Unstudying God: Finding God in the Barren Land

This article is either supremely absurd or impossibly abstract.

why do you say that?

I agree with Andrew. I’ll go a step further and call it all utter nonsense, or as we say in a card game, BS.

“Studying God presupposes that God desires us to deconstruct Him. That somehow God wants to be found.”

Exactly. Christianity, by definition, confesses that our faith is a REVEALED faith. God has CHOSEN to reveal God’s self and has done so in Jesus. So yes, God desires to be found. “Seek, and you shall find. Knock and the door shall be open to you.”

These abstract musings mean nothing in the end. They tell us nothing worth knowing and nothing that engenders any sort of faith in anything but one’s own ability to sound poetic without really saying anything at all.

like those in atheism who speak of theological non-cognitivism where our words about god or the spiritual can’t syanptically (or fully) be received in the brain, this is what this post is about. that god is beyond our study of him/her.why is that so threatening to us, unless we’re afraid to let it all go?

I find this not only to be good writing, but also sound theology. Yes, God is revealed in Jesus. That revelation has come to us in the form of human-written, spirit-driven texts. In short, poetry.
We live in the world. Revelation bumps up against experience. And, at times, we may find ourselves in a wilderness. In our supreme human frailty, we encounter God face to face.
This, too, is part of our experience of God. And it is far, far beyond revealed words.

George,
So the options are I need to either agree with what your saying or else I am afraid and threatened?

There is a whole lot of space between those two poles.

Let’s be clear on at least one thing though: The assertion that God cannot be known (or that God can only be found in the “barren land” (whatever that means)) is in itself a theological statement. So it makes no sense to diss theology and then DO theology within the same post.

Second, if all you are trying to say is that our words about God cannot FULLY explain God, then you aren’t saying anything new at all. Theologians have been saying that from the beginning of time. No one who does the work of theology claims to have God fully known (although many Christians act as though they do). But we do believe that God has revealed God’s self to us in time and space and that God desires to be known. This is the same God who desires us to worship him in “spirit and truth.” Not in some vacuum of meaningless where we posit some “god beyond god” that really means nothing at all.

@John: Thanks. You got it. spot on!

Chad: i am not sure you are aware of this, but you seem VERY comfortable in making judgements/assertions about who God is and isn’t, why not let him/her speak? why is that threatening? and yes, I am of the mindset of Julia Kristeva (cultural theorist) who say once we name something we estrange ourselves from that object. and much like theologian J. Caputo says he doesn’t believe in god but the insistence of god. but, rather than trying to understand it or trying to NOT understand it (which is in part what the post is about) you seek to judge it or look for a way to measure it, and i am saying the post we can’t do either. and if we believe god can speak, than why are we spending so much time defending it? again, just because it doesn’t mean something to YOU, you can then assume it just doesn’t mean something, my theology does not HAVE to be your theology and this is why I find it interesting that you troll the internet looking for arguments, which tells me you are looking for ways to measure the theology of others, which isn’t your role or mine. rather than judging it, why not try and understand it, and if you can’t understand it, than you have reached the point of this post.

much like philosopher Slavoj Zizek says we need the polar opposites now more than ever to come back in and inspire the ‘middle’ approaches. i agree.

George,
I find it interesting that when someone disagrees with you you assume they are a “troll” or that they must be afraid of something.

In what ways do you think I am “comfortable” in making “judgments” about who God is or isn’t?

By this do you mean that I refer to Scripture as a means of knowing God self revelation? If so, then I stand guilty as charged.

You are welcome to do theology based on little more than cultural theory and philosophical musings and your own abstract thinking, I find it to be a waste of time, and as your post and this last comment illustrates, equates to nonsense.

But let’s look at what you actually say in this post. We can start here:

You claim that it is a false assumption on anyone’s part that God desires to be found.

On what basis do you make this claim? It certainly is not a claim made through the study of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

btw, i didnt call you a ‘troll’, i said ‘trolling’ which is an internet term that describes someone who goes on to websites and follows people around.

I know what it means, george. And it doesn’t describe me at all.

care to comment on #11?

i don’t see the christian/hebrew scriptures as a way to colonialize ones’ understanding of god. i see it as a collection of narratives of a people who want to know god. it can INFORM us about God, but not necessarily a rubric to conform our thoughts on god. I believe God evolves. and so god will continously be ‘higher than our ways’ – and when we seek god, do we find god our the god of our understanding. this is what the barren land is all about a place where depend upon nothing except god himself/herself to inform us.

in terms of ‘trolling’, than why is that i see your comments on most of my writings? that is trolling. and also my ‘accusations’ of fear of not wanting to know, isn’t a general statement, not everyone feels this way. i am not making in general accusations.

“it can INFORM us about God, but not necessarily a rubric to conform our thoughts on god.”

This is what I mean by nonsense.

First, you use a lot of harsh characterizing terms like “colonizing” and “rubric” which don’t fairly describe people who believe in the primacy of Scripture.

Second, you say in one breath than Scriptures INFORM us about God but then in the next claim it should not CONFORM our thoughts about God. Which is it?

Third, I agree that God’s ways are “higher than our ways” but this does not necessitate that God is “evolving.” If you really believe Scriptures INFORMS you about God, where were you taught that God “evolves”?

Do you thing God must “Evolve” to stay ahead of an increasingly “smart” humanity? So God’s evolution is a response to our own?

And how, exactly, is god “informing” us in the “barren land” when you have just stated that when we seek god we only find the god of our own understanding. While this may be true, how does one ever know they are being informed by this “god beyond god” that apparently doesn’t want to be found?

Do you see why this is nonsense and holds no practical value?

