Not The Religious Type

Stage Theory as Sequence, but not Progression/ Vince

This may only appeal to a few of us on the blog (sorry if that’s not you!). And it may just be a vain attempt to rehabilitate a paradigm that will always be imperfect because it’s just a paradigm, BUT… maybe it’ll be helpful, so what the heck?

I’ve been reading Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion & Embrace, which aside from being brilliant and challenging and practical and amazing is also an excellent tutorial on Premodernism, Modernism, and Postmodernism. One voice Volf brings into play is pre-WWII modernist Norbert Elias. Volf paraphrases Elias’ logic of the “civilizing” process:

“The more people are interdependent, the less spontaneous they can be, and the less spontaneous they are, the less aggressive they will be because their behavior will be regulated by a plethora of rules and regulations. The state now has a monopoly on the violence with which people previously fought for their positions in society. A ‘continuous, uniform pressure is exerted on individual life by the physical violence stored behind the scenes of everyday life,’ which diminishes unpredictable physical violence. As a result, [Elias] argued, modern societies are more peaceful and therefore more civilized than premodern ones.”

Volf is quick to point out the obvious irony: A state monopoly on violence does not necessarily mean a reduction in violence, just a reduction in a certain type of violence: the spontaneous, overtly aggressive type characteristic of chaotic premodern society. He writes, “One may have good reasons to prefer the ‘civilized’ violence of nation states to the ‘uncivilized’ violence of ‘tribal’ wars with its massacres and the rule of terror, but one should not mistake it for nonviolence.”

All of this got me thinking about Stage Theory and, specifically, some of the dissatisfaction with it as a “progression” that arose when, on this blog, the stages were applied to an understanding of history. One can interpret in the above history (the move from the premodern era to the modern era) a move from what we understand here as Stage 1 to what we understand here as Stage 2, signaling there is some accuracy to the sequence of Stage Theory. But Volf (helpfully to my mind) corrects the false notion that this sequencing necessarily means progress, even as one stage may be preferred to another.

Maybe Stage 4 is the only stage that really stands apart, and Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 are all on the same level – just different manifestations of the same unmet need for connection with God. They play out very differently but the first three stages are all systems of self-reliance and each inevitably leads to its own brand of aggression and dissatisfaction. Only Stage 4 is truly God-reliant and leads to actually getting our needs met. Maybe as we go through Stage Theory’s sequence we’re not so much getting nearer to Stage 4 as we are exhausting the options that are not Stage 4.

The Use of Media in Engaging a Wider Audience with Stage 4 Faith/ Ryan Bauers

A few of us in the Blue Ocean conversation have been discussing what role media and the creative arts might play in helping to both pitch Stage 4, Centered Set Faith to the wider culture and also invite them to experience it on their own terms. For those of us who are pastors, we aim to do this in our own churches. For those of us pursuing Stage 4, Centered Set Faith, I’d imagine that we aim to do this in our personal spheres. Moving beyond that, the discussion has moved to the question of how we can engage a much wider, ideally secular, audience in a meaningful way related to this type of faith.

 

I’ve seen some examples of others attempting to promote faith in a wider way, like Rob Bell’s Nooma videos or the recently discussed “Why I Love Jesus But Hate Religion.”  But, to many of us, Rob Bell seems to be addressing a predominately Stage 3 crowd and the author of the latter a considerably more Stage 2 crowd. In my mind, neither of these seems to speak about faith in any meaningful way to a wider, predominately secular, culture.

Then, I came across this TED talk, which intrigued me in a significantly different way. Very poignantly, Alain de Botton posits what aspects of religion atheists should consider adopting. He suggest a sort of “religion for atheists” – calling it Atheism 2.0 – that incorporates religious forms and traditions to satisfy the human need for connection, ritual and transcendence. I must say, I found it very compelling and inspiring.

As I watched it, I had sort of a Eureka experience. I thought, “Oh, my gosh, THIS is exactly what I have been wanting to do” only from a Stage 4 faith perspective. De Botton’s pitch is for a sort of “New Religion” – in this case Atheism 2.0 – in a medium that is very familiar with wider culture – the excellent TED talks – and engages the audience with a thoughtful, progressive idea worth considering and responding to.  I’m not sure that he’s converting masses of people to atheism as a result, but, in the very least, he is contributing to the conversation in a relevant and helpful way. Among other things, it encouraged my larger thought that media can be used to communicate something meaningful related to religion (or lack there of, in de Botton’s case), specifically Stage 4 Faith, to a wider audience in a meaningful way.

