I have been having a great conversation with a good friend of mine named JD. I wanted put part of it up here in the hopes that others will be able to jump in.
Me: I keep saying: I have no interest in discounting or explaining away my Christian experience – but neither am I willing to be bound to the antiquated ways that it was talked about in the 1st centuries.
JD: Understood! But does that mean you also discount people that do follow the 1st century Christianity? Is there not a place for everyone to understand and follow God in his/her own way
Me: Good clarification! I certainly do want to be open – engage – interact with – and learn from people of all traditions, denominations, and sects.
The one thing that I am most concerned about is people who think that they have a 1st century perspective but … who have not accounted for the radical developments that have impacted their faith! I will give you three examples:
1) Individualism. 1st century folks would not have even thought in our terms. They were connected in community and family systems/structures that defined them. When they said “I” they did not mean what we mean when we say “I”.
2) Literacy: since the Gutenberg press we each have a Bible in our own hands. The Bible was never meant to be studied alone. It was a communal activity where is was primarily read out loud.
3) Science: our understanding of everything from the Universe to the human body (not to mention Facebook and the Internet) has profoundly changed the way that think about the world, interact with each others and interact with God. This can not be underestimated.
SO if you are a literate person in America, with democracy, who participates in capitalism and goes to a denominational church (Baptist, congregational, etc.) then you can not be first century. It is impossible. We just can’t do it. SO when we are told that we are… we are being sold a mental construct – an imagined social identity and I think that it can be really dangerous because of the falseness that it is layered in. We are supposed to be people of truth.
I want to be respectful but I also want to deal with reality . I hope that comes through.
JD: I agree with what you say and even though many Churches practice under the “guise” of 1st Century Christianity, it is practically impossible to do so with 21st Century knowledge.
This something that I want to really delve into in the new year. The issue of the enchanted world of pre-modern thought and the naivete that is associated with it (in a positive way) in light of our post-modern world and the possibility of a ‘second-naivete’.
Bo Sanders: Public Theology 
December 1, 2011 at 12:55 am
O my goodness. This a breath of fresh air. A Protestant ‘ Aggiornamento’ is sorely needed in the Church.
December 1, 2011 at 2:46 am
WUHOO! thanks 🙂 I am all about the ‘update’. I really appreciate this comment.
December 1, 2011 at 4:24 am
Hey Bo,
I’ve never responded to your blog before but have read it for a while and enjoyed it.
I’m struggling a bit over your word choice and I’m thinking that I might be getting bogged down unnecessarily. So clarify what was “enchanted” about pre-modern thought and how is it that they are “naive” in light of our post-modern world? How much do we all really understand “pre-modern” thought and the conditions it came from? I would challenge some of your assumptions that you’re as different as you think you are from the 1st century folks.
Indeed, the things you outlined are interesting, but are they complete?
So they didn’t have Facebook, printing nor the notion of Individualism. They still had hate, envy, strife, not to mention understandings of love, beauty and sacrifice. And frankly FB is a great example of how all those things are still at the core of our being, we’ve just found new ways to express them. I fully support the notion that the effects of technology and other things have created some interesting phenomena and even some major paradigm shifts, indeed! But make the connection for me how they keep you from fellowship with the 1st century Christians? Is it because theirs is a more “mythic”-based belief of the world and yours is a more hard-fact based view?
It’s an interesting fact (to me, at least…) that the more we understand about quantum theory and the elements of the universe, the more scientists begin to sound like poets.
All of this is really to put forth the notion that I don’t believe it’s as hard to identify with the ancients as we might think. When we realize that at our core we are more like them than not simply because of our humanness, I think we then get a fresh vision that asserts that our notions of technology and progress, even our individualism need not define us.
Thanks for letting me wrestle with these things with you.
December 1, 2011 at 4:59 am
Holy Moly – that was awesome. Way to come strong with you first comment! I am so excited to have this conversation.
Let me concede two things and then clarify two things:
– The ‘enchanted’ line is borrowed from a school of thought that I intend to explore deeper over the Christmas break.
– There is no doubt contemporary science is dabbling in poetics… which I am excited about.
– My only point with Facebook is that the way we are conceptualizing and participating in community, family, friendship, and causes is being altered. I am certainly not going to hand my hat on this point – I was simply trying to illustrate a change.
– You are right about the ‘mythic’ element of the pre-modern mind versus the contemporary culture that is emerging. This is probably a point that we need to focus on in the months to come.
and thank you for helping us to wrestle with this stuff.
