“My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy?”
“If Jesus were present today, who would be facing him and who would be following him?”
Jim Wallis? Jimmy Carter? Anyone on my Religious Left blogroll?
Not exactly.
“All I want to say is that the age of hardship, threat and spite will come to an end someday and God willing Jesus would return to the world along with the emergence of the descendant of the Islam’s Holy Prophet, Imam Mahdi and wipe away every tinge of oppression, pain and agony from the face of the world,” Ahmadinejad said.
Interesting...
H/T to the good folks at Hot Air.
Why is it interesting? What's the point? Why would you only think that this could only be said by somebody on the 'religious left'? (Whatever that is---I'm sure you can't define it. It's just "them", anyone who isn't an ass-backward, nut-job still supporting the war.) Are there not some oppressive powers in at least some christian countries?
Dude, you have a serious problem with basic logic. You keep trying to imply that the "religious left" is evil because some of their speech is similar to some of that spoken by Islamo-fascists. Doesn't work.
You might want to look at the FRUIT of your president and stop throwing stones. He hasn't done anything but make a mess that will take at least a generation to repair.
Posted by: Zossima | Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denying Jew hater. He's a Jew hater mulling over what Jesus, a Jew, King of the Jews, would be facing and who would be following him. Pomo western ears may feel kinship with his initial words. Viewed in light of his blatant anti-semitism it gives pause. I wonder how he pictures Imam Mahdi and Jesus interacting.
Words are a tricky business when the interpretation of the receiver is more important than the intent of the speaker.
And that's what post-modernism is all about and it makes it OK to share the odd thought with a Jew hating holocaust denier. It's not what is he saying, it's what can I take from it.
Postmodernism sets itself a trap just like all the others. Looks good, even virtuous to begin with, until you're in too far and become tied up with ancient evils. Nothing new under the sun.
The Jews.
Fascinating.
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 01:46 AM
What "pomo Western ears" have felt a kinship with Ahmadinejad, praytell? Leslie, are you just perpetuating Rick's fallicy? First Rick implies that the "religious left" (his term) is evil because Ahmadinejad says something that sounds a little like something he thinks one of them might say. (Doesn't bother to provide any evidence that any of them have ever said anything like that. Just guilt by his association.) Then you imply that all the pomo's in the world are in love with Ahmadinejad.
Hell, if that's not the very relativism you decry, I don't know what is. It certainly isn't a true statement or even implication by any standard of proof.
Is it NOT okay to share an "odd thought" with Ahmadinejad? We all share a lot of thoughts with him, actually. We believe 2+2=4. We believe there is a lot of oil over there. I'd have to throw out most of what I know about the world if I couldn't share any thoughts with him.
Does Ahmadinejad's talk about freedom, which Rick has previously quoted, render false America's own founding fathers, who said very similar things? Would it be "pomo" to feel a kinship with those words, though spoken by a holocaust-denying murderer? Obviously not.
Ahmadinejad is not a pomo. He's probably about as archaic a thinker as one can find. That doesn't mean that he doesn't sometimes make statements that are true. Nor does it mean that any "kinship with his words" is a red-flag that we need to do some serious penance.
Oh, and by using a phrase like 'feeling kinship with his words', you're acknowledging that we don't have purely objective, "absolute" truth. I'd enjoy (and I truly mean that) having that conversation with you sometime.
If Ahmadinejad statement is indeed a problem, then is it a new "postmodern" problem? Does that mean we didn't have political (and other) falsehoods before the postmodern era? Or were they somehow different?
Well, if you want pomo relativism, just put some of Rick's favorite president's statements under the microscope. Take any Tony Snow press gab and you can pull out numerous misleading, relativist lies. How about the run-up to the war? How about the revisionism since the war?
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 10:38 AM
This is what Rick and you have done:
Here's a statement: "Jesus is Lord." True or false? Feel a "kinship" with it?
Who said it? James Dobson? President Bush?
No. A Serb soldier said it while killing and raping Muslims in a mosque.
Therefore, Dobson and Bush are evil. (Rick)
And anyone who was attracted to the Serb soldiers statement (initially reported with no context) is a pomo relativist. (You)
Again, if that isn't what you call 'postmodernism', then I don't know what is. Nice going.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Ahmadinejad doesn't take long to fill in the blanks about what Jesus and his followers will face.
As for your first question, Zossima please reread my words: Pomo western ears may feel kinship with his initial words..
Indeed.
A side note -- I used 'pomo' for brevity only, which judging from the repeated appearance of it in your response I'm not sure if you interpreted it that way.
Is it NOT okay to share an "odd thought" with Ahmadinejad?
