Wes calls this common area between believers and non-believers “The Critical Zone“. As I listen to Wes, it makes me think about those of you watching these clips each week on Recycle Your Faith. I would guess that a lot of you fit into this “critical zone”. Would you describe yourself this way? Why or why not?
Updating…
Dr. Wes Hurd founded McKenzie Study Center and is a full-time tutor at Gutenberg College. Some of his recent art can be viewed at weshurd.com.
Yes and yes! As a person who has been in the ‘asking questions’ realm for years, I appreciate the illustration that bridges the (perceived) non- believer and believer stalemate. As (almost) 8 of 10 people identify themselves as Christian, I choose to engage people *as if* they are Christian – there is no question whether they’re ‘in’ or ‘out’; they are not a project, more aptly, there are simply shades of gray. This is a helpful posture that encourages dialog, and is always more hopeful on the path to peace, and greater understanding of how one might live to reflect one’s beliefs. Rather than polar opposites, the ‘critical zone’ also communicates how very close in proximity we truly are, no matter where we find ourselves.
No.
I haven’t found the lack of permission to seek truth of which Wes speaks. There is a lack of permission to impose truth on others, but that doesn’t seem to be about what Wes is talking.
Donna–I hope you won’t mind me saying that I’m guessing you meant “Americans” rather than “people”, in “As (almost) 8 of 10 people identify themselves as Christians”. Am I hearing you correctly?
I read the first quarter of the linked article, and I’m intrigued by the way in which embracing postmodernity has been mostly a very positive experience for me, while it sounds like Wes’s experience of it has been mostly negative.
Indeed Benjamin, I intended to qualify that reference as ‘Americans’, rather than ‘people’…must’ve been speaking out of my ethnocentric default. With regard to Wes’s mostly negative experience with postmodernity vs your mostly positive, I’m wondering if the difference could be that a negative experience would be experienced when one chooses to be thinking as a postmodern, but remains in a conservative/evangelical bubble as opposed to extricating oneself from that stream, and moving on to find a more likeminded community, thus a more positive experience?
Donna,
perhaps. But it sounds like Wes is strongly choosing to *not* think as a postmodern–that instead he is choosing to believe that postmodernity is inherently profoundly negative. At least that was what I heard when reading the linked article.
Hey Donna & Benjamin! For what it’s worth – does it really matter whether Wes has positive or negative feelings toward postmodernity? What stood out to me in this clip was Wes’ emphasis on dialog. Perhaps his ambiguity pertaining to postmodernity was an attempt to keep the spotlight on dialog and not focus so much on differences in opinion? I can say that in my time visiting Wes I felt very comfortable to talk openly and candidly with him. Since my thinking/approach is fairly “postmodern”, I’m led to think that Wes either doesn’t “believe that postmodernity is inherently profoundly negative” OR he does believe that, but was able to participate in dialog without shutting me down. Either way, it was a fun and interesting visit. I wonder if some of his other clips would be a little more revealing, guess we’ll just have to wait and see:-)
Craig,
that’s extremely kewl that you had such a brilliant time with Wes. I love people like that who don’t try to shut one down.
Sorry I perhaps didn’t do “dialogue, not debate”.
I guess I would like to ask some questions of Wes:
How do you feel about the “heavy dose” of relativism you describe?
Is it possible to be a “thinking” person, and not be seeking “truth”? Do you know any such people?
Benjamin,
Not exactly sure what you’re asking regarding what I think about “heavy dose of relativism”. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks.
I do believe people can be gifted, nimble thinkers and yet profoundly skeptical about finding truth. Because of this thick skepticism, they would not describe themselves as “looking for truth”. I believe I have studied and dialogued with people who love to think and, in general, are interested in finding what they believe is “the truth”. We all tend to shy away from “truth” that touches on or reveals the lack in our personal moral and spiritual condition. Though striving to believe the gospel and be a believer I know I have to fight my own corrupt tendencies to resist truth and find comfort in truth that is “more convenient”.
