Inception: The Consequence of Ideology

If you haven’t seen the movie “Inception”, do yourself a favor and watch it. It’s premise? That an idea planted in the deepest part of the subconscious would become an overarching obsession or theme which would manifest itself in an all consuming fashion within the one whom has received the inception of that idea. It further begs the question of reality and the depth of the human mind, and the layers of human cognition. 

 “Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream?” – Edgar Allen Poe

When I first watched the movie, I wasn’t quite sure what to do with it. It seemed to me, in light of apathetic doctrine, that abstract conceptions deep within the confines of the mind did little to motivate action. Case and point, it has been my personal experience that the cognitive truths of the gospel do very little to motivate or create change within an individual (myself included). When I peer into my soul I find that same man (or child) that resided within me abideth still post-conversion. Is the progression in my life one of spiritual sanctification, or physical and sociological progression of maturity that accompanies the experience of every man? Far be it from me to marginalize the Spirit’s work within the confessing believer, but my conclusion at the time was that the cognitive Gospel made scarce few practitioners of the Christian life. 

Conclusion: Ideology had little or no consequence – therefore the premise of “Conception” was over stated.

If the most central and key component of the Christian faith, “the gospel” did little to motivate adherence to its principles, than all ideology must be useless. 

I have since felt quite differently about the powerlessness of ideas. I have recanted much of my sweeping generalizations and vilification of the tradition under which I have been nurtured into faith. My oedipal desire of slaying that which has created my spiritual construct is beginning to subside.  

I came to a clinching conviction while sitting in class “The Practice of a Generous Orthodoxy.” While unpacking the ways in which a generous orthodoxy is applied I began to probe for areas where reservation and apprehension was pulling the reigns upon my heart which longed to embrace the single holy catholic and apostolic church and recant of a factious, hubris, pseudo practice of faith. In that moment I was given a glaring illustration:

A good friend of mine has high esteem for the nation of Israel. His eschatological views make the state of Israel of utmost importance to the outcome of this world. I once shared similar views, but have since changed my stance drastically (that is another story for another time). I had recently come under deep conviction that the unlimited support American Evangelicals (monetarily and politically) have given to the nation of Israel has undermined the gospel, and has in fact perpetuated racism and injustice against Palestinians (especially Palestinian Christians). The way in which I would later go about broaching this subject, I fear, has greatly jeopardized that friendship. 

I have not found a way to relinquish the importance of what I perceive to be an injustice while remaining generous to my brother in Christ. 

So then, ideology does in fact determine the behaviors and paths of one’s life.

Thoughts and beliefs have consequences. Theology has consequences. 

To further illustrate I turn to an extreme example of conceptual motivation. This is a concept that has been highly embraced by the masses, without ever receiving critical reflection upon its implications. 

In the concept of Karma “humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences.” I do not want to reduce an ancient religious concept to “My name is Earl,” but in essence, “do good things, and good things will happen to you. Do bad things and bad things will happen to you.” Seems innocent enough, right?

Consider that when something bad happens to a person, the ideology of Karma suggests that said person has done something to deserve the despair being brought upon them. What do we say to the victim of abuse, to the childless couple, to the man born blind? That in a past life their actions caused the infliction they now endure? Karma causes us to look with suspicion upon any person in suffering, an antithetical view of the restorative social implications of the Gospel of Christ. This ideology perpetuated the use of the Caste system for centuries in India, yet it is espoused from the lips of Hollywood celebrities and new age adherers without critique.

This is where I am stumped. Given that ideas have consequences, must a practice of a generous orthodoxy be abandoned and the pursuit of unity be forfeited because hermeneutical purity is asserted while moral outcome is ignored? Ideology, belief, faith, theology… they affect the way in which we as individuals and as a corporate body of believers engage the world around us. How can we abandon the process of theologizing and give the old “nod nod, wink wink” to each denominations doctrinal conviction?

I have a series of solutions to the presented problem, but I am not sure they are cohesive enough to address the very difficult dilemma I have approached. Undisputedly, generous orthodoxy is no easy and simple task. I do not submit that we abandon our current traditions in order to join in a watered down “theological jambalaya” as one friend of mine has called it.  I guess a good beginning place would be to acknowledge the strengths of denominationalism.

Denominations are much more like personalities than they are theological camps. Baptist, as much as it has theological distinction, has social distinction and unique personality. Presbyterian, as much as it has theological distinction, has social distinction and unique personality. And so on…

In composing the realization that ideology has consequences, I must ask whether or not the way in which we arrive at theological convictions concerning that nature of God may in fact need to be challenged? The method that I see most heavily used in my own circle is that certain succinct creedal statements becoming the pinnacle of theology, upon which biblical truth can be further extrapolated. Perhaps, in following these rabbit holes deeper and deeper we make it easier for ourselves to come to conclusions that are, dare I be so bold as to say, bizarre? 

