Live Your Own Truth? Finding Our Way Out of the Dead End of Propaganda, Mimesis and the Idea of Personal Genius to Begin the Process of Birthing a New Culture
Live Your Own Truth? Finding Our Way Out of the Dead End of Propaganda, Mimesis and the Idea of Personal Genius to Begin the Process of Birthing a New Culture
It is vitally important that we learn how to once again "ground" ourselves. But we cannot do this with reason or science. We cannot do it with universals. The only way out is through.
I agree on your analysis of our modern way of thinking and of its over-reliance on rationality, but I am struggling with fully understanding your solution. To me it sounds like a version of "touch grass", or rather, "touch God", through rituals and rites. Have I understood it correctly?
Another confusion for me is your critic of sola scriptura. First you argue that enlightment thinking severed the bounds of metaphysical reality, but in so doing just became an echo of fashion. But is not sola scriptura one of these bounds that prevents us from becoming just another echo of fashion? The scriptures certainly is not fashionable today. I understand the critic of "endless interpretations" of the scriptures, but unless taste is tested through the lens of the scriptures, how can we tell apart bad taste from good taste?
Very protestant way of thinking, I know, but I feel that over-emphesising on rites at the expense of all rationality would throw out the baby with the bathwater. God is a rational God, as proven by the very existence of math and the natural world. Kant was wrong that you cannot prove God rationally. Rationality is integral to Christianity. Im feeling Im missing something from your perspective (or perhaps Im too drenched in protestant thinking).
Can I suggest you do a substack on the proper role of rationality at some point? I think that might clear things up, at least for me
These are good questions. In regards to sola scriptura, if the scriptures are the only way God speaks to us, the implication is that God does not reveal himself in any other way. Or if he does, there is no “content” to that revelation. This to me runs contrary to the witness of scripture itself in regards to the work of the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 2 explicitly say that role of the Spirit is to reveal the heart of God in Spirit taught words.
In regards to the other point, it’s far more than “touch grass.” The west since the enlightenment has largely limited knowledge to that which can be expressed rationally, through words and numbers. But there is much more to knowledge than this. Because of this bias to rationality following Kant, we have largely been cut off from the truths that can be revealed with direct contact with reality. You may not be able to put these truths into words, but they are nonetheless truth. All the way from “what is the truth of chopping vegetables” to “the meaning of wood” to “what is it like to meet God?” ...these are the truths that ground us. Things like archetypes: what is a good wife, farmer, husband, woman, man, king, musician etc.? Ultimately all truth, especially those truths that can only be known in the moment like which “time” am I in, are grounded, not in reading the scriptures per se, but in the direct encounter and experience of God.
An abstract, rationalist approach to scripture would be to dissect the parables of Christ and categorize them to memorize. A Spirit-driven approach would be to let the parables wash over us and to pray for God’s insight to come to us. Some of my most profound moments spiritually have simply come to me like a dove, without concerted effort nor any wisdom on my part. I think the parables are in a way helping us develop taste or proper judgment, while evading our filters of fashion and culture. Thank you also for your audio versions. I find I connect much more with the message that way.
You seem to have a good sense of how it works. As for the audio versions, you are the not the first to say that. It’s a fair bit of extra work getting them ready, but knowing it helps people better access my content makes it worth it.
As much as the Orthodox as viewed as kinda the mystics of the Christian world we have some pretty dry approaches: do the discipline to develop yourself even if you don't get immediate results. Just like Cassian would say.
Anyway, much here is in my own thought and writings. I think and feel there is a swallowing and death of our cultures and we must turn to something True if irrational.
That which is revealed takes precedence over mere rationality.
I know you’re rooted in the Dutch Reformed tradition. But some of your proposals run counter to the practices of the Bavinck-Kuyper influenced Dutch Reformed tradition. I’m curious where you see your thoughts coalesce with or deviate from that theological tradition.
That’s a tough question. I still feel as if the core Kuyperian insight labeled “sphere sovereignty” as well as Dooyeweerd’s notion of “modal aspects” are still the core ideas that guide me. I am also predestinarian. But I tend to be an independent thinker, always have been. So I have folded a lot into my Reformed faith. I grew up in a Pentecostally minded home missions plant and have spent a long time coming to understand --this is my opinion-- that what people who dove into the Pentecostal movement were looking for was in fact the kinds of things that should be looked for in the mystical tradition. That is probably the biggest difference. The other criticism of Kuyperianism is I would argue that he is still too optimistic about liberalism (as is Ellul for that matter) even if they are critical of the excesses of the “revolutionary” thinking of the French Revolution. Many of them still believed in democratic ideas, the market and notions like human rights, they just rejected the atheism of the revolution.