I have been intending to “thicken” my description of what I am calling the Zone. I hope to get to it sometime soon. In general though I have found many of the insights from Kierkegaard, Husserl, Peter Berger, Michael Polanyi and George Steiner to be very helpful.
Here’s one of my favorites from Steiner:
“Plato, Aristotle, Duns Scotus, and Aquinas are master-builders of words, constructing around reality great edifices of statement, definition, and discrimination. They operate with modes of argument that differ from those of the poet [artist]; but they share with the poet the assumption that words gather and engender responsible apprehensions of the truth.” (from Language and Silence)
I really like what Wes is saying here – I identify with the group he entitled ‘thinking Christians asking questions’ who are ostracised in the church. Many of my good friends could be defined within one (or maybe a kind of squiggly both) of his ostracised categories. I’ve thought about what connects us all, and find Wes’ analysis inspiring. I wouldn’t use the ‘truth’ language he uses – more that we’re all coming from similar paradigms, despite the different systems, nomenclature, historical assumptions surrounding the language and perspectives we have. It is lovely to find open community, and to be free from this having to be defined by believing the same way. For me, this is part of the gift of post modernity.
Thanks, Wes and Craig, for this discussion!
Bens, in response to your ‘Is it possible to be a thinking person and not seeking truth?’, a resounding YES! And indeed, I do know such people. I think ‘truth’ language can be a little limiting, in that, whether or not ‘truth’ is a concept we ascribe to, we can’t ever really know anything, so it’s only academic and not life-ish and experiential to talk about truth. And that’s where the church can become dogmatic and dishonest, in pretending to have a monopoly on ‘truth’, when really all of us humans are shrouded in delicious, enigmatic, un-knowing mystery – and that’s something that can bring us together, whatever our beliefs. I like that!
Wes,
thank you for responding. I just wanted to pop in to say I’m going to respond–I haven’t left the thread. I’m just crazy busy right now with moving into a new house and such. Soonish, I promise =)
Wes,
re: “heavy dose …” I think I just meant to ask if the work “heavy” in this context has the same negative connotation to you as it does to me?
Do I hear you correctly to be saying that you believe that you have a lack in your personal moral or spiritual condition, and that you tend to shy away from contemplating that belief? If so, why do you believe that? And why do you tend to shy away from contemplating it?
Yes, “heavy relativism” here is intended to mean that variety of relativism that dismisses personal moral, ethical responsibility.
Yes, I have a “lack” in my moral / spiritual condition. I believe we all do… as described in the gospel and Jesus’ teaching. That’s all I meant by that remark. My view is that if we don’t understand our own inner moral spiritual “entropy’s” then we don’t really understand our need for mercy.
I don’t want to use this chat to promote my own work…but FYI, here’s another little essay that might reveal something of my attitude toward this stuff.
Wes,
that’s really interesting. Relativism has greatly increased my ability to respond, rather than diminished it.
What is “inner spiritual moral entropy”? I’m trying to figure out what that means working backward from “entropy”, by which I mean energy which is no longer accessible/useful. I had a lot of internal energy which was unaccessible/unusable-by-me for quite a long while. It was in the process of recognizing that I can mostly make-up-my-own-truth that I became increasingly able to reclaim/make-use-of that energy in positive ways. I don’t look at that whole situation as my having had a “lack”–I rather tend to see it as my continuing to use a system of thinking/being which had worked brilliantly at one point but which no longer worked so well. Does that touch on what you are talking about at all?
The link to your essay didn’t work. Why don’t you want to use this chat to promote your own work?
By “moral / spiritual entropy” I was attempting to allude to the same fact about the human condition that Jesus, I believe, was referencing and pointing out when he said something to the effect of: “its not what goes into a man that corrupts him, but what comes out of a man.” By moral entropy I meant the human fact of failing to be morally beautiful as Jesus was. We try to be good and our capacity to be truly good fails us.
Hmmmm. . . . that link didn’t work? Try this one:
there are several little essays by me at this site. Anyone reading this who is interested could find a few short writings on a variety of topics several of which, I think, would reveal the spirit behind my words.