So, my questions for you, oh blog friends, are: How might we utilize media and the creative arts in a wider scope to both communicate Stage 4 Faith and invite people in to a conversation or a potential response to it?  What might it look like specifically to produce a similar video pitching Stage 4 / Centered Set Faith? Is anyone interested in helping to create said video? Are there other mediums that may be used in such a way?

I suppose it was inevitable I would write something about Tim Tebow/ Jeff H

Note From Dan: We have a bad habit of posting guests blogs about Tim Tebow after the games, so please keep in mind that Jeff wrote this post prior to Saturday's game. With that said, I'll leave you with a quote from Tebowie: "This is Jesus Christ to Tim Tebow... I hear that you play New England next week. Dude, you're on your own. Brady is too good and I've got better things to do..."

Believing in Tim Tebow -- Read this article before reading the post.

If Rick Reilly can do it, so can I.

So, when the Tim Tebow phenomena began, I was, to be honest, nervous. There are hundreds of horrible ways to talk about celebrity athletes of faith, and most of it is cringe-worthy.

But I recant. I think it's great. I even want him to beat the Patriots this weekend (put the weapons DOWN Boston people).

I think it has two theological meanings.

First, God is nice. Did you read the Rick Reilly article? It seems like for everything we can tell, one upshot of Tim Tebow's faith, however red-state we may want to paint it (and fairly so) is that it leads him to do genuinely nice things.

Whether this makes any particular point about sports, Christianity, or religion I don't know. But I, for one, have a taste for a faith that causes people to do nice things. I am fairly well acquainted with faith of all stripes that makes people mean. I myself can be led to bouts of religiously-based superiority and meanness.

I wonder if this is one testing ground for healthy faith. Certainly it doesn't mean faith is TRUE- there are certainly nice people of almost every religious persuasion. But if I'm looking for faith to impact my life, the idea that it makes mean people into nice people seems like one worthy requirement.

Second, if nothing else, it means God is fun. My theology refuses to believe that God would cause a guy to win football games because he prays and sings Christian songs. There's no way. In fact, my theology refuses to believe God would have much to do with football games at all.

And, certainly, Tebow has lost, and certainly will lose his share. So, point taken, God has nothing to do with this. Right?

Your Thoughts on "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus"?

I'm assuming someone on your Facebook feed has sent you the viral video "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus." 

  

You talk about viral!  Seven million hits!  (To date.) Yoiks!  When more than 30 of my Facebook friends were talking about it, it seemed like it might be worth a look.  Several folks were confident I'd love it--that it was right up the Blue Ocean alley.  And then came the wave of Facebook-passed-on responses to the video.  (Like, for just one sent my way, this one.)

But, quirky-hard-to-please-guy that I am, my reaction goes neither towards the video nor towards the responses I read.  To regular readers and commenters and posters here (if "regular" is the word I'm looking for when we've become as occasional as we are at the moment), my response might be entirely obvious.

My friends who really responded to the video liked it because of its bold speaking the truth to religion.  And yet I just think it's talking to people I rarely ever talk to.  Almost all of my friends in Boston, rather than cheering on the video's bold truth-telling, would shrug their shoulders and say "and?"  Of COURSE religion is a problem and isn't equated to Jesus.  The "bold truth telling" of saying that Jesus wouldn't definitionally vote Republican...let's just say "not a new thought" in my neck of the woods.  And then his final assurances that he's not condoning sin would be seen as confirming that he's speaking from within religion as a reformer to religion.  In other words, he's religious Stage 3 boldly condemning Stage 2.  And his very boldness has struck several of my friends as off-putting and Stage 3.  He's cocky, which doesn't do much to call them towards Jesus.

I wonder, though, if in your neck of the woods, this does qualify as "radical and bold truth-telling."  My midwestern friends rarely tire of telling me, "Dave, the midwest is not like Boston in this respect."  Do you midwesterners have a more-enthusiastic response to the video?

The pushback responses to the video I'm reading?  They all defend religion.  So, just to say, we're coming from a different place.