One question: Do you believe God revealed God’s self to the world in Jesus? Do you believe God desires to be known in a particular way?

As for your ad hom suggestions about trolling, that is simply not true. And even if it was, why not just answer the critiques of your public post rather than complain about someone who disagrees with you?

i am going to end my side of the conversation here with these statements (as i have had to do with you before; learn from this) – it is only nonsense to you, take that on board. good luck in all things.

It seems to me George that you are speaking of God beyond knowledge; the God that we discover experientially when we, for example, enter with the mystic into “the dark night of the soul”.

Am I right?

It is nonsense to me george, and I think I adequately stated why.

I’m sorry you don’t think my questions are worthy of your time to answer.

If I recall my history correctly, the ecclesiastical authorities of the time thought St John of The Cross’s musing nonsense at the time. Isn’t he now a Doctor of the Church?

Just a thought.

@David: Yes! You got it. the God who isn’t confined by anything. and the reason why we need the ‘barren land’ is because in a barren land there is nothing else but us and the Other.Definitely.

David,
Sure. And there was a time when people in the church thought freeing slaves was nonsense.

Just because one person’s “nonsense” wasn’t nonsense doesn’t make all nonsense sensical :)

I’d also bet that when St. John of the Cross was asked questions to defend his “nonsense” he didn’t take his ball and go home. He took time to explain himself and what he means. It’s a shame george doesn’t see the need to do that. We all should just agree with him or, it seems, we are afraid of something or not worth talking to.

Some “love revolution” that is.

Chad: you are not being honest about ‘our’ share conversational history here. i leave because you aren’t seeking to learn, you are seeking to use the bible/your knowledge to justify judging others views on god. you are seeking to measure the thoughts of others by a standard you feel has primacy. this is okay in terms of personal belief, but when you attack someone elses’ belief system with the a word like nonsense, it definitely lets me see your intentions clear. you don’t want to learn, but you want to teach or correct by the rubric you value. this is why i don’t engage with you.

Again, if I recall correctly Chad, St John of the Cross had to recant of most of his “nonsense”. The ecclesiastical authority was the Inquisition and he faced a fate similar to many of his contemporaries. I believe he spent many years incarcerated as it was.

But I would say to you similarly that, just because you are not able to understand a person’s reflections, doesn’t make them nonsense. That was the mistake the Inquisition made.

“you are seeking to measure the thoughts of others by a standard you feel has primacy.”

You mean Scripture? As I said before, guilty as charged.

You are incredibly naive, I think, to post something publicly as a Christian thinker on a Christian blog site such as this and act surprised that someone might actually ask you to explain what you wrote in light of Scripture, or even Christian tradition.

You are certainly free to ignore my questions and critiques, but I just find that dishonest and disingenuous of you.

If it makes you feel better to assign motive to my questions as a means to give you reason not to engage with them, so be it.

@David,
I think my questions in #15 are very clear, and make perfect sense in light of what george has actually written. If he doesn’t want to answer my questions to clear up what I perceive to be nonsense, that’s his prerogative. I just find it dishonest.

If you come on my blog and question something I wrote, even call it nonsense while showing why you think it is such (as I have done here) I hope I take time to answer the questions.

If all I did was call this “nonsense” and not say why, I’d see your point. But that is not what is going on here.

i expect comments. but not vindictive judgemental ones- i like conversation. but that assumes both are learning. i don’t feel from what you have written has demonstrated a ‘spirit’ of learning. you want to use your understanding to filter my understanding. rather than simply agreeing to disagree you keep pushing the conversation and using a rubric.

lol george. whatever, dude. You like conversation so long as everyone playing agrees with you and doesn’t question your self-made theories.

In no way have I been “vindictive” or “judgmental.” I have simply asked you to explain what you wrote and asked some pointed questions.

You just don’t like them – perhaps because you don’t like the answers. I dunno.

It’s ironic how much the extreme left wing of the church is so much like the extreme right wing of fundamentalism. Both claim to value conversation but only so long as it goes the way they want it to go or so long as people ask the questions they already have answers for.

As for past conversations, you are right. You tend to create this story that you are a victim and rather than answer any questions asked of you, you just cast the other person as some vindictive person who is hitting you over the head with a “rubric.” That gets old, george.

It’s really quite simple. You posit in your post that God does not desire to be known.

I asked if you believe God has revealed God’s self to us in Jesus Christ as a means to be known (which is what Christian theology has insisted upon for 2000 years.) You have decided this question is “vindictive.” We can only guess as to why.

@Chad, I would suggest that what George might be trying to say is that we can’t see the revelation of God in Jesus until we enter the barren land, stripped of our original conceptions. In other words, he’s talking about a liminal space that allows God to breathe life our imagination and understanding of God. It doesn’t mean we don’t EVER know something of God, as you appear to be assuming.

@Jonathan,
I don’t think that is what he is saying. Of course, if he’d address my questions that might be more clear.
First, in his post he denies that God desires to be known – or at least implies as much. I’ve asked him to clarify this. He chooses not to. So we shouldn’t assume that george thinks God has “revealed himself in Jesus” because he has not said as much, thus the reason I asked him that question, as well (again, he chose not to answer).

And to your point, is it REALLY true that we can’t see the revelation of God in Jesus UNTIL we are “striped of our original conceptions”? Is this really true? If so, which conceptions are we speaking of? Why is this construct/conception of God “right” and yet the one someone “originally” had “wrong” and needing to be stripped away? Who decides this?

@Chad, can I point out the second sentence of the first paragraph of your opening post in this conversation?

“I’ll go a step further and call it all utter nonsense, or as we say in a card game, BS.”