So once more, I come to the conviction that a center of orthodoxy must be established (that which has been held by the church at all times). I suggest that from this dogmatic core of absolution we tread with humility into the realm of doctrine and preference. We do not forsake our traditions (as I am in a habit of doing), but rather we glean from those whose traditions have much to teach us. Starting with the center and working our way out means that these central convictions make their way into the deepest regions of our “sub-conscious”. They bury themselves into the caverns of our hearts, and from them we become practitioners of those who profess faith in Christ, and in so doing live in a diverse unity with our brethren.

The power of the gospel is not ideology and cognitive/individual acceptance thereof. The power of the gospel is a flesh and blood reality that is being manifest in this world. Ideas have consequences. May the inception of the gospel within your soul transcend explanation and overtake your life in its consequence.

Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear

Two tectonic plates sit in tension with one another, the one always pressing against the other. The pressure builds until something slips, and a violent reaction occurs. From this separation a seam is torn, and in its wake several other cracks, creating separate plates in tension with one another are formed. These plates are made of clay, and they are rigid because they are dry. But the plates can be restored in unity, the cracks can be sealed. Water will fall and the clay will once again become malleable. And at the hands of the potter the clay can be reformed into a single entity once again. 

Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear

A Welcomed Admonition

In a Facebook post, I wrote that I “was learning to love admonition”. This may seem a curious thing to fall in love with. However, I have come to realize that repentance begins in me before any call to Christian unity can be valid. I wrote that status while in a class called “A Generous Orthodoxy”. Allow me to say a word of disassociation before I continue:

Brian McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy is heavy on generosity, and light on orthodoxy. I feel that in this way, McLaren has hindered the ecumenical movement by unnecessarily offending those with which he has grown weary. I still appreciate McLaren for the freedom with which he explores difficult questions that are largely ignored or issues that are sometimes even contributed to by Christians (which is why he and I are arm and arm in my profile pic). 

I came to appreciate admonition while sitting in the first night of our class. I’ve stated something similar in other blog posts. I want unity in the body, but I do not want to cause further contention and schism in order to acquire it. I had repressed the sense that this was in fact what I was doing, yet I knew not how to do it any other way. I knew that I myself had become guilty of the very same things I was seeking to convict others of. For this, I repent and embrace a different approach to a generous orthodoxy. There are deeper reasons for having this contentious approach to orthodoxy. I will try not to spare myself from shame in order that I might better articulate them:

1.       A pecking order: I believe there is a an attempt among peers to establish a sort of rank or pecking order. In my mind’s eye I am thinking about twenty-something’s behaving this way. However, I have seen this type of behavior taking place at almost every level (I have seen seminary and Bible College professors engaged in this kind of rivalry, and I have been very disillusioned by it.) While it might seem petty and immature at a personal level, it is the thirst for superiority and power that has and will continue to divide us. As John Chrysostom stated: “Nothing will so avail to divide the church as love of power.”

2.      Superiority: We were taught superiority. When I look back as a younger man in my faith I reflected often on my paternal grandparents as a vicarious model for what I wanted to strive for in my own ministry. My grandfather is Irish Catholic, my grandmother was Methodist. Why was it that they could not rejoice over the core of their faith in Christ? Rather, their differences created a great tension. Something happened to me though, as I pursued a theological education. I became an anti-catholic. Where did I learn all of my anti-catholic rhetoric? It certainly wasn’t nurtured in my upbringing! I learned it through poor historical scholarship, and a hermeneutic of perspectival superiority (which claimed absolute objectivity, thus magically rendering it from any and all criticisms). John H. Armstrong says it best:

“Often people tell me that catholicity doesn’t matter anymore. They argue that what matters most is right doctrine, and we get right doctrine by a proper exegesis of the Bible. These folks will sometimes go on to insist that their church is right since they truly follow the Bible. Yet in many cases their church is less than two generations old. (Incidentally, this provides one reason why really important doctrines [the Trinity, for example] are not practically important in many American churches – they are not understood historically (Armstrong 82).”

Concerning poor historical scholarship, I was often taught that the Roman Catholic Church held antithetical views of protestant theology. As Professor Mangum pointed out, if we are to plum down into these debates we find out that many of the sides had a lot in common. So for example, we Protestants, in affirming the five Solas of the reformation wrongly believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold to “Sola Fide”, “Sola Grate”, and so on. This simply isn’t true. As Dr. Mangum stated in class, much of the concern from the church was this: “Brother Martin, if you go down this road of “sola-scriptura”, you will splinter the church into a thousand pieces. Each man will become his own interpreter, and each man will become a law unto himself.” The testimony of history has revealed that the concerns of the Church were correct.

3.       FALSE: Becoming generous in one’s orthodoxy means setting aside one’s own theological convictions.

To once again quote John H. Armstrong in speaking about the Apostles’ Creed as a means of unification he says:

“When we fail to utilize it as a basic guide for teaching the essentials of our faith, we practically invite disunity. Those who ignore the creed are generally left to focus on the truths they prefer to major on rather than the essential beliefs that have been universally believed and taught by all Christians (79).”

Many of the arguments and contentions that I have initiated, perpetrated, executed, and participated in were foolish and outright sinful. In receiving my own admonition, I offer a word of caution to those who are very much like me in this way…

4.       Theological debate for the sake of theological debate is not a fun past time, it is forbidden.

Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.”

I know that quoting a verse solves nothing, but hearing this verse being unpacked, as well as this one…

 ¹ Thessalonians 5:14 “And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. ¹⁵ Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.”

left me feeling admonished… and in a good way! “Fights and quarrels” arise from the “desires that battle within you (James 4:1-2).” These fights are not about doctrine, they’re about us:

“This unfortunate idea – that the basis of spiritual unity must stand in uniformity of doctrine – has been the poisoned spring of all the dissensions that have torn Christ’s body. – John Watson

If I have frustrated you, if I have been contentious, factious, and/or quarrelsome, then I ask that you forgive me. I have realized that my behavior is a perversion to God. Let us, in one accord, affirm the nucleus of our faith, for our enemy hates a united church, and our Father longs for us to be one:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended into hell.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Amen.

Racial Reconciliation

Something happened this past weekend that I won’t soon forget. I had the awesome privilege of M.C.ing Biblical Seminaries’ retreat this year. Our speaker, Al Tozin, challenged us all weekend long, speaking about issues of gentrification, urban and suburban ministerial partnerships, current trends in the urban/suburban context, racial reconciliation, and much more. It will take months to unpack all of the dialogue that we shared that weekend.

Dr. Tizon, in speaking about racial reconciliation, challenged us all that in order for the church to be united, apologies and forgiveness’ in the context of relationship must take place. He said it isn’t enough for those of us whose legacy is that of the oppressor to say “I never owned any slaves. I never did anything to those people, why should I have to apologize?” 

There was a time that Dr. Tizon’s words would have been lost on me. But having moved into the city, and being exposed to the injustices that are taking place within a few miles of where Amanda and I have grown up… having met and become a part of a community that we at one time did not understand… having befriended people we otherwise never would have known… and having the contents of our own hearts dramatically revealed… I realized that Dr. Tizon was right. 

Dr. Tizon went on to say, that if our legacy is on the side of the oppressor we must say, “in the name of Jesus Christ, I repent of the sins of my forefathers. Will you forgive me?”

And on the side of those who have had injustices perpetrated against them, the church must respond, “In the name of Jesus Christ, I forgive you.” 

His words cut so deep, my heart began to palpitate. Sunday morning, before our last session began, I made my way to the pulpit one last time to introduce our speaker. There was something however, so heavy on my heart, that if I did not share I would have regretted it for the rest of my life:

“I have spent more years than not believing that I was better than many of the people in this room. I have spent more years than not fearing, and even hating many of you. I am so ashamed of the man that I was, and of the things that I’ve done. I not only repent of the sins of my forefathers, I repent of my own sin. I ask, in the name of Jesus Christ, that you forgive me.” 

Dr. Tizon made his way to the pulpit and said:

“In the name of Jesus Christ, we forgive you Ryan.”

It’s strange, some of the burdens we carry without ever knowing it. I weep if I pause to reflect on this moment for too long. My brothers and sisters, in the midst of their own hurts perpetrated by people like me, embraced and forgave me. I know that many of these brothers and sisters of mine would have loved me even in times when I would have hated them. 

I want you to consider that through many of my younger years I did not think myself to be a racist. My words and my experience may be lost on you, but I challenge you that if you profess to follow Christ that you search your heart for the sin of pride, or the ignorance that induces fear, or perhaps even hatred for those whom you do not know nor understand. Renounce the ways of your forefathers and foremothers. These are your brothers and sisters who were created in the same image that you were, in the image of God.

May God have mercy on us all if we forsake the bride of Christ by rejecting those whom belong to it.