The Matt Scott - Latest Comments

Re: I don’t want to change your beliefs, I want to help you believe them

Andrew Martin — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:15:20 -0000

Hey.

You expressed well in the middle there something that's bothered me for a while: people often express belief as a matter of choice, as if choosing to believe in God, say, is like choosing a shirt to wear. But that is experientially wide of the mark: the believer cannot, as a pure act of will, simply stop believing. I guess it works the other way around as well. Intellectual assent might shape one's experienced belief over time, but it is not the same thing.

But then I get the argument as far as "This, therefore, is not a belief in god, but a belief in the Bible." After that, I can't quite follow the last two substantive paragraphs. If you feel like fleshing it out some more, that would be the place to start.

Re: Identity and Responsibility: The Irony of Self-Labeling

themattscott — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:13:15 -0000

My apologies for taking four days to respond; the semester started last week, and I decided to spend the past weekend doing nothing (since I won't have that opportunity again for 16 weeks).

Regarding the necessity of separation (with the assumption that I've interpreted your question correctly): I do not think separation is a necessity in any relationship, but that it will happen in almost every relationship. I fully acknowledge that many Christians would wholly reject my assumption of the Christian identity; but I hope that I will continually work toward deeper relations with them and break that separation.

Regarding the peoples and powers that would prefer to remain in a state that happily dehumanizes (to return to the original terminology), and would accept their own dehumanization in the eyes of others: I would say that it is precisely these people who need to understand the fullness of humanity. I think that working with a concept of personhood/humanity that is anything less than a holistic view will create a very stunted level of growth in that individual.

I readily agree that Christian theology is radical. But in my comment I meant along the lines of radical in comparison to typical expressions of Christian Theology (i.e. I would not define substitutionary atonement as "Radical").

I also agree that protestant ecclesiology is wanting (and any ecclesiology that views itself as protestant will be wanting in my eyes, if by no other means than that it asserts an ecclesiology for something other than the Church-catholic). Really, ecclesiology is a field in which I have never taken much interest; while I have done a little reading about it lately, I am still very much a novice. Personally, I'm less concerned with the practices of the Church as an institution, and tend to view the Church simply as the sum of those who claim to act as Christians. Although again, I need to spend some more time ruminating on the subject.

Re: Identity and Responsibility: The Irony of Self-Labeling

themattscott — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 02:50:31 -0000

Larry,
I'm wondering if you'd be willing to flesh out what you mean by individuation "through the ultimate identity of Christ." Specifically, what do you mean by "ultimate identity"? Is that speaking eschatologically, or more along the lines of our final identity resting in Christ?

One note about rejecting individualism to allow individuation: I have found that rejecting an action that I have, or could, commit tends to lead to me committing the very action I set out to reject. Refocusing, however, is a far easier way to change which actions I am prone to commit. For example, I spent many years trying not to be a jerk to people and failing. It wasn't until I began to try to be loving/kind/charitable that I stopped acting like a jerk (so often). Hopefully that example helps clarify my meaning. In this case, curing "individualism" won't come from trying to be less "individualistic," but from trying to be more relational.

Anyway, my theology (and Žižek’s) is a bit more radical than what I've presented in this post. One of my upcoming posts will undoubtedly deal with this topic, but I'll say a bit about it briefly. I think the goal should not be to retain a "Christian" identity; instead, we should find ever deepening ways of losing identities, which act as reinforced assertions of separation between ourselves and others. Again, if individuated, then there is no loss of actual personhood, nor of belief, but a loss of forced separation and broken relations.

On the topic of ecclesiology, I'm interested to read Jones' latest book about Emergent/Relational ecclesiology. I have a feeling that it'll be an ecclesiological position that reduces the focus on internal divisions within the Church, provided my interpretation of Moltmann's position is akin to Tony's interpretation.

Re: Determining the Neighbor--Who is it That I Shall I Love?

Darrell Grizzle — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:27:14 -0000

Does this mean I should love hipsters too? :o)

Re: Determining the Neighbor--Who is it That I Shall I Love?

Jeff C Straka — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:52:12 -0000

This "On Being" podcast speaks directly into this conversation. Definitely worth a listen: http://being.publicradio.or...

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

themattscott — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 03:23:41 -0000

I think there's a couple points that need to be addressed before I can really answer that question.

I don't think that we should "make it a point to include every voice," but that we should make it a point to include precisely those voices we desire to exclude (and that every voice should be allowed the space to speak). This enables the creation of a pluralism, which is not a bad thing. In a true pluralism, not only do I allow every Other the space to hold her/his own belief and make truth claims, I must also allow myself to judge the other's claims--not in a judgmental way, like "that opinion is terribly stupid" but as an assessment of your perspective on the truth claim itself, a la "Matt, I believe pure inclusivity is an impossibility in reality." The common idea of pluralism (which I heartily oppose) posits that each opinion is equally valid, leaving claims like "We are all just flying purple fish dreaming that we are human" just as 'valid' as "Whatever we are, we have no choice but to act in the world." This outlook allows for neither change nor growth, and instead instills the particularistic system (fueled by heterogeneity) that you mentioned. A real pluralism creates discussion driven not by the assertion each particular belief, but by the engagement and relation of every belief with every other belief.