It seems to me that you had already made up your mind. The questions didn’t come till post 15, as you correctly point out. That suggests to me that the questions were somewhat disingenuous.

If your questions had been genuine, your opening remark would have been, “I don’t understand what you’re saying here” or something similar. But it wasn’t, was it?

thanks Jonathan. you got it bro. we should connect sometime.

Chad: i am sorry you feel the need to turn around what i say.

@David,
So I call a spade a spade. Given past conversations I have had with george, I see this as just one more extension of a long string of nonsense.

Look. I’m sure george is a nice guy. I’m sure we’d have a lot of fun over a beer and a game of pool or whatever. I just find his “theology” to be a bunch of nonsense and bs, or as andrew rightly pointed out in the first comment, “absurd” and “abstract.” It holds no practical value.

Now, you and george and anyone else are welcome to get all upset that someone would have the nerve to call bullshit on someone but at least admit that in so doing you are refusing to address the reasons WHY I call bullshit.

That is disingenuous.

What’s hilarious is how george is painting me as some narrow-minded conservative who doesn’t want to learn (I might ask the same of him – is he seeking to learn anything from me? Doesn’t appear so). The fact is, I’m a gay-affirming, pacifist, Christian universalist emergent who also happens to to think theology matters. I get tired of hearing fellow emergents ooing and awing over crappy theology that just sounds cool and hip only because it’s a bunch of words strung together that in the end don’t really mean anything at all, as this post illustrates.

@Chad, you said, “I don’t think that is what he is saying.” I agree with you. You don’t think that is what he is saying.

Chad: the error is in judgement. you assume my theology is bs. you assume there is a such thing as crappy/wrong theology. i don’t. it doesn’t mean all views are valid, but i would say al views have some sort of truth in it. and here’s the thing if you push someone into a corner, yes, they/you will look like a fundamentalist. but why the need to push someone in the corner? why the need to force your views on other people just because you have A view, and that is the key thing here, it is A view on theology, not THE view. that is danger, the arrogance, that you think you have a right to judge another’s theology destructively so. this again is another reason, i choose to not engage and i am saddened because in your response to this you will defend rather than learn. and my challenge to you is that if you don’t agree with something, no one has forced your hand in engaging, and if you disagree with it enough to call it bullshit, why spend energy over it? this is the biggest conundrum of all.

what i don’t understand is

I think something very clear is being said in this post – but it’s more about the place theology finds itself right now than an actual point of theology. What the author is saying is, this is a time of change, a time of liminal space between an earlier well defined space and a future space that we don’t yet know, but assume will arrive. So in this new “in-between” space, we rip off the clothes we’re wearing, because those clothes are of the past and won’t help us here. In this place it is barren because it hasn’t been built yet. We imagine that building will take place and that someday it will be no longer barren, but a new thriving place. And we imagine that new thriving place will be very different from previous places.

This is a meaningful thing to express, because if you are doing theology in some way, you might find yourself a bit confused in present times and to hear someone express things this way could be a real moment of clarity – “Oh, now I see why things are so strange right now…this helps me to put my theological process in a context that is helpful”

I would add, that I see it more as a barren place right next to the edge of a town where deconstruction has been taking place. Some of us are still deconstructing, and some of us are done with that and are more wandering about the barren place.

Maybe that doesn’t mean a lot to people who are still living in the town center where everything appears to be situation normal. But if they walked out to the fringe of the town, there they would see a lot of people living amongst the deconstruction and then beyond them the barren land. I would also say, that right in the town center where everything appears normal, that is a bit of a place of monied construct holding on, a bit out of touch with all the other neighborhoods throughout the town where there is suffering and oppression. And that the small minority that can afford to live in the nice normal center are people out of touch with the reality of pain all around them.

The author presents this picture which has great meaning via a poetic prose. I found it inspiring and rich.

I can certainly understand someone not liking it, but not claiming that it has no meaning and is just words strung together. If you listen to people speaking a language you don’t understand, it sounds like a bunch of gibberish and mumbling, but that doesn’t mean they don’t understand it. If you then go up to them and say, “Your mumbling gibberish makes you look like a bunch of idiots”...you will not find you are being invited to dinner.

“you assume there is a such thing as crappy/wrong theology”

correct.

“but i would say al views have some sort of truth in it.”

I agree. The extent to which this is true generally comes out in the discussion, questions/answers, of a particular view. You refuse to have that conversation.

Are you willing to “learn,” george? Is it not rather arrogant of you to insist that if someone disagrees with you and calls your post nonsense that they just don’t want to learn? What if what you are trying to teach is just bs?

“and my challenge to you is that if you don’t agree with something, no one has forced your hand in engaging, and if you disagree with it enough to call it bullshit, why spend energy over it? this is the biggest conundrum of all.”

Really? That’s the biggest conundrum of all? Are you trying to just cultivate a bunch of yes-men to your views? So according to you, if you disagree with something you should just keep your mouth shut? So when I see racism or sexism or bigotry of any kind at work (which is also an extension of bad theology) I should just keep my mouth shut? Why waste my time in engaging, right? Again – nonsense.

16 comments ago you said you didn’t want to talk to me but you’ve continued on, choosing to argue the philosophy of debating rather than anything you have actually written. From past history with you this seems to be your M.O. So since you are still here, why not at least answer some of my questions?

How about: You say God does not wish to be known. On what do you base this assertion? Do you believe that God has chosen to reveal God’s self to creation in Jesus Christ? If you do, then why do you say it’s wrong to assume God desires to be known by God’s creation?

