have watched the Unabomber series on Netflix’s.) I think the internet can be redeemed by me being me and by me allowing people to be people and not seeing them as another product. The internet can be extremely impersonal, yes, and it can make individuals just another object. But in the end, Kierkegaard challenges me in my behaviour – to not allow abstractions to rule people, not to make individuals into objects, into hits or downloads. Kierkegaard encourages me to see people as people: people with stories, with experiences, with feelings. And for me to be a person online and reflect on the way I interact with others.

To be honest …

Towards the end of his life, Kierkegaard had a shaky relationship with Christendom – for him that meant the official Lutheran Church of Denmark. He did not receive Communion on his deathbed and refused visits from clergy, even his own brother. He turned his back on the institution, stayed away from public worship, and wrote at length about the dangers of Christendom. But did he have a shaky relationship with God?

I have always found Kierkegaard’s gravestone very inspiring. The inscription finishes with “And unceasingly / Speak with my Jesus.” For me, it separates the institution from the Person – the church from Jesus. Yes, Jesus speaks through His Church – in His Word and through the Sacraments – but the institution is not Jesus. I do not have faith in the church but only in the Absolute Paradox that brings life and embodies love. I like community and I am not anti-people but the community of faithful needs to lead me to communion with Jesus – He is the end of the journey!

So today I thought about a quote from the end of Kierkegaard’s life in the midst of his struggle with the official church:

I do not dare to call myself a Christian; but I want honesty, and to that end I will venture.

“XII. What do I want?”, The Moment, Hong 46

I guess, in modern speak, we would call that authenticity. For Kierkegaard, this honesty is connected to risk and faith. And the honesty he is speaking about is honesty about my relationship with God – honest before God. Being on a parish roll is not the same as being in the book of life.

It is human nature to try to find security in this world – finding certainty. For a lot of people, science offers that certainty – a truth that is imminent. Sometimes we use the terminology objective or absolute truth – a truth outside of me that is indepentant of me. Unfortunately, some people use that terminology about God. Kierkegaard’s point is that people finding that absolute truth in the institution is not the same as a personal relationship with Jesus. The fundamental movement of faith is to leap into uncertainty and that leap changes me.

So honesty has to do with risk before God. Risk that God will change me. Honesty is also about uncertainty – I do not have all the answers within myself. I am not complete without transcendence. I am not complete without the God who has reached out to me in love in the Absolute Paradox. And I can not surrender that honesty to another person – no one leaps for me into uncertainty.

My mental health struggles have taught me that I must live each day on its own merits. I must live now. Without any certainty about tomorrow. And that requires of me a certain amount of honesty about me and about my relationship with others and ultimately with God. I try (with God’s grace) to live for Him today.

Morning Prayer

I said Morning Prayer outside today. It was extremely windy so I had to stop my Prayer Book from being blown away. I used to be very fanatic about saying Mattins and Evensong – same time, same place, with full ceremonial – making my prayer life ever more and more complicated and involved. I wonder if I was trying to impress God or convince myself.

The simple form for every day in APBA is great – simple and not too involved. I use a very simple calendar and only keep a few festivals apart from the major ones. I read only the New Testament reading. The liturgical purest that was me would be horrified.

I like that the rhyme of prayer shapes my life. Morning and Evening Prayer are part of my Rule of Life. I try to say Prayer at the End of the Day (Compline) but often I forget or I am too tired. I have used Evening Prayer as a time to pray for people – people who have asked for my prayers and the people in my life. I also use the time to sit in silence and just “be”.

Life has taught me that it is not about the “how” of prayer (Prayer Books etc) but rather the “why” – my desire for intimacy with Jesus. My daily routine of praying sets the foundation for my life and also reminds me of Who is important. Using APBA is an act of obedience – I use what our parish uses – and also frees me up. It gives me the freedom for time with Jesus rather than maintaining some arbitrary tradition.

What do you use for your daily time with Jesus?

Going beyond

If he were alive today I am pretty sure that Kierkegaard would have a blog and a podcast. And he would create different profiles to talk to each other – to comment on posts – and create a whole “blogoverse” of his own.

I am going to take this writing thing a little more seriously. The blog and the podcast have been great while I have worked with my depression and anxiety (and continues to be great for me). Yet I think I have more to offer than personal reflections. So I am going to write a little more seriously and in the process challenge myself to move beyond.

I am open to suggestions on topics! I will try to add to the mix with honesty. Not to give an answer (always without authority) but rather to add another voice from the experience of a particular person at a particular time in a particular place.

So, if you have not already, “Like” the Facebook page. Ask anything in the comments (which are moderated so say if you do not want them public) or contact me via the blog.