Even though I have strong opinions and am confident in my judgements, I have always been one to take good insights wherever I find them and fold them into my thinking.
One thing I do do, though, is read a lot of scripture and have always had a knack (God given gift?) for understanding texts, especially the biblical text. I try to take scripture seriously in what it actually says. Even though I have, based on the witness of scripture, and historical understanding, found the doctrines of a closed canon and sola scriptura to be unbiblical and philosophically/theologically dangerous ideas, the scriptures are still for me the core witness of God’s revelation, our anchor. If I part from doctrinaire Reformed teaching, I usually do so for reasons of biblical teaching.
Does this mean that the Reformers were not biblical? No. It’s just that they were creatures of their time and with distance sometimes we can see things of them that they could not see for themselves. For example, the Reformation was a kind of past utopianism (RETVRN 1.0) in that their intent was to break with the current corrupt order, sweep it away, and restore the pure gospel of the apostolic age. It can’t be done. In this sense, the Reformation is the beginning of the revolutionary era. In that regard, if we question the revolutionary era, it’s ok to question the Reformation as Protestants. I think more of this needs to be done.
A long answer to say in some ways I am kind of an odd guy out and always have been and have never really cleanly fit into any box. I have always been one who put together his own intellectual map. Right now I am deep diving Ellul but once his insights have been incorporated, I will move on to to incorporate other worthwhile thinkers.
That said, personally, ever since I stepped away from ministry it’s been a time of preparation for me. I sense God will be shifting things to a time of action. What my role in God’s work will be I don’t know, but I sense God is doing something big and I will have a part, big or small who knows, but things are starting to happen. It’s exciting.
Thank you for the taking the time to write this reply. Very helpful. I'm as vanilla Reformed as they come but I'm also very appreciative of Ellul the more I read him. I'm trying to figure out where he provides helpful critique and where he needs charitable critique. Your writing has helped me immensly as I think through these things. Thank you.
Oh, and if you're interested, my seminary professor, Doug Kelly, always did a great job of engaging with the broader church—patristics, desert fathers, and modern EO folks. You might find his three-volume systematics interesting.
I agree on your analysis of our modern way of thinking and of its over-reliance on rationality, but I am struggling with fully understanding your solution. To me it sounds like a version of "touch grass", or rather, "touch God", through rituals and rites. Have I understood it correctly?
Another confusion for me is your critic of sola scriptura. First you argue that enlightment thinking severed the bounds of metaphysical reality, but in so doing just became an echo of fashion. But is not sola scriptura one of these bounds that prevents us from becoming just another echo of fashion? The scriptures certainly is not fashionable today. I understand the critic of "endless interpretations" of the scriptures, but unless taste is tested through the lens of the scriptures, how can we tell apart bad taste from good taste?
Very protestant way of thinking, I know, but I feel that over-emphesising on rites at the expense of all rationality would throw out the baby with the bathwater. God is a rational God, as proven by the very existence of math and the natural world. Kant was wrong that you cannot prove God rationally. Rationality is integral to Christianity. Im feeling Im missing something from your perspective (or perhaps Im too drenched in protestant thinking).
Can I suggest you do a substack on the proper role of rationality at some point? I think that might clear things up, at least for me
These are good questions. In regards to sola scriptura, if the scriptures are the only way God speaks to us, the implication is that God does not reveal himself in any other way. Or if he does, there is no “content” to that revelation. This to me runs contrary to the witness of scripture itself in regards to the work of the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 2 explicitly say that role of the Spirit is to reveal the heart of God in Spirit taught words.
In regards to the other point, it’s far more than “touch grass.” The west since the enlightenment has largely limited knowledge to that which can be expressed rationally, through words and numbers. But there is much more to knowledge than this. Because of this bias to rationality following Kant, we have largely been cut off from the truths that can be revealed with direct contact with reality. You may not be able to put these truths into words, but they are nonetheless truth. All the way from “what is the truth of chopping vegetables” to “the meaning of wood” to “what is it like to meet God?” ...these are the truths that ground us. Things like archetypes: what is a good wife, farmer, husband, woman, man, king, musician etc.? Ultimately all truth, especially those truths that can only be known in the moment like which “time” am I in, are grounded, not in reading the scriptures per se, but in the direct encounter and experience of God.