You claim that Scripture INFORMS us about God but that it should not CONFORM our thoughts about God. What in the world does that mean? Isn’t that contradictory?

How do we know when we have found this “god beyond god” that you speak of? How do we know this isn’t just a god of our own making?

These questions are not judging you, george. They are the obvious questions that arise for me after reading your post. Why won’t you answer them?

Jeff,
You appear to paint a picture that suggests those of us who find some continuity and value in the story that has preceded us all, that has been passed on to us, must be “out of touch” with the pain and suffering of the world. Whereas, conversely, those who are deconstructing everything and living in this “barren land” are the ones who are really in touch and who really care about the oppressed. Is this what you mean to suggest?

If it is, I would suggest that such a view is a strawman. I agree there are plenty of people who use theology in all sorts of sinful ways – ways to exclude or protect one’s own interests and ways that neglect the “orphan and widow” in our midst. But we need not throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to make some corrections in this.

We certainly don’t need to say that God doesn’t desire to be known or that God has not acted definitively on behalf of the world in Jesus Christ or that the Scriptures are no longer necessary to know God.

in answer to most of your questions, there is no rubric. you alone will know when you find the god beyond god.

again, you or i don’t get to choose who has rigt or wrong theology. paul invites us to allow god to do that. so are you assuming that position by judging me or anyone elses’ theology? and here’s the thing, we need not dismiss contradictory statements, the book of lamentations, psalms, and general OT rabbinic thought demonstrate a need for contradiction. so it is a personal journey, i say this in the article. YOU have to figure all the answers out. thats the point of the article, no rubric, bible, theology or ‘god’ will help you. you just have to go and see. i don’t want yes men, but i have had many conversations with people who don’t feel the need to measure up what i say against a rubric/scripture/verse or otherwise. god is bigger than all of that. and that’s what i am looking for, so i dont apologize for walking away from pushy people who are start their statements with calling someone elses’ theology BS, no matter how you slice it, that isn’t a “hi, i want to know what youre thinking” – there is no way around that. and i am encouraging you to find an alternative way to talk to people rather than trying to line other peoples theology against your or own or feel the need to judge their theology period. that is not your place, nor is it mine,ever.

Since you bring Paul up, george, even he was tested by the good, noble Bereans: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11.

So yes, there is a “standard” Christians are held to – a story we find ourselves in. This story has a shape and form to it, and is not just something we make up as we go along.

What you are advocating is an extreme individualism – everyone just go out on your own and find god. This is antithetical to the entire corpus of Scripture, which insists we cannot find God on our own. In fact, to bring Paul into it again, the mind is hostile to the things of God and unless God revealed God’s self to us, we would not know him. And how do we know what love is? Only because God first loved us.

So within Christian discourse, george, (which is what this is), there are things that ought to be said and things that when said need to be challenged.

I’ve asked you several questions that you seem either unable or unwilling to answer which deal directly with what you have written that conflict with the Christian story. Yes, I think you are out in left field.

If nothing else, thanks for inspiring this post:

http://chadholtz.net/?p=1370

@Jeff—your image of the town center and the barren land was very helpful for me. I didn’t get the feeling that you were judging people who were in any one place, just describing them. Well, perhaps you were judging the people in power in the town center, but I agree with that image, so I’ll take it as non-judgmental!

jeff- yes, thanks for the poetry and kind words. very beautiful!

Chad – several people here have understood what George is saying (myself included). Yet you maintain that the fact that you don’t understand it renders it bullshit and nonsense.

I’m glad you’re not a fundamentalist. However, I’ve spoken with quite a few fundamentalists – indeed I was one myself – and I confess that I did have you down as one also. That’s how you come across.

I’m also glad, by the way, that you’re gay affirming. :-)

I have to say that I don’t see the point of George answering your questions because your whole tone towards him is dismissive. It’s clear that there is a certain amount of baggage between you two but I don’t see how there can be any resolution when your opening remarks are so totally dismissive.

I read a lot of George’s posts (and I’m looking forward to reading his book when it comes out). I often find that he expresses things in a way that I wouldn’t express them. And sometimes I find that I don’t really have a clue what he’s talking about. That’s life! But I wouldn’t dismiss anything said as nonsense just because it’s doesn’t make sense to me. I occasionally question and usually find that my questions facilitate clarification for both of us.

However, there are occasions when George and, indeed, other friends of mine say things that have deep resonance. Deep calls to deep if you like. But I’m not hearing that from you.

I don’t know anything about you other than what you’ve disclosed here. I’m just reflecting back what I’m picking up and asking that you hear me with the same grace that I am trying to offer.

God bless.

I’m now pretty sure it’s more on the extremely absurd side with a good portion of impossible abstract.

David,
Thanks for your gracious comment.

I am not convinced that just because a couple people “get it” that this should change my perspective on this post. I still think it’s bs, and since George decides to not answer any questions i’ll continue to think so.

Perhaps you can answer for him? Since you seem to get him and I don’t, what does he mean when he says that Scripture should INFORM us about God but not conform our thoughts on God? To me, that is a nonsensical statement.

Or, perhaps you can tell me whether or not george believes God desires to be known? His post claims God does not desire to be known. Do you agree?

Chad – I don’t have a great deal of time right now and I don’t feel it’s my place to try and answer for George. However, the following might be helpful.

When I read someone’s reflections, I don’t necessarily read them line by line and ask myself if I agree with everything they’re saying. It is difficult to explain, but I tend to get a “feel” for what’s behind their thoughts – discernment or intuition if you like – and I often find that I’m not far off the mark. I experience that when speaking with George and I often experience it when reading other on–line friends.