Context is key. 2+2=4 is inoccuous trivia. His quote here makes the fact that people would say "isn't it OK to share a few thoughts with Amad", turning a blind eye and separating word and context, interesting and really scary.
So yes, my whole point is that relativism has brought us here. By creating our own truths, the speaker, or his context is less important than how we incorporate his mere words into our own "schemata".
And the holocaust-denying conferences run unopposed.
No one said anything about penance, but why wouldn't the similarity of thought make the church reflect briefly?
I'd really enjoy having the relativism conversation with you too, but you'll have to simmer down first if I'm going to play. In certain contexts I kind of like being told nice going, but in others not so much.
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Yes, Leslie, I know that you used the word "may", but I also know that you concluded with a lecture on the dangers of postmodernism. I don't think I'm wrong to infer what I wrote.
I used pomo a lot not because I'm offended by it but because I find it to be a meaningless pejorative, like "liberal" or "leftist".
My point exactly. Rick's post was a trap. The context was revealed later. He's the one who separated word and context.
But again, by writing that, you are showing yourself to be what you call a postmodernist, for you are acknowledging that there is not objective, absolute truth. (It's okay, embrace the dark side. It's really not the bogeyman that the evangelical leaders want you to think it is. ; )
I disagree with that. It has huge implications for how we live life. Try to violate it with your mortgage and see if it is innocuous.
I think it should. But I think the similarity of thought with the things that Bush says should cause the church to reflect and repent, too.
Well, again, Rick didn't provide the context, did he? We were presented with a statement, no context, and forced to choose, true or false. Are you saying we're relativist if we don't say, "I need to understand the context before I decide if I agree with that statement?"
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM
BTW, Leslie, I don't mean to be communicating any animosity here. If you were sitting with me, you'd see that I actually have a smile on my face and do not mean to offend.
Also, to summarize, I think there are 2 things going on here:
1) I brought up the issue that I think Rick is making a very weak guilt-by-association claim here.
2) You introduced postmodernism into it
I just want to maintain some clarity.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 12:48 PM
"Any power that is close to God will survive while the powers who are far from God will disappear like the pharaohs..."
Who said it? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? Rick?
Not exactly. Ahmadinejad said it.
Interesting.
Seriously, I'm trying (probably seems like I'm beating a dead horse, I know) to prove the point: It just doesn't necessarily matter that Ahmadinejad says things that sound like things that someone else says or might say. It is not necessarily an indictment of Rick and his fellow Virginian Pat Robertson. To imply otherwise, as Rick did in the initial post, is to perpetuate a falsehood. It's a favorite tactic of both the right and the left, and it's wrong.
Now, Leslie is right, it probably should give us pause.
And for Leslie, I'm still trying to understand when you think that statement is true and when you think that statement is false. Or what makes it true and what makes it false?
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 01:26 PM
Which statement? That Leslie's right? No question! That's always true.
:)
Revealed later. Regardless, what I'm talking about is not hiding the context to make a point, I'm talking about the implications of deeming it irrelevant it and making chosen interpretation more important than speaker's intent.
So then as for Ahmadinejad's statement, again context. He calls one God; I call another. The words in isolation are one thing, the context, well...my dead horse lays next to yours.
So previously "is it NOT okay to share the odd thought with Amadinejad?"
Similarly is it not ok to share the odd thought with George Bush?
Beats me. I'm Canadian. One of our university's sent a professor to Iran to speak at Amadinejad's anti-jew conference. And we hate George Bush. We're pretty comfortable with the double standard up here.
I appreciate that Zossima, and I'm not allergic to teasing, but when your hidden smile separates the context from your words you put yourself at risk of stumbling across the ugly side o' me...it makes me worry for you, friend. :)
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 02:36 PM
Hence my question: Who has done that?
I agree that the context is not irrelevant. I also agree that the context of Ahmadinejad's statement might give people who hold similar thoughts pause. What I initially disagreed with was Rick's insinuation that Wallis and the "religious left" are questionable (at best) because (Rick thinks) they hold similar thoughts. A (Ahmadinejad's statement) does not prove B (that Wallis is a bad guy).
Now, (slow me) I'm seeing that you're relating relativism to an idea of divorcing a statement from its context. #1 Generally, though, relativism is posed as the idea that there are no true statements apart from context. (ie., no absolute truth) Hence, my insistence that you are being relativist.
#2 I just don't see your take on relativism as a problem. Can you provide some examples?
Oh, absolutely. I voted for the guy in 2000. I still think he was a very good governor in Texas. But I cannot point to a single thing, he has done as presidnet, except for his initial response to 9-11 and the decision (now abandoned) to go after Afghanistan, and say, "That was good."
Now the big question: Your god is different from Ahmadinejad's. How do you know yours is the right one?
