Giving Up God(s)

Giving Up God(s) July 31, 2010

Decorated Earthen Items

according to process theology – everything is in process – (some ancient jews defined perfection as being in process) – then the last thing we want to do is arrive. this is why deconstruction as part of our process is so important, it keeps us ‘perfect’ – maybe idolatry is about worshipping the ‘god’s we don’t dismantle.

and so a faith journey is one where deconstruction is an inherent aspect to understanding our own faith.questions. challenges. doubts.
these are important components to our growth.

if our faith doesn’t change, we don’t change.

if we don’t change, our faith doesn’t change.

there is a deep synergy between the two. if we accept the above definition of perfection as ongoing then our responsibility it to make sure our faith doesn’t stay where it is. but that we keep pushing and prodding, and not for the sake of pushing and prodding but for the sake of self-transformation that leads to global transformation.

the more we hold onto to our beliefs in god and keep them where they are the more at risk we’re at for endorsing a process towards idolatry. i think part of this process of deconstructing faith is about understanding that there are many meanings to scripture, god, jesus, and the many things in-between.

if jesus is god, and god is the objective or the Object outside of us. then when jesus comes to earth, he leaves the OBJECT-ive and becomes subjective. by doing this jesus shows us that we might need to give up the objective(s) for the subjective. or that the objective and subjective is the same. there are some conversations around whether or not there is a subjective and objective truth, reality, or experience. i think the issue lies in the fact that we still try and separate the two things.

but, what if we look at them non-dualistically? so, rather than placing a middle between them, we bring them together? so than there are objective subjectives or subjective objectives. if we do this, than there is much space for a more pluralistic understanding for how things like life, politics, poverty, religion, healing and etc. work within each of their contexts. but not only that, then it allows creative/inventive space for discovering amazing pluralistic outcomes that speak into the cultural context(s) within which they each breath.

there is too much space for there to be only one meta-option. the world is a microcosm of itself. we must be willing to see that plurality allows for many voices rather than one. and that means we have to be willing to work together and suspend our ego’s for the betterment of the world.

and i think a good place to start is realizing we are working toward subjective objectives. when we do this we then no longer have to fight for meta-objectives, because those objectives are informed by subjective elements. we need not be afraid of subjectively-tainted outcomes. we need them. and we can be transformed by them. and this means our outcomes will be culturally (& therefore subjectively defined). and when we step away from demonizing the subjective we begin to realize it too has objective sparks hidden within it.

Browse Our Archives