I guess it has something to do with my make-up. It’s probably explained by my “Myers Brigs” type (and don’t ask me what it is – I can never remember! – although I do know that it tends towards the intuitive). But the point is that we hear and react to others differently. What I think we have to be very careful about is not to dismiss someone because what they are saying isn’t speaking to us personally. It may well be speaking to someone else and, maybe, the best thing we can do is either to pass it by or to begin, not by dismissing it as BS, but by asking questions from the outset.

Now this is just my impression. I sense that George, whilst a scholar, has something of the mystics about him – hence my reference to St John of the Cross. Now that’s something that speaks to me – but it certainly doesn’t speak to everyone; neither should we expect it to do so. Some of us discern facts about and knowledge of God through what we read – in Scripture for example. Others of us discern what we know of God more intuitively – experientially, if you like.

And perhaps that also gives a clue to what I understand about Scripture informing us about God but not conforming our thoughts on God. I guess that I tend to read Scripture intuitively also. If the words I am reading seem at odds with my senses, I tend to question the words I’m reading – or at least my understanding of them. Others, I know, tend to take a more literal view of Scripture but, for me, that seems fraught with difficulty.

it saddens me that much of this conversation is anything but productive. Chad has the right to see this as BS and other people can see chad as a left wing fundamentalist. I was hoping that there would be more discussion about the idea of knowing in ancient times as opposed to a post enlightenment understanding of knowing. I think that is were most of the misunderstanding/crosscomunication of the responses come from. The western world is very uncomfortable with the idea that something cannot be known in an elightment sense of the word, to be able to dissect it, completely understand it, predict it. One of the greatest things that I think we with western mindsets can learn is a return to the mystery of God who is ineffable.There are room for both apophatic and Cataphatic theology in looking at who God is and infact our theology is incomplete if we do not embrace both.

Jared, you have spoken well.

I think both mine and George’s posts compliment each other well and here’s why. I don’t think we’re looking to know all of God. We’re looking to know how God sees us. Does God love us? This single question informs our own humanity. And once we answer that one question, we’re free to human beings that allow God to be God.

Jared,
I couldn’t agree more with you.

And just to be clear, nothing I have said negates what you are getting at (at least, I certainly do not intend to). However, I don’t think George is only saying that God is ineffable (which I would agree with) or that our words can’t fully describe God. That is a core tenant of theological discourse from the earliest of times.

It is one thing to say God cannot be fully known from our human perspective.

It is another thing entirely to say that God does not desire to be known.

From the post, I believe george is saying the latter, not the former.

Great job George!

If nothing else, your writing enables me to disconnect from my presuppositions and consider alternative understandings.

I would comment further, but I fear it would encourage an unnecessary arguement.

jared. i agree. but also like the person who trie to find the middle state of anything, sometimes, much like zizek says, we need the polar opposites to re-inform the middle. i don’t see god as a god of balance, i see the god beyond god (much like meister eckharts: “god rid me of god”) upsetting rhytms and balance. i see god as the horror lacan speaks of who completely makes us feel uncomfortable and upsets our illusionary need of balance.
chad: i was never stating literally that god doesn’t want to be known. that is poetry. what i am stating literally is that theology is inadequate as a way to completely know god and theology as a practice is dying soon, because of what it has become. we must embrace a silence. the barren land (i speak more about this in detail, hopefully, in an upcoming theological journal)calls us to lay everything down, yes everything, and become what pete rollins calls an a/theist. to let god inform us. i am calling for a radical estrangement from our systematic approaches to god, which have gotten in the way of god. yes, i am challenging a lot of our presuppositions and implying we need something better. this is an offering. although, i agree with you that all are welcome to their opinion, what i don’t agree with is when people are combative about their opinion and use their view as a rubric. this has happened in our histor under darker guises. it isn’t acceptable. learning, and i am speaking to myself as well, is acceptable from both sides.

jonathan: stoked about your book bro. thanks for the encouragement.

brandon: thanks for the encouragement bro. feel free to stir the pot a bit, your voice is just as important.

“chad: i was never stating literally that god doesn’t want to be known. that is poetry.”

george, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Your exact words are:

“Studying God presupposes that God desires us to deconstruct Him. That somehow God wants to be found.”

That’s not poetry, george.

“what i am stating literally is that theology is inadequate as a way to completely know god”

” what i don’t agree with is when people are combative about their opinion and use their view as a rubric.”

Well, just so we are clear, what you are putting forward is not “Christian” theology. All you have done is shifted the foundation. For me, I take my cues about who God is and what God desires to do in the world through Scripture, which points me to Jesus, who is the definitive move of God on creation in that God does DESIRE to be known by God’s creation. You’ve simply done what has been done throughout history and turned inward – to the self- as the primary authority when it comes to knowing “god.” You say in your post:

“The barren land is devoid of historical contingencies, creeds, bibles and truth. God quietly resides in the gap between them.”

Says who? That’s the clincher here. Your “theology” is just something you are piecing together like a buffet – pick and choose what you like, each to their own, whatever works for you is OK, etc. You are certainly welcome to do it, but do us all a favor and stop trying to pass it off as Christian. It’s not.

No one has ever said it was. This is why your argument (or “poetry”) is nothing but a strawman. No theologian would ever state that theology is a means to “completely know God.” That would be ridiculous. Yet one more reason why most of what you are talking about is just nonsense.

“theology as a practice is dying soon, because of what it has become.”

This is just naive. When you have painted “theology” in the way you have (wrongly) then it’s easy to rant and rage against it and even hope or assume it is “dying soon.” I think that just like the liberal theologies of the early 20th century petered out, the same will be said of your individual musings about who you think “god beyond god” is or how we find it.