December 1, 2011 at 7:08 am
This has spilled over into a few things that tend to catch my attention.
I don’t want to go further with the ‘science and poetics’ question, except to say that I think there is a strong tendency among religious people to try to ‘adopt’ quantum mechanics and sort of say “See, scientists? Now you’re just like us!” I think that only appears true on the surface. I think quantum mechanics sounds like poetry to us, because we don’t have anywhere near the mathematical and theoretical expertise to actually understand it. I don’t, at least, and I’ve noted that scientists often get touchy on that point, and I think rightly so much of the time. I mean, theology would never result in a Large Hadron Collider, nor know anything about what the data it produces means.
I’m not sure that I can be “in community” with first century Christians – no matter what I think of them, they exist only as a construct. I cannot possibly meet them. I can read a very few of their words, and I can guess at a few fragmented possibilities as to their context, but that’s about it. I guess I’m a minimalist when it comes to other people’s inner worlds, but I’m not even sure we’ll understand each other on this comment thread, you know? First century Christianity is conjecture, and the little bit I’ve learned of non-modernized societies that exist now, and even non-Western modernized societies, I’m really hesitant to go too far in claiming shared understanding or experience.
I’m profoundly psyched about the conversation around “myth” – which for me is a positive thing (contrasted to the popular definition, which is essentially “a lie or misperception”, i.e. Mythbusters), and I believe that in the long term Christianity will die if it cannot recapture myth in a meaningful way. While any view of what ancient people though about myth will also be conjecture, I think that there is something there that has been largely lost, but which we need to regain if we want to stop playing zero-sum Enlightenment thought-games. Maybe postmodern theory is heading in that direction – I don’t understand it anywhere near enough to be able to say. I’m coming at this from my own weird direction, which is, among other things, Tolkien and mythopoeia.
December 1, 2011 at 9:28 pm
I too am interested in myth and the way myth operated for those in the first century, but also how it operates for us today…I think its a myth that we are free from myth. Or, maybe, translated through Zizek, we believe that we do not believe and actually believe more than ever.
What is the relation between religion (or the religious) and myth? What is the difference (or is there)? If the two are fundamentally related, can myth be transcended? And if religion is the move towards a transcending, a freedom from, myth, but remains intimately bound up with it…what do we do with myth, especially if its unavoidable? Construct new ones? Somehow enter/create suspended spaces to the second naivete? To what end?
Maybe too much presumption in my questions, but I say, yes! lets focus on this stuff
December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
Bo, thanks much for your clarifications. I had a feeling I was stumbling without cause on those things. Makes a lot of sense and I look forward to reading more about the “enchanted” school of thought.
On the thought that Douglas had about scientists revulsion of religious people observing their language–I really appreciate that and have some friends who have that exact reaction as well. However, I have to ask them to consider that this may be for several reasons, not the least of which that they’re coming from a Empirical/Materialist viewpoint and have unnecessarily ruled out any notion of mystery. Actually, I applaud them for that because they’re adhering to some rules that help them to create an understanding of what they’re observing without outside interference.
However, I would also challenge them that reality is bigger than the artificial constructs they’re using to define reality and the poet may have something to offer by looking at the reality they’re observing in a way they had not seen before. Or not. 🙂 Hawking and Dawkins would probably tell me to go to hell.
I loved your phrasing of the “zero-sum Enlightenment thought-games”–that’s brilliant and I think it sets the stage for us to embrace things that on the surface may be contradictory, but in the end explain reality so much the better!
December 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm
WOW! This is a great conversation and so needed. I have read “simplywalking” comments several times now. I really enjoyed and understood the content. I Appreciate your thoughts on the matter and I offer some more of my thoughts below.
I understand that as “humans” our basics (i.e. food, water, desires, feelings, etc.) have not changed over time but how they are presented to us and how we approach them have changed drastically.
I’m not sure Bo or myself are making the distinction of “seperation” from 1st Century Christians, but rather the need for updating the difference between the generations. It is not so much different than current “generational gaps”. Look, the bobbysox kids of the 40’s are entirely different than the kids of the 2011 era. Yes, deep down things remain the same but on the surface things are entirely different. I am currently a Leader (Trek Awana) of Jr. High kids at our Church and find it is hard to reach them with “this is the way Church is and always has been…blah, blah, blah” They quickly lose interest. I found I need new ways to approach the kids, especially the kids fresh off the street. They are not going to enter Church if I try and teach them 1st Century Church. I am quickly learning, that just like Jesus did in his time, I first have to accept who they are and how they live in this the “21st Century” and not “just try and teach them the 1st Century way because that’s the way it’s always been”. I feel the Church in general needs to have a “new & fresh” approach to the new generation of believers, especially the youth. Take the lead from some of the new Worship styles and expand on them. They are getting the message out much better than some of old styles.
