An Interesting Article: Bottled Water

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11813975

The Sin of Progress

I've been thinking for a while about what my first post should be about. I feel quite under pressure given that not only do I have to be vaguely theological but, thanks to Ben's first post, I have to be truthful as well.

Here goes...

In response to Ben's latest post on 'Economic Power and the Downtrodden', I thought I might outline my own half formed views. Please note, I will exaggerate my views, or at least my expression of them for the sake of being the Devil's Advocate, and to add a little drama.

Progress is inherently evil. Progressivism is ungodly.

The human instinct is to connect with God. It seems a general truth that the majority of human beings have an innate desire for something greater than themselves and the world with which they interact. The elusive 'God-shaped hole' (a cliché I feel queasy using) is a defining feature of our humanity. There is within us a constant search for the eternal, for the constant, for the transcendent. In finding God we satisfy this desire and our searching is complete. This is why the idea of the divine is ubiquitous through history.

This is all simple and familiar stuff, but what has this got to do with progress? Quite simply progress seems to fill that 'hole' within us and satisfy that desire for something greater. Just look at the quite literal example of this in Genesis 11:1-9, the story of the Tower of Babel, in which humanity, having become unified, advanced and proud, begins to build a tower up to the heavens in the hope of reaching God. This selfish and arrogant endeavour, didn't happen to please God, and He, as we all know, 'confounds their language', making communication, and so the building project, impossible. Regardless of whether this story is a metaphor or a real (and quite bizarre) event, the meaning is clear, mankind was not built to establish its own greatness but God's.

Not only does progression make us think that by self improvement we can reach the divine, it inevitably leads us to think that, as we progress, we are divine. We are slowly trying to arm ourselves with the attributes of God, His power, His knowledge, His glory. We are sucked in to thinking that, if we develop this technology or do research in that area we will become unstoppable and all powerful.

Nietzsche wrote of the Superman (or 'Übermensch'), the goal to which humanity should strive, a man who has overcome man just as ape overcame ape to become man. Progressivism gives humanity a God, and that God is the humanity of the future, humanity progressed. The result of this is the demise of an understanding of the metaphysical and of the divine. In its place comes a sense of invincibility which itself leads to a disregard of what was given to us by the divine: the earth that sustains us and brings us closer to God.

So what would I suggest as a substitute for progressivism? Why, primitivism of course! Hard to swallow, I know, the very idea is laughable. But should we not respect our creator by living as He intended us to live? By abandoning our pride and our self-belief and truly surrendering ourselves to Him? Atheism is bound to flourish in a so-called 'developed' society as man becomes his own creator, his own judge and his own salvation. If you tried to introduce atheistic principles to a tribal community cut off from the world, they would be ridiculed (I assume, from my desk chair, in the South of England). Man was built a communal animal in the divine image. Man was not built a self-improving and self-evolving machine. It's a very romantic idea (in some ways) and impossible to go back to now, but it's good to know that's how it was meant to be and that we've screwed up.

Right, well I'll see you later. I'm going to throw this laptop away, get a tent and live in the garden.

Quote from John Milbank, 'The Politics of Paradox'

For reasons still not yet sufficiently accounted for by historians and social theorists, we have a "liberal right," stressing economic negative liberty, and a "liberal left," stressing cultural and sexual negative liberty. In reality, of course, the two liberalisms are triumphing both at once and in secretly collusive harmony.


Full article:


http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=302

Illich on Education

I don't exactly remember how or why I got to reading this! However, its well worth a read-it may look a little lengthy, but persevere, I can't help but feel like it is very pertinent to where we find ourselves today.

In this article, Illich makes some interesting observations about how power structures function in society; here critically engaging with education. I feel like his observations are as pertinent today as 22 years ago when he wrote this.

Enjoy!

http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1988_Educational.html

Trust vs(?) Certainty

‘Our penchant for explanation means we are continually frustrated by the Scripture.‘ -Hauerwas, 'Believing is Seeing'

It seems like in this 'modern' age, we (Christianity, and its theology in particular) plays games according to the rules of the world, according to its definitions and on its own terms.