You once told me that you got a degree in theology. Where was that degree from?

” (i speak more about this in detail, hopefully, in an upcoming theological journal)”

Well, if this is true, I hope you find the ability to answer the questions of those who critique your “theology” (which ironically you are doing, even as you say it is dying, since all theology is is speech about God).

Disregard the above comment – somehow the quotes got all turned around and placed in the wrong places. Here is the edited one:

“chad: i was never stating literally that god doesn’t want to be known. that is poetry.”

george, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Your exact words are:

“Studying God presupposes that God desires us to deconstruct Him. That somehow God wants to be found.”

That’s not poetry, george.

“what i am stating literally is that theology is inadequate as a way to completely know god”

No one has ever said it was. This is why your argument (or “poetry”) is nothing but a strawman. No theologian would ever state that theology is a means to “completely know God.” That would be ridiculous. Yet one more reason why most of what you are talking about is just nonsense.

“theology as a practice is dying soon, because of what it has become.”

This is just naive. When you have painted “theology” in the way you have (wrongly) then it’s easy to rant and rage against it and even hope or assume it is “dying soon.” I think that just like the liberal theologies of the early 20th century petered out, the same will be said of your individual musings about who you think “god beyond god” is or how we find it.

” (i speak more about this in detail, hopefully, in an upcoming theological journal)”

Well, if this is true, I hope you find the ability to answer the questions of those who critique your “theology” (which ironically you are doing, even as you say it is dying, since all theology is is speech about God).

You once told me that you got a degree in theology. Where was that degree from?

” what i don’t agree with is when people are combative about their opinion and use their view as a rubric.”

Well, just so we are clear, what you are putting forward is not “Christian” theology. All you have done is shifted the foundation. For me, I take my cues about who God is and what God desires to do in the world through Scripture, which points me to Jesus, who is the definitive move of God on creation in that God does DESIRE to be known by God’s creation. You’ve simply done what has been done throughout history and turned inward – to the self- as the primary authority when it comes to knowing “god.” You say in your post:

“The barren land is devoid of historical contingencies, creeds, bibles and truth. God quietly resides in the gap between them.”

Says who? That’s the clincher here. Your “theology” is just something you are piecing together like a buffet – pick and choose what you like, each to their own, whatever works for you is OK, etc. You are certainly welcome to do it, but do us all a favor and stop trying to pass it off as Christian. It’s not.

Chad, your wasting your time and frankly coming across as a bit insecure because someone won’t answer your questions. I was on board with some of your initial posts but now I’m just beginning to think your ‘that guy’ who has to be right. Spend your time working on Sunday’s sermon instead of demanding to get your questions answered.

Thanks, Andrew. I’m not demanding anything.

What I think ought to be said, however, is there are certain “goods” which I believe george is going after that are worth going after. I just think he’s going about them in a way that is impractical, unhelpful, and divorced of the Christian story (assuming he still claims to be speaking for Christians).

My questions are aimed at finding some common ground from which we can build – an impossibility when he refuses to answer them. I mean, if we cannot even first agree that God desires to be known (which he seems to refute in his post but then he says he is speaking poetically – so which is it?) then it is useless to even begin trying to talk sensibly about HOW God can be known or discuss the many ways we screw this up all the time.

And if we can’t even agree that Scripture, (which george says INFORMS us about God but should not CONFORM our thoughts about God, whatever this means) reveals to us a God who desires to be known then we can’t even begin talking about all the various ways we screw this up through our fallible interpretations.

I would love to hear from george or from some of the others who think this is so wonderful, especially if you are in any sort of pastoral ministry, how you would take what george has written and implement it to a real live person in your congregation. How does it move someone to love God and neighbor more deeply? How does it make a disciple of Jesus Christ?
While it may sound poetic and “hip” I would argue that it is ivory tower musings that has no value on the street.

It seems almost pointless to comment on this any more since george will not answer any questions that critically evaluate what he writes (here or elsewhere).

But I have a free moment so I’ll take one more stab :)

George, you begin by saying theology is the study of God. Agreed. You then say this:

“Studying God presupposes that God desires us to deconstruct Him”

What do you mean by this? You offer a definition of “theology” at the beginning of your post so if I do the same thing to your words here, they don’t mean what I think you think they mean.

“Study” means: the devotion of time and attention in the pursuit of acquiring knowledge about something.

“Deconstruct” means: to analyze something, typically in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions and subvert its apparent significance and unity.

To study something is not the same as to deconstruct something (or someone). So when you say “Studying God presupposes that God desires us to deconstruct Him” you are comparing apples and oranges. Of course God does not desire for us to “deconstruct Him” (as if God were a being that we could subvert) but this is not to say that God does not desire us to “study” him. Of course God desires us to “devote time and attention” to knowing God more fully – to “love God with our heart, soul, MIND, and strength.” This is the greatest commandment, is it not?

The second part of that phrase, you say this: “that somehow God wants to be found,” implying that perhaps God does not desire to be found.

I’ll ask only one more time: On what authority do you base this assumption? Do you believe the incarnation is, at bare minimum, God’s intentional desire to be found? What do you think Jesus means when he says, “Seek and you shall find, knock, and the door shall be opened to you”? Is this not describing a God that desires to be sought after, just as this God has sought us?

I hope you can find it within you to just have a conversation about the specifics of what you have actually written rather then complain about me asking you to clarify what you mean.

Chad,

I can only offer my own reaction to George’s posts. Whether they will help or not, I do not know.

Much of what George writes does not entirely make sense to me. But I must emphasize “to me”. It may be my lack rather than a lack in his words.