I feel you can “embrace”” the 1st Century Christians much like we embrace our Grandparents if we just look at this with a modern fresh approach. Just my thoughts and I so appreciate being able to converse about this.
December 2, 2011 at 2:51 am
Wow, you guys really know how to party! Nice to have a good conversation with you all. (Bo, please go make some coffee).
I completely understand about the disconnect we have with people with whom we have so little in common (on the surface). It reminds me of talking to my grandmother when I was a kid and her telling me about this ancestor or that ancestor. My only thought was, “Please God, kill me now…” because I had nothing to hold on to.
But then a few years later I was studying in school about some battle in South Carolina and I remembered my grandmother had showed me a letter from one of my ancestors who was actually in that battle. Whoa. Hold the phone…suddenly, I was interested.
And I think that’s not an unusual way to make connections. I love examining the completely whacked out world of 1st century biblical world. If we think we have a problem in our culture with pornography, lust, etc., we’ve got nothing on the city of Corinth. And it was in this environment our brothers & sisters practiced their faith. So suddenly Paul’s letters take a little different twinge when you realize the place from which these people were hearing this.
I don’t think the task should be to BECOME 1st century Christians and model their ways, culture, etc. (like friends of mine who talk in “bible talk”–drives me nuts). But I think it’s cool to see the continuity and relevance of a Way that is practiced now by us and the communities of the 1st century. It sort of starts and ends there for me.
My daughter said to me about a year ago, “Sorry Dad, but the Bible, it’s just so OLD and BORING!” I loved her honesty! Heck yea it’s boring. However, maybe Dad needs to be less about reading great passages to you and instead stepping away from the bible, talking about the things that we all face and then make the connection that God has some stuff to say about that. Even in this there are problems because it becomes formulaic:
1. Problems we all encounter
2. Agreement on those
3. Here’s the verse that says how to deal with that.
4. Next.
What bothers me about that it then treats the bible as a users manual—(Problems with Cursing, Page 432). The danger here is that Christianity then becomes a system rather than a Way. And I think the moment we begin to systematize this relationship with God, we quickly turn it into something else. And frankly, it’s a really poor way to build this upside down kingdom.
OK, I’ll stop there…thanks you all.
December 14, 2011 at 1:28 am
“Bible as users manual”–bravo! Exactly the problem, imo.
It’s something like the scientists/poets issue: Using the Bible as if it were mathematics, even sacred mathematics, turns it into a technology rather than a Way and completely loses any sense of how else the findings might be perceived.
December 2, 2011 at 6:17 am
This is good stuff! I look forward to following up on some of this 🙂 Thank you all for the contributions. There is lots here to flesh out. [which is better than a lot of flesh being out – just for the record]
December 13, 2011 at 12:07 am
Ok, Bo. I was in the midst of crazy church work and wrapped up some school stuff just as you posted this. So I am just jumping in.
In full disclosure I am a student of the early Church…not first century, but still in Patristics. In my course work I often grew really tired of theologians who would claim pretty boldly that the ‘Fathers say….” as if invoking ancient writers some how trumped the current conversation. At one point I flipped out and said something to the effect that “Augustine didn’t care about X, it wasn’t even on his radar!”
All of that is to say that I am really sympathetic with the urge to counter a historicism which seeks to translate the past into the present without much alteration. I think that is a result of our Protestant “ad fontes” mentality- mainly that by getting closer to the time of Jesus we get to a more pure form of Christianity. Such an approach violates the standard rubric for historical narrative which states plainly that the historian attends to both continuity with the past and the changes which come over time.
Now since i study Patristics I should say that many of us border on the modern divide of history and theology. Just read the Journal of Early Christian Studies and you will see that many of us write about the sources in a way that outsiders ask if this is narrative or theology. I kind of like the muddied nature of this field!
I find the Neo-Platonists enticing. Now, I am not so keen on the ideal/material divide- but I do love how the hierarchy of being makes sense of a cosmos riddled with God. In fact, to exist at all is to participate in God. Evil, then is that which does not exist since it is other than God. Sin then is the turn toward non-existence while virtue point humanity (and all of creation) towards returning up the ladder.
Anyways, some thoughts to chew on in the winter break!
Peace
Josh Brockway