‘We live in a culture where we are told to demand evidence for what we believe. We are taught not to trust what we see or hear and it is a lesson we have learned well. Accordingly we do not only not trust what we hear from others but we do not trust what we say to ourselves. And because we do not trust ourselves, we distrust what we hear as well as what we see.’                  -Hauerwas

We have been arguing about truth and belief on the same lines. I have heard numerous (modern) apologetics experts argue that believing does require evidence and that faith is primarily based in knowledge (note that St Paul doesn’t list knowledge as one of the three greatest virtues).

 This is perhaps done in an attempt to counter the prevalent feelings of indifference in our culture, which seem to have been produced by the epistemological demands for certainty based on evidence that have reigned over the modern epoch in particular.

But surely, we should not be arguing in these terms! We should not be using ‘their’ language or way of thinking. We don’t believe in Jesus because of the evidence about Him. We believe in Him because of the claims He makes on us. We cannot be in relationship with Jesus and go unchanged. It’s not by knowing something that we come to Christ but by revelation; His self disclosure.

Enter Thomas. The only disciple to doubt that Jesus was resurrected. Fair enough, he wasn’t there in the closed chamber. So he demands to see Jesus’ wounds before he believes. Its like he wonders if Jesus is an impostor making crazy claims. Enter Jesus who remarkably invites Thomas to indulge his demand for evidence. But, as Hauerwas helpfully points out, there is no record as to whether Thomas even touches Jesus. Rather, Thomas simply and suddenly responds with a remarkable exclamation.

You see, if Thomas was just reacting to evidence before Him, he might welcome Jesus back and apologize for his skepticism. But no. He doesn’t react to the evidence before him, but rather the revelatory act. He sees beyond what’s in front of him to the earth-shattering revelation of Jesus Christ resurrected, and offers a miraculous response in kind to the miracle of this revelation:

‘My Lord and My God!’


What’s really important today is that the church stops giving the world what it demands in terms of arguments. The way the church is operating when it comes to the world seems to make faith in Christ seem merely a choice, merely an option among a pantheon of others. We embody the characteristics of (merely) a ‘religion’ by conceding important epistemological points along the lines of the ‘demand for evidence in order to know something’. That is no way to be a properly visible church. Rather, we need to embody Christ crucified on earth, becoming His revelation to the world, showing the world what the church is, and in Hauerwas-ian terms, showing the world that it is in fact the world and in need of salvation.

Intro...

I really hope this blog is truthful!

Bonhoeffer argues that in order for speech to be truthful, it must be said with attention given to ‘A) ... who causes me to speak and what entitles me to speak... B) by perceiving the place I stand [and]... C) by relating to this context the object about which I am making some assertion.’ Ethics, p.365.

So what entitles me to speak? Forget the legal "right" to speak for a second and the gazillion opinions that this "right" occasions--what really gives me a right to empty out the contents of my head on you?

Honestly, I’m pretty sure I don’t have a right to say anything.

I want to be honest about my reason for writing. I write because I forget, so I write to remember. And to exercise. But not in a ‘look at how buff I can get’ sense but rather in a productive and thus hopefully meaningful sense. I also write so that I’ll keep going (at what? You’ll see as you read!).

I’m not convinced that I’m all that right or that I really know what I’m on about! All I* want to achieve by blogging is to expand an ongoing conversation with myself to those around me. I need input from others really badly! So the plan is that when I have an idea, be it theological, philosophical etc, when I feel like I am able to articulate something I perceive in the/my world, I will write it down publicly. It might not be very special or polished but I hope that by throwing stuff out there and putting it in the melting pot of many minds, we will see what the good stuff is and what ‘aint!
Let the blogging commence!

* I said ‘I’ the whole way through but its really open to a number of people to throw in their two cents-if you want to contribute, shoot me an email.