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 03:01 PM
I've found it a common societal practice, but I've probably read too many educational philosophy textbooks. :)
But there is truth in relativism. A person’s own truth created according to personal context. People come with their OWN context and develop their truth from that. The implication is that it renders redundant the motives/context of the person presenting (in this case) an idea because all that’s in play is a person’s own “constructs” and the thought itself. I guess, I see that as very different from what you’re describing.
An example? Postmodern Christianity looking to Bob Dylan songs for spiritual 'upliftment'.
:) Recently a friend emailed me wondering if the “God of Texas” and Allah and the God of the Jews were the same. My response:
This is an interesting question. "God" these days is loosely defined -- he's the wind, or a feeling etc. Traditionally, Yahweh, the Jewish God of the Torah and, God, the God of Texas are thought of as the same. Orthodox Jews just didn't accept Jesus as the messiah, so in essence they approach life from an Old Testament perspective which continues to await the arrival of such a figure.
The New Testament refers to God in three ways: Father, Son and spirit…so generally I think of a God that includes Jesus as the "God" with whom I identify. Similarly the Jewish "Yahweh", promises the sending of a messiah, so while the name is different (meaning as of yet unnamed) their priority of redemption is the same. I hereby decree them to be the same!
An Orthodox Jew might disagree with me, but a Messianic Jew would not.
While the Qur'an acknowledges that Jesus is a prophet and even accepts his resurrection (yet not his divinity), Allah seems to focus on humans achieving their own perfection through observance of many rules of living. To my knowledge, he doesn't ever claim to forgive his people without penance of some sort or make a plan to set them off the treadmill of human inconsistency by substituting their inadequacies for his own perfection.
So then I guess I'd have to say if God/Yahweh & Allah are the same they cancel each other out with their own priorities.
With that Zossima, I guess reason I call my God the right one is because he’s right for me. But that’s not relativism is it? I didn't manufacture him, I choose him.
Sorry this is so long...and late. I'm having computer issues today.
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 08:54 PM
So, I see each of our definitions clearly in the wikipedia piece you linked to. I still don't see what it had to do with the original Ahmadinejad quote.
I would argue that we always bring our context into interpreting meaning and that it is impossible not to.
Example: We interpret the Bible very differently than those liberation theologians from Latin America, partly (largely?) because we've never faced dictatorial oppression. Is that relativism? Perhaps if we completely ignore the context from which the biblical statements were spoken.
So, is this relativism? Preachers who treat the Bible, particularly the epistles, as an instruction book, pulling tidbits about church order and husbands and wives and deacons, etc., with little if any consideration of the context in which they were written. My thinking is that according to what you've written, claiming to be a biblical literalist would be relativism.
Funny true story as an example: I was in a hotel once and walked past its meeting room on a Sunday morning. A woman was preaching from Leviticus or Deuteronomy---some passage where the garments of the priests were detailed. Gold braid. Silk. Those guys were decked out. Anyway, I couldn't see her, but I could see the faces of the few people in attendance when she finished reading and announced, "How many of you know God wants his ministers to looook gooood?!" I laughed as I went on, imagining that the offering plate was close behind.
You mean I can't be moved to prayer by a song like Springsteen's "Into the Fire" (May their faith give us faith, May their strength give us strength...) from the stellar elegy to 9-11, The Rising? I don't treat it as scripture, of course. But it moves me to prayer. I highly doubt Springsteen intended it that way, because his writing has always found salvation in friends, the girl, and heroes like the firemen of 9-11.
#1 I would argue that we are always manufacturing God to some extent. C.S. Lewis writes about the purpose of prayer being to change me, not God. The Church Fathers spoke of the faith-walk as being largely about removing our false ideas of God.
#2 You've located the "proof" of God within yourself. If you don't choose, he's not the "right one". Many evangelicals would call that the very essence of relativism.They would say that the Christian God is the "right one" because he says so, not because you say so. And wouldn't Ahmadinejad say that he didn't manufacture Muhammed but chose him or was chosen by him? Again, I think you're pretty darn relativist. ; )
#3 But you're touching on something that I've come to believe profoundly. That is that truth itself is not (merely) propositional; it is relational. Encountering the Other, whether it is 2+2=4, my wife, or Jesus Christ, always makes claims on me. I can deny those claims, of course. Or I can be obedient and enter into relationship with the truth.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 11:43 PM
Hopefully I’ll get there by the end!
Yes, but when it pushes past to where the speaker’s meaning doesn’t matter, all bets are off.
Exactly!! The speaker’s intent (named here “biblical context”) is so very important. As you suggested, the reader’s experiences can have them reach vastly different conclusions about the text…which is why it is so important to get to know the speaker or historical context etc.
