Week 4 – Wednesday

Again, it seems like much of what we covered today was also discussed in the reading.  It was helpful, however, to get a more detailed picture of Marxism.  The discussion on the progression from primitive communism through feudalism, etc was interesting.  I found the discussion on modes, means, forces, and relations of production to be particularly helpful.

Week 4 – Monday

I read Bolger and Gibb’s book on Emerging Churches last summer for Systematics 3, so the topics today were essentially a review of what I read this summer. Some of the questions and responses were interesting. In particular, I think that the emphasis on care for the poor and the rejection of the false secular/sacred dichotomy are among some of the notable strengths of the emerging movement.

Week 3 – Reponse to Michael H

I thought Michael’s comments regarding the predictive power of science were insightful:

Doesn’t high predictive power imply correspondence with reality, too, and suggest that it’s more than just a Wittegensteinian language game?

The issue does indeed deserve more attention than given in Barker’s book. In reflection, the topic that comes to mind is one of thermodynamics. We all learn in high school and college chemistry classes about basic principles of thermodynamic behaviors (i.e. the gas laws, principles of heat transfer, etc). Those governing laws are highly accurate and provide significant predictability. And in fact, those laws (in their more complex forms) were the limit of thermodynamic thought for some time. Statistical thermodynamics have now displaced these laws as far as causal understandings and yet, the basic laws continue to be valid descriptions of the behavior of a system. In essence, we know that the models are insufficient, but we continue to use them because the probability of a system varying from these norms is insignificantly small.   The situation is a paradigm for many others which demonstrate a predictability that is very distinct from truth/reality.

Week 3 – Bevans Chapter 3

One of the first classes I took in seminary was Mouw’s Christ and Culture class, in which our first text was Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture.  It’s interesting that this book was brought up here, since the topics discussed are relevant for the analysis in Cobb’s book on Tertullian and Augustine.  What I find interesting is that while I was reading Neibhur, I found the division into the five models to be confusing and pragmatically difficult.  In hindsight, however, it does seem that the model approach did much to clarify the dominant issues in my own mind and thus has, in fact, influenced my own perspective on the Christ and culture debate.  I think the challenge, of course, to models was clearly emphasized by Bevans: one must always anticipate and bear in mind the limitations of one’s model.

Week 3 – Cobb Chapter 3

I thought the progression of Tillich’s views on theology and culture was really interesting. In particular, I noted this comment about Picasso’s Guernica:

…it shows the human situation without any cover. It shows what is now in the souls of many Americans as disruptiveness, existential doubt, emptiness and meaninglessness.

This recognition of “doubt” and “meaninglessness” is essentially what Tillich sees as the religious element of the painting. These traits are what make it a “primordial source of meaning.” I think this suggestion is significant because it so resembles some of the arguments made in the “high art vs pop culture” debate. That is, one argument for the validity of “high art” was the suggestion that it is more meaningful because it portrays both sides of reality, both good and bad (as opposed to pop culture which doesn’t strike this balance or overemphasizes the good). I think the parallel here is worthy of further reflection: is the presence of realism, or the authentic recognition of that which is corrupt/bad an element which provides meaning?

Week 3 – Barker Chapter 6

This past week, I listened to an interview on NPR in which Chinese factory workers commented on the state of the US Stock Market and its influence on economic health in China.  I think the current economic situation is particularly enlightening because it demonstrates just how powerful globalization has become.  Given this state of affairs, I found Barker’s comments on globalization and Fordsim/Neo-Fordism to be particularly relevant.  What’s more, I think that the current instabilities in the market system suggest that Fukuyama’s theory regarding “the end of history” is far from complete; it seems that “liberal democracy” is perhaps itself subject to further scrutiny.

Week 3 – Barker Chapter 5

I thought this chapter provided an interesting analysis and deconstruction of the “nature vs nurture” dichotomy. I think the approach was helpful in that it emphasized the interdependence of the two, and the general nonlinearity of the various determinative aspects (genes, experiences, culture, history, etc). One thing that I might challenge was a general tendency to view the human person as something much less than autonomous or rational. In particular, the discussions on evolutionary psychology and “meme theory” seemed to describe human behavior and thought as a consequence of chance rather than intentionality. Thus, people tend be portrayed not as subject and agents of choice, but rather as objects acted upon by history and nature.

Week 3 – Wednesday

I struggle a bit with the topics we discussed today in class because even after a good amount of reflection I’m still not sure what to make of the whole “emerging church” paradigm.  I’ve seen and heard about some amazing things that have happened in those settings, but I’m not convinced that the emerging church paradigm is THE church of the future.  My own feeling is that this particular approach appeals to a certain (though perhaps large) subgroup of society.  I certainly affirm that this movement offers powerful and necessary critiques of the “old church paradigm” and I think that these newer church models are a valuable part of God’s work in the kingdom.  I just find myself turned off of this movement by a common sentiment of rejection toward all things “traditional.”  I find it difficult to entirely reject the older faith traditions in which I’ve seen and experienced Christ at work.  Indeed, the suggestion that we do so seems, on some level, overly hubristic.

Week 2 – Barker Chapter 3-4

I found that the reading in Barker this week was less abstract than last week but still challenging. Nevertheless, I found parts of it very interesting. I thought it was helpful to reflect on the various definitions of culture, and in particular found resonance with the ideas of culture as “ordinary” and culture as an irreducible system of autonomous and articulating elements. The discussion on ideology/hegemony leads to some worthwhile reflections as does the suggestion that culture is seminally tied to economics (i.e. Marxism, etc).

The discussion of language as a framework for cultural studies was useful. I thought that Derrida’s concept of “differance” seemed to characterize well some of the intricacies of sign, but also felt that Wittgenstien’s approach offers a necessary corrective in that it recognizes both the fluidity and limits of language. On a side note, I found it somewhat ironic, given Derrida’s understanding of language, that Barker characterizes his work as “complex, subtle, difficult and open to contested interpretations.” One wonders how Derrida himself would view such a comment since the characterization essentially lends credence to his theory.

Week 2- Response to Darren S

I like what Darren had to say about the church in his response to this week’s reading in Cobb:

I think if we are to claim that there actually is a real referent behind the signs of our religion, we better have a good explanation in this age of skepticism and a proclivity for “fabrications.”

I agree.  My impression in reading Cobb is that a primary challenge in contemporary culture is the absence of a desire for any real referent.  In some sense, it seems that the tendency to value the “image” rather than any sense of reality would leave little room for any doctrine that makes a claim of “reality.”  In essence, “truth” seems to have become less relevant than “appeal.”  Thus, Christianity loses relevance not because it fails to answer crucial questions, but because its source of value (its claim to be truth) is no longer an attractive element.