Damn son. You crank out bangers faster than i can do hot takes!
An abstract, rationalist approach to scripture would be to dissect the parables of Christ and categorize them to memorize. A Spirit-driven approach would be to let the parables wash over us and to pray for God’s insight to come to us. Some of my most profound moments spiritually have simply come to me like a dove, without concerted effort nor any wisdom on my part. I think the parables are in a way helping us develop taste or proper judgment, while evading our filters of fashion and culture. Thank you also for your audio versions. I find I connect much more with the message that way.
You seem to have a good sense of how it works. As for the audio versions, you are the not the first to say that. It’s a fair bit of extra work getting them ready, but knowing it helps people better access my content makes it worth it.
As much as the Orthodox as viewed as kinda the mystics of the Christian world we have some pretty dry approaches: do the discipline to develop yourself even if you don't get immediate results. Just like Cassian would say.
Anyway, much here is in my own thought and writings. I think and feel there is a swallowing and death of our cultures and we must turn to something True if irrational.
That which is revealed takes precedence over mere rationality.
I know you’re rooted in the Dutch Reformed tradition. But some of your proposals run counter to the practices of the Bavinck-Kuyper influenced Dutch Reformed tradition. I’m curious where you see your thoughts coalesce with or deviate from that theological tradition.
That’s a tough question. I still feel as if the core Kuyperian insight labeled “sphere sovereignty” as well as Dooyeweerd’s notion of “modal aspects” are still the core ideas that guide me. I am also predestinarian. But I tend to be an independent thinker, always have been. So I have folded a lot into my Reformed faith. I grew up in a Pentecostally minded home missions plant and have spent a long time coming to understand --this is my opinion-- that what people who dove into the Pentecostal movement were looking for was in fact the kinds of things that should be looked for in the mystical tradition. That is probably the biggest difference. The other criticism of Kuyperianism is I would argue that he is still too optimistic about liberalism (as is Ellul for that matter) even if they are critical of the excesses of the “revolutionary” thinking of the French Revolution. Many of them still believed in democratic ideas, the market and notions like human rights, they just rejected the atheism of the revolution.
Even though I have strong opinions and am confident in my judgements, I have always been one to take good insights wherever I find them and fold them into my thinking.
One thing I do do, though, is read a lot of scripture and have always had a knack (God given gift?) for understanding texts, especially the biblical text. I try to take scripture seriously in what it actually says. Even though I have, based on the witness of scripture, and historical understanding, found the doctrines of a closed canon and sola scriptura to be unbiblical and philosophically/theologically dangerous ideas, the scriptures are still for me the core witness of God’s revelation, our anchor. If I part from doctrinaire Reformed teaching, I usually do so for reasons of biblical teaching.
Does this mean that the Reformers were not biblical? No. It’s just that they were creatures of their time and with distance sometimes we can see things of them that they could not see for themselves. For example, the Reformation was a kind of past utopianism (RETVRN 1.0) in that their intent was to break with the current corrupt order, sweep it away, and restore the pure gospel of the apostolic age. It can’t be done. In this sense, the Reformation is the beginning of the revolutionary era. In that regard, if we question the revolutionary era, it’s ok to question the Reformation as Protestants. I think more of this needs to be done.
A long answer to say in some ways I am kind of an odd guy out and always have been and have never really cleanly fit into any box. I have always been one who put together his own intellectual map. Right now I am deep diving Ellul but once his insights have been incorporated, I will move on to to incorporate other worthwhile thinkers.
That said, personally, ever since I stepped away from ministry it’s been a time of preparation for me. I sense God will be shifting things to a time of action. What my role in God’s work will be I don’t know, but I sense God is doing something big and I will have a part, big or small who knows, but things are starting to happen. It’s exciting.
Thank you for the taking the time to write this reply. Very helpful. I'm as vanilla Reformed as they come but I'm also very appreciative of Ellul the more I read him. I'm trying to figure out where he provides helpful critique and where he needs charitable critique. Your writing has helped me immensly as I think through these things. Thank you.
Oh, and if you're interested, my seminary professor, Doug Kelly, always did a great job of engaging with the broader church—patristics, desert fathers, and modern EO folks. You might find his three-volume systematics interesting.
You’re welcome!
Thanks!