I like questions. God finds me in the midst of asking a question. For me much of George’s writings raise questions for me. I do not look to him for the answers. George has given me some questions that help me to think about some ideas that I have never thought.

God is mysterious and for myself my thoughts I have about God are always incomplete, partial, and even paradoxical. For myself, theology is always comes after my experience of God and so is never final, absolute, and could even be wrong.

Shake things up a little. Jump out of the ruts. Ask new questions, and God may find you in places and situations and with thoughts that you have never had before!

John,
thanks for that. The sentiment behind your words I agree with. I’m all for asking questions and having conversation (obviously) :) I agree with you that God finds us in the midst of our questions (and our answers, too). God finds us on top of mountains and in pig pens.

Can you tease out some more what you mean in your last sentence here:” Ask new questions, and God may find you in places and situations and with thoughts that you have never had before!”

What does that mean on the ground? As I said, I’m all for asking questions but taking your comment there at face value I would have to suggest that being novel for novelties sake is not always wise. The reality is, there is nothing new under the sun. The questions being asked by many people who think they are asking “new” questions are really old ones repackaged. We stand on the shoulders of thousands, even millions, of saints who have thought long and hard about some of these very issues. That is the joy and stress of “theology.” It’s a LOOOONG conversation that does not start with me, or you, or george, or whomever. It began long before we were here and will continue long after we are gone.

Part of my problem with george and others like him is what seems to be a total lack of respect for “theology” and all the work gone into this “queen of sciences” long before he was ever born. And yet we have the arrogance to presume we are forging brand new ground??? That our questions are “new”? Not really.

Also, if I may just throw this out there:

Is it not a bit disingenuous of us to encourage questions but then judge those who do, such as on this very thread? It would seem that we love questions – just so long as they are the right questions. If anyone asks a question that challenges something we say or write, well, they are just “fundamentalists” and we should ignore them.

Does that sound right?

I’m not suggesting that just because a question is asked it must mean someone has the answer. A simple “I need to think about that” or “I don’t know” is better then “I refuse to engage with your questions because I have judged your motives to be impure.” Huh?

That’s a problem, if you ask me.

Chad,

If you find yourself ready to leave your present place of comfort, created by all the good that has come before, and ready to find a greater wholeness in life, empowered by hope and a vision of a better life, God may find you!

I think a good example of what I mean is the story of Abraham. I wonder if when Abraham set out if he ever thought that now more than 3 billion people would consider him a spiritual patriarch. The world of Abraham was one of a pantheon of deities; and, he ended up being credited with a patriarch of three great monotheistic faiths. His break from his past into something new resulted in something unimaginable at the time.

“Nothing new under the sun”? Oh my! Quite a question for me who still has hopes for a “new heaven and new earth”

“If you find yourself ready to leave your present place of comfort, created by all the good that has come before, and ready to find a greater wholeness in life, empowered by hope and a vision of a better life, God may find you!”

What do you mean by this, John? Doesn’t this presuppose that God has not already found us? You see, I believe the Good News of the Gospel is that we have already been found! God has already decided FOR us, in Christ. The rest is commentary.

Abram is a great story of faith – faith IN God, that God was already leading him to something deeper. Yet we are missing the point if we are not giving space to the fact that Abram’s story found its climax in Jesus Christ. Our task as Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to be ministers of reconciliation due to the fact that God, in Christ, has already reconciled the world. Are you suggesting this is no longer our commission? That there is some new mission God is calling us on disconnected from Jesus? (in the same way Abram left his father’s gods?)

“Nothing new under the sun”? Oh my! Quite a question for me who still has hopes for a “new heaven and new earth”

As do I. But this “new heaven and new earth” will not be our doing, but Gods (that is, if we allow Scripture to have a say in the matter). From a human perspective, there really isn’t anything new under the sun. Certainly as it relates to our enquiries about God.

Chad,

For anything I might say, I am sure there can be many more questions raised. You may notice that the question I raised in my most previous post was for me, not you. It is a question that I am not sure I have an answer.

You seem to have many questions for me too. I am sure that I cannot answer them all correctly. I always fail all of the tests. God accepts me anyway.

I can only share my perspective.

“What do you mean by this, John? Doesn’t this presuppose that God has not already found us?” No, that is not my presupposition at all. For me God is with me always. I have been found. I am just not always with him; and he keeps on finding me. In some sense, I have been found, but he keeps on finding me as I grow and learn.

I try not to turn my personal experience with God into a systematic theology.

I am quite sure I was not trying to address our commission. I am suggesting that God calls me to something beyond what I already am. That I am not perfect and he has more work with me.

Of course, the something new is not our doing. I leave it to God as to whether he will do a new thing; and I am certainly not willing to limit God as to whether he will or not. I am suggesting that I somtimes experience God when I leave behind something with which I am comfortable, put some faith in God, and try something new. For me, God is still speaking, I want to be forever listening.

Wow, I am amazed, for I surely have inquiries about God that are new for me.

John,
for what it’s worth, I agree with 100% of everything you said in your last comment. None of that is at odds with “theology” and none of that, I am pretty sure, is what is being said in george’s post. If that is all george were talking about (that we are not perfect and God is always calling us into something more) then this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

peace.

Chad,

Well, as I said at the beginning. I can only offer my reaction to what George has written; and that I did. It may very well be that nothing of what I said was intended by George. But every time I write, whatever my intention may have been, the text becomes a fact of specific words. However, they are seen through the experience and understanding of the reader. Therefore, I lose control over the complete meaning of my own words. So whether George would like or not and whether you think I am right or wrong, I think I received some benefit from what he wrote. I can only read with my own eyes, no one elses

It would make me sad if this conversation had not happened. God finds me in my relationship with other people. I am interested in theology but only secondarily. I think we are all created in the image of God.

