Criticism Leading to Conversation

When I was living in Brownwood, a town of roughly 20,000 people, I was constantly faced with the fact that I shared close to no common interests with any of the people who lived there. It was quite challenging. I spent I huge portion of my spare time reading esoteric theology books, analyzing my own beliefs. And then, I would encounter locals who I can safely assume would never think of, nor want to ask any of the questions I found myself wrestling with. Small towns in central Texas don't tend to care much about christology or interreligious dialogue. At the time this distressed me. I found these ideas to be quite important, and simultaneously couldn't really blame Brownwoodites for not caring.

I revisited this experience last week talking with one of my friends who frequently preaches in small towns. He was telling me how irrelevant textual criticism (etc.) seemed to be in small town settings, and I agree . . . and yet totally disagree. Basically, it's true, the Jesus Seminar and various interreligious studies have no relevance to them. The same could be posited for poor people in Oak Cliff and possibly even for the filthy rich of Southlake and Highland Park. If all these historical analyses just complicate their faith and potentially tear it down, then what good does it do them?

At heart, I still basically think missiologically about everything. I mean this in the most anti-colonial sense possible. I think 'good news' is not simply proclaimed, but necessarily conversed about. And in this sense, I think the biggest need we have is to get people talking. I also believe that Christianity in it's unbastardized form, is completely and unequivocally egalitarian. It is a religion that fully rejected heirarchies. So, because of this, I believe that any conversations worth having should be held between equals. This is no small qualification. It is unquestioned in our society that those who teach/proclaim are in a higher position than those who learn/receive. Thus those who give 'good news', give from a privileged and dominant position. A position I believe automatically negates the very message they are preaching.

I believe that Dallas, like any metropolis, is a confounding mixture of cultures and worldviews which awkwardly rest together; pragmatically tolerating each other without ever really reaching understanding. Without understanding, conversation is impossible. Without conversation, the gospel is useless.

This is where I find all the esoteric concepts of theology and biblical criticism invaluable not for the other, but for myself.

John Searle, I philosopher that I like, frequently points out that the human capacity for self-deception is boundless. The 'will to believe' effectively blinds us to the dissonance of our beliefs and makes fundamentalists of us all. This is true of everyone: theists, agnostics, or atheists. Christians, Muslims, scientists, or Hindus. We are all guilty of the 'will to belief' and the purposed ignorance of all that detracts from what we would believe. I think this reveals both the necessity of conversation and the impossiblity of it. If we hope to ever achieve something more than a fractured society of uncomprehending tolerance, we have to seek to truly understand the other. Yet, the crutch of 'willing belief' demands that we avoid conversation, or if we dare to enter into it, do so only in a superior position.

The truth is that if we are incapable of self-critique, then we are also incapable of conversation. To an extent, perfect self-awareness is impossible. Yet, as much as we are capable, we must seek to be aware of our own origins, of our faith's place amongst others, of its similarities with others and its uniqueness. This is necessary because it is the only way to join in conversation with others as equals, avoiding an imperialism of faith and culture. This seems to me the only way that a world of people who will not adopt our faith, can nonetheless hear what is good in our good news.

I think that in this sense, Christians have to lead by example. The truth is that all belief systems, including systems of unbelief, have black marks that they would much prefer to ignore. They assert their superiority over other faiths by willfully ignoring their own history, their own inconsistencies, their own unspeakable questions. No one is exempt from this. Yet, too many would act as though they are. Our very message demands that we should be more than another domineering system, competing and seeking advantage over other faiths and cultures. I believe that this begins with us; with our willingness to critique ourselves, and listen to those voices who for hundreds of years have critiqued what we would otherwise 'will ourselves to believe'.

If we can't manage this, then how do we imagine that others will? And if such an endeavor fails, then are we not doomed to continue talking at and past the other? My hope is that self-awareness can foster a strength that does not fall into the trap of colonial proselytizing and religious arrogance, but rather is a strength that allows for genuine conversation and mutual understanding.