I hadn’t thought of it that way before, but you’re right. Making up your own truth is relativism. Where staunch relativists would kick biblical literalists off their train would be when the literalists suggested their manufactured truth applied to all, I s'pose.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but you'd be shaping his words to fit your context and, as you say, ignoring his original intent. Not exactly a seventh circle sin, I just think it’s good to be aware of the ramifications if left unchecked.
I mean I have similar songs that move me to prayer too. But I’ve also been a little uncomfortable with the odd Bob Dylan worshipfest I’ve sat in on. I suppose being a teacher makes me hyper sensitive -- this whole listener centered relativist approach is at the heart of current teaching philosophy and it prods me to question where it's taking us.
Ahmadinejad can host an international conference that speaks openly against Jews (to put it mildly) and denies the holocaust and there’s not a smidge of outcry. Compare that to a G8 summit. These days, globalization rankles people’s social construct. Dead Jews don’t seem to as much, so forget overriding principles of right and wrong, down with globalization!
And that’s where Rick’s quote fits in. Setting it out unnamed demonstrates how important the speaker’s intent is and from my perspective certain arms of the church have been playing fast and loose with whose context is most important.
Yes, I think it is the very essence of Eve’s first bite of fruit and so the very essence of our being. It is what God must heal.
Agreed, but does I or Ahmad being right or wrong change what is? Or our acceptance of it? “Bidden or unbidden, God is still there.”
Funnily enough, people peg me as either a flaming fundamentalist or a radical relativist. Probably a sign I talk out of both sides of my mouth!
Beautifully said. I couldn’t agree more. In fact I hate to say more to detract from the point, but I will apologetically close with this:
In an earlier thread someone said talk is cheap. But, “in the beginning was the word…and the word was God”. Words are the stuff of relationships and truth…not cheap at all.
By nurturing an ideology that we make up our own truth we end up isolating ourselves because an exchange is no longer sharing, it is taking. At first glance it seems like a beautiful idea until it has us in its grips and we are cold, dark and alone.
The fact that Ahmadinejad can say such things and “blend in” makes me wonder if we’ve reached the point where the ugly is about to be revealed.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 02:12 AM
So you're arguing that there are no universal, absolute truths. ; ) Or at least that they aren't fully knowable because of our own biases and the biases of speakers. I agree. I like to think that the interconnected life of love of the Triune God represents Absolute Truth, but we can't fully know that. Heck, we have a hard time getting past water-ice-vapor ; )
But far from leaving us in an I'm okay, you're okay, self-absorbed hippie-fest, which is what people like Colson and Dobson fear, I think this (and postmodernism) in general is a tremendous invitation for us to embrace one another. If truth is relational, and if we as Christians believe Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life (caps not in the Greek ; ), then we will know truth not as we become smarter by reading wikipedia but as we live life together and seek to be Jesus to the world around us.
Leslie, what we're talking about is a very different paradigm of truth. I've come to find it nearly impossible to talk to your evangelical types who think truth is propositional (and, because of that, make the Bible the ultimate truth instead of Jesus, who is "ultimate truth" because he is ultimate servant). For them, you either buy their "literal" interpretation (which is probably different from the "literal" interpretation of the guy down the street) or you're some evil postmodern relativist. But if you view truth as something ontologically different, you're not stuck with that binary choice. Truth can be unitive.
I listen to a lot of Dylan and couldn't come up with one song I'd worship to. ; ) But I get your point. After doing a few years of "contemporary" worship, I really began to miss the hymns. More depth and meaning. Less "God bless me" centered. Less potential for emotional manipulation from the energy of the music itself.
One of the characteristics of the postmodern is the centrality of the event. Where the great Bonhoeffer spoke of "life together", we now come together for an exciting hoo-ha (sporting event, worship service, whatever), then go back to our isolated mini-castles (I just bought one) with the bigscreen tv (still on the wishlist). Communities build bigger stadiums, and people seek ever-bigger thrills. The church, even many that decry the postmodern, sadly, is entrenched in this up to its neck.
Posted by: Zossima | Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Zossima, reading your thoughts, a few questions came to mind. I'd like to hear your take:
Is there a difference between existence of a truth outside ourselves vs how that truth is perceived by us (as it is processed in our heads)?
What is the role of the Bible if not to explain the truths of Jesus?
I hear you about contemporary worship, but I was more thinking about looking for God's truth in Bob Dylan's lyrics. I see it as related to my last question.
Can you talk more about the postmodern centrality of event? Bonhoeffer spoke in a time and to a people who didn't think they were the creators of truth. I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out why the state of our society (stadiums & entertainment to draw us together as opposed to life together) which has developed in this postmodern era...wouldn't have postmodernism to blame for it. I see postmodernism to be an extremely isolating ideology.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 08:13 PM