This allows for new understanding, creativity, and (I believe) possibilities for the world. To concretize that thought: If I allow someone to express their beliefs that GLBTQ people are sinners and same-sex love is wrong, and if I actually listen to what that person is saying, I can begin to understand why they hold that view. In seeking to understand the other, I find new ways to make myself understandable. Beyond the GLBTQ subject, another example I frequently encounter because of pluralism is that my own view is strengthened. If I allow others to judge my belief and provide them the space to talk to me about those judgments, then I encounter things about my beliefs that I couldn't grasp on my own. Essentially, without encouraging those that disagree with me to engage with me, I miss out on understandings that would be otherwise inaccessible to me.

As far as "group identity" goes, I think what one seeks in an identity is vitally important to what the group will look like. Really, I don't believe that we should be placing our identities in groups, and if I am asked to label myself, I attempt to make the label something that eschews actually using that label as my identity (i.e. I am an atheist-Christian--a seeming contradiction in terms that requires someone to actually engage with me to find out about my belief, similarly to the term you used instead of Christian a few years ago).

Letting go of identity, I think the important question is, "what is the purpose of the group" (what 'common goals' are we aiming for, in your words). To me, being united in a common goal actually makes inclusivity easier (and achieving the goal is, in turn, easier because of this inclusivity). Most, if not all, groups come together to create a better world. Groups that fly planes into buildings do so because they think it will help create a better world; as do groups that pass out gospel tracts to random strangers, or groups that donate every moment of free time to working with the poor. Where these groups go wrong and end up harming the world (rather than achieving their desire to better it) stems, I believe, in the lack of embracing voices who would challenge their belief. In defining what opinion is acceptable within a group, you pre-determine the course that every discussion will take.

The post that I was supposed to post today (well, it's after midnight, so yesterday) speaks to another problem that we encounter by excluding those who we have deemed "unacceptable" to allow in our circles. It's actually written, I just need to make some final edits/clarifications, it should be up by the end of the day tomorrow (Sunday).

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

themattscott — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 02:29:40 -0000

I understand that in response to Gregg's question, "are you back in your old church?" it may seem like I am not actually actively engaged in the very thing that I am asking of others, but enacting this philosophy is something that I attempt to carry out in every aspect of my life--not just in relation to the Church. However, even if I am a hypocrite, I don't think that actually matters to the message itself. If you don't believe I am acting accordingly, then challenge me to do so, but don't let my own failures dicate your own action in this manner.

And please understand how much respect I have for you in how long you continued working at your church. I could see the frustration you were feeling in the early days of the cohort, and I found (and still find) the fact that you kept working at the church a challenge to my own desire to "abandon ship."

As for my "ideal," that term seems to imply that my faith in love/inclusion is unrealistic. I understand that feeling, and in response I turn (again) to Martin Luther King Jr.:

"Certainly these are great words, words lifted to cosmic proportions. And over the centuries, many persons have argued that this is an extremely difficult command. Many would go so far as to say that it just isn’t possible to move out into the actual practice of this glorious command. They would go on to say that this is just additional proof that Jesus was an impractical idealist who never quite came down to earth. So the arguments abound. But far from being an impractical idealist, Jesus has become the practical realist. The words of this text glitter in our eyes with a new urgency. Far from being the pious injunction of a utopian dreamer, this command is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. Yes, it is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies."
What likely comes across as my "pious"ness stems, I believe, not from an insistence that you've gotten it wrong, but from a personal fear that I too may hit the point where all of the hurt becomes too much. I understand the need to pull back and rest (and recover from the hurt), but I hope that I am challenged to linger in that resting space no longer than necessary.

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

Jeff C Straka — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:53:38 -0000

I would add that I do not desire the "death" of Church - in fact the way I now see it, it is impossible! If we are simply awake to the Flow of the Cosmic Dance (Richard Rohr has a wonderful Trinitarian theology that I can finally embrace), you ARE in the Body. And this Church can be found everywhere, if we remain awake to it. I find Church when I hike in nature or encounter wildlife off my porch. I find church when I eat a meal with the women at the extension recovery shelter. I find church when I hang out and have an Iftar meal with my Muslim friends. I find church when I enjoy the Eucharist of beer and brats with my cohort friends. I find church when I am part of a group from a queer-inclusive church that meets to discuss life and theology over good food and drink. Do you see my point? The institutional church has done a bang-up job of implying that THEIR group of people and THEIR sanctuary and THEIR check list of beliefs was THE church. And I will continue to throw stones at those places that hurt and exclude, but NOT as an "outsider". You cannot kick my sorry ass out of the Church! :)

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

Jeff C Straka — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:28:08 -0000

While institutions (and corporations, thanks to Mitt Romney's little sound-bite!) are comprised of people, that does NOT necessarily mean they are Human. In fact, institutions are