As I stand at the foot of the cross and look into the face of Jesus, I too see the Son of God. I am hoping that if you and George are there also that I may look over and see the faces of God.

Peace and Love

http://www.patheos.com/community/mainlineportal/2010/07/21/the-nameless-other/

When I read George’s article I wasn’t at all sure that I understood it all, but I did identify with the ‘barren place’and the concept that God is often found by us in the oddest of places.
George spoke of his work as poetic which Chad found hard to believe – which it could be if we think of poetry only as rhyme and metre.
My favourite poet is a Jesuit priest – Gerard Manley Hopkins – and his poetry is his response to the world in a way that is unique. So is George’s work. Not everyone ‘gets’ GMH, not everyone ‘gets’what George is on about either.
But poetic expression can make us think.

Bronwyn,
I love poetry. And I recognize poetry is not contained to rhyme and metre.
I think my comment 57 explains fairly well why, at least the beginning of george’s post, doesn’t make any sense. I get that the “barren land” analogy can be poetic (even though it’s not profound, and theologians have been saying much the same thing forever) but his initial claims that God does not desire to be found or that “studying” God is the same as “deconstructing” God are simply false, poetry or not.

This short piece on Dmergent seemed to resonate with what you are trying to say George. By abandoning our notions of God we often find God.

http://dmergent.org/2010/07/22/abandoning-god/

Merold Westphal wrote an article entitled “Atheism for Lent”. I think much of what he wrote in this article says to me in a more rational, linear way what George was saying in this post. For those interested, I heartily recommend Mr. Westphal’s article.

Thanks for the link Jon!
and for the article John.

Glad to see this exchange of ideas.

I haven’t taken the time to read all 71 comments here, but I have found Chad’s response offputting from the beginning. Equally so, in his reference to this post from the Jesus Creed blog.

He says, “I call it nonsense.”

I call George my friend, but even if I didn’t agree with him (personally, I deeply resonate with this language: “god is beyond our study of him/her” and I find esoterics a necessary theological exercise, not nonsense) the vehemence of attacking/refuting/mocking/deriding such language seems inappropriate and mismatched to the broader ethos of the Emergent conversation as I have understood it over the last 8 or 9 years. I’m remembering why I haven’t spent a lot of time here in the last 5.

Props, Elerick.
Peter

Peter,
Perhaps you should read all the comments.

So calling something “nonsense” is on par with a “vehemence of attacking/refuting/mocking/deriding”? Wow.

“the broader ethos of the Emergent conversation” must mean you can have an opinion, just so long it is the right one and it takes everyone to Happy Gillmore’s happy place. Otherwise you are vehemently attacking and deriding.

beautiful.

only further evidence that this is correct:http://chadholtz.net/?p=1370

thanks peter! i do appreciate our friendship and your support. it is something that encourages and even inspires me. thanks for the dialogue!

Chad, I’ve appreciated working through our disagreements at my blog. As I said there, I tend to jump to the defense of my friends (sometimes prematurely) and I read the comments here outside of the context of interactions you and George have had elsewhere.

I still tend to function as if there is a sort of invisible line (one that is highly subjective, and therefore precarious) differentiating between what is conversational pushback, and what is attack-and-parry style debate. You rightly pointed out my willingness to go after dudes like John Eldredge and John MacArthur, which may well be a double standard. My invisible line gives me lots of room to attack celebrities, which is not an objectively defensible posture – it’s just made sense to me ;)

I do think there is a difference between what George is doing here, and what a guy like John MacArthur does, in prescriptively asserting absolute certainty of truth. George is constructing (deconstructing/reconstructing) a fluid matrix in which to talk about God and theology in a way that neither ignores existing constructs, nor deliberately implements them. Reading it again, I’m sort of reminded of some of Peter Rollins’ discussion of “negative space” in The Fidelity of Betrayal. If kenosis is the process of emptying oneself spiritually, then this seems an exercise in theological kenosis, which is both “impossibly abstract,” as the first comment here suggests, but also “supremely” necessary if we expect to say anything meaningful. Because most of our constructs have become so rote, we’re not even capable of extracting meaning. We are effectively numb (maybe not entirely, but largely) to the creations of tradition and history. They are not bad creations. They are not unhelpful. But they are obstacles as soon as they prevent us from approaching God with fresh eyes, and with spiritual/theological/emotional/intellectual humility.

All that said, George, find some gender-neutral pronouns, bro ;)
imho

George and Chad, thanks for the food for thought. I don’t think either of your approaches or opinions are unhelpful or unimportant – I don’t think either should exist independent of the other, however. Dynamic tension keeps the spiritual life and process ALIVE. And I’m not just trying to be a reconciliatory-douche in saying that ;)

Sorry. I just got “barren landed” out in the first 30 seconds or so…

What a wonderful piece! As an artist, I find the Bible to be more a work of art than a work of theology, more an expression of God than an explanation about God. Theology is kinda like art criticism: it’s a secondary interpretation of a primary experience. And like criticism, theology is useful and has its place in cultural discourse. Too often, I think, we mistake the interpretation of the experience for the experience itself. We mistake the words about God for the Word of God. I like this piece because, for me, it’s more art than theology.

thanks skip for the kind words. yes, i agree! i think we need more theological surrealists-i talk about this in the book. a group of ‘artists’ who are willing to see outside the confines of a prescribed canvas and paint creatively, erratically, and expressively as they were created to do so. art is a great metaphor for this. thanks again…