I got into a discussion with a friend regarding our view of Scripture and our connection to the “world.” She stressed that a very high view of Scripture is essential. What is a high view? And how does a “high view” play out in relationship with other texts and traditions?
Many have argued that a life of following Christ is a “theistic life,” that is neither modern nor postmodern. I am less convinced that is a necessary or helpful distinction. Further, the language of theistic living seems to imply a dualism that I might question. What is theistic living? God living? As far as I can tell, I am not God. And it feels idolatrous to claim or even strive to live a God life. Wouldn’t it make more sense to strive to live fully human? I’d be more likely to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated a theistic life by living fully human as a person of Jewish origin in an occupied nation. I seek to follow the Way of Jesus, I am postmodern, and the two are not in conflict – well, except that the things I do, I don’t want to do, and that we I don’t do I want to, etc.
Though the language of “strong boundaries” does not work for me, I feel I must echo the essence of what is being said. Christians are entirely other while entirely the same. Len Sweet in his Quantum Spirituality, has written convincingly that a missing piece in H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, Christ & Culture is Christ in but not of Culture.
We relationally encounter Christ as we seek to discover a way of love with those we encounter. The church is the “approachable counter-culture,” able to engage, dialogue, befriend and love. When we make the living of Christ, the personal engagement, the dialogue, the befriending, the loving our primary activity our “boundaries” (if we must use that metaphor) are drawn for us. We are the people, against against. Yet we don’t argue against against. We pursue connection and in pursuing connection our “stance” is signified.
One of the functions of any given local Christ-community is to foster their unique ethos. We can’t help but foster a sense of what our community deems appropriate, etc, in fact it is a sociological necessity for our communities in order to know themselves. I don’t think too many pomo thinkers poo-poo a community’s need to construct social norms and taboos, the rub occurs when one community attempts to make their self/collective-expectations normative for other communities.
If we hold to any idea of, “We are therefore I am” or “I am therefore we are” then we’re acknowledging that boundary markers give us a sense of identity. Boundaries are necessary for an “I” and porous boundaries are necessary for relationship.
Peace, dwight
