Truth in content trumps truth in form
I wonder if God intended the Bible to be used to develop a meta-narrative? I find that I choose the story and have the Bible fit into it. Perhaps this is a form of idolatry or as Tillich would say, "demonic." I wonder if our task is more like Jesus' interaction with Peter, a life of "Who do you say I am?" To trust God that I don't have to have all of the answers until each is needed (Luke 21:14). And all the while to be able to articulate the journey and related hope within me as predicated on God's holiness/separateness/beyondness (1Pet. 3:15). Look, I just meta-narrative-ized again...
I was watching a segment of a television program featuring a famous Christian author as the moderator. He was interviewing a porn minister and a porn movie producer. The format was like CNN's CrossFire or other shows where they let two opposing views duke it out. It was obvious within 30 seconds that the format was a sham - this show had a message and it was going to manipulate the situation to get it across at any cost. From its perspective, it was going to use whatever means possible to minister to the lost who happened to tune in. Truth in content trumps truth in form: ends justify means: function disconnects from form.
Ironically, the porn producer was asking better questions and seemed more honest. Both the moderator and porn minister were obviously sincere and passionate, but kept having to come back to Christian cliches, where the porn producer was really grappling. At one point the minister said something along the lines of, "But Jesus tells us in the Bible that to lust is to sin. It is the same as adultery." And the producer was dumbfounded, "That's in the Bible? Really?!" Both the minister and moderator smile at his good hearted ignorance and in that moment stop listening. They have found the hook to speak their message, prove their point, affirm the truth as truth. But his grappling was not so much that he was "caught," it was, "How could God allow us to be so deficient?" He could care less what the Bible said. His question generally can't be asked in Christianity and it wasn't answered by the moderator or minister. They came back with the meta-narrative. Adam and Eve sinned, so now all are under sin. OK, but this guy wants to understand how his conception (one that most Christians would agree with) of God as all-powerful and loving could hold him responsible for a "design flaw." At least Paul had the guts to ask the same question rhetorically, but he refused to answer and instead blamed the imaginary questioner (the created shouldn't be asking questions of accountability to the Creator - it's inherently wrong - Rom. 9:20).
As all humans, the porn producer was probably a mixture of motives and he too had a message. But in one moment there was an exposed belly saying, "Please be honest with me. Treat me like a reasonable person who wants to live a good life. Don't give me the pat answers I heard in Sunday school. Push me toward truth, that's OK. Challenge my integrity where it's lacking, that's OK. But don't insult me with an answer when we both know there isn't a satisfying one."
I guess I'm concerned that much of Christianity sees the message as distinct from its delivery or form. We have bought into incongruities as faults. We clean and consolidate the message helping it fit better - it's deep within the Christian experience. I get catalogs from various Christian bookstores and outlets with thousands of nick-knacks, paintings, plaques, books, etc. that are so polished and pretty, they resemble little of the original substance because their form is so distorted. When did a manger become a lovely, well-ambient lighted paradise? When did psychology become gospel (literally)? When did Jesus become recognizable, stately, even cute/studley, in his crucifixion? When did good art become cottages with light unnaturally penetrating their environment? We act as if our message has essence and purity unto itself and don't hold ourselves accountable to the form. We use principles of consumerism to express the life of God and then wonder why it's viewed as just another alternative.
I was watching a segment of a television program featuring a famous Christian author as the moderator. He was interviewing a porn minister and a porn movie producer. The format was like CNN's CrossFire or other shows where they let two opposing views duke it out. It was obvious within 30 seconds that the format was a sham - this show had a message and it was going to manipulate the situation to get it across at any cost. From its perspective, it was going to use whatever means possible to minister to the lost who happened to tune in. Truth in content trumps truth in form: ends justify means: function disconnects from form.
Ironically, the porn producer was asking better questions and seemed more honest. Both the moderator and porn minister were obviously sincere and passionate, but kept having to come back to Christian cliches, where the porn producer was really grappling. At one point the minister said something along the lines of, "But Jesus tells us in the Bible that to lust is to sin. It is the same as adultery." And the producer was dumbfounded, "That's in the Bible? Really?!" Both the minister and moderator smile at his good hearted ignorance and in that moment stop listening. They have found the hook to speak their message, prove their point, affirm the truth as truth. But his grappling was not so much that he was "caught," it was, "How could God allow us to be so deficient?" He could care less what the Bible said. His question generally can't be asked in Christianity and it wasn't answered by the moderator or minister. They came back with the meta-narrative. Adam and Eve sinned, so now all are under sin. OK, but this guy wants to understand how his conception (one that most Christians would agree with) of God as all-powerful and loving could hold him responsible for a "design flaw." At least Paul had the guts to ask the same question rhetorically, but he refused to answer and instead blamed the imaginary questioner (the created shouldn't be asking questions of accountability to the Creator - it's inherently wrong - Rom. 9:20).
As all humans, the porn producer was probably a mixture of motives and he too had a message. But in one moment there was an exposed belly saying, "Please be honest with me. Treat me like a reasonable person who wants to live a good life. Don't give me the pat answers I heard in Sunday school. Push me toward truth, that's OK. Challenge my integrity where it's lacking, that's OK. But don't insult me with an answer when we both know there isn't a satisfying one."
I guess I'm concerned that much of Christianity sees the message as distinct from its delivery or form. We have bought into incongruities as faults. We clean and consolidate the message helping it fit better - it's deep within the Christian experience. I get catalogs from various Christian bookstores and outlets with thousands of nick-knacks, paintings, plaques, books, etc. that are so polished and pretty, they resemble little of the original substance because their form is so distorted. When did a manger become a lovely, well-ambient lighted paradise? When did psychology become gospel (literally)? When did Jesus become recognizable, stately, even cute/studley, in his crucifixion? When did good art become cottages with light unnaturally penetrating their environment? We act as if our message has essence and purity unto itself and don't hold ourselves accountable to the form. We use principles of consumerism to express the life of God and then wonder why it's viewed as just another alternative.
posted by Learner at 10/21/2006 07:29:00 AM
1 Comments:
opaquereflection.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading opaquereflection.blogspot.com every day.
bad credit loan
faxless payday loans
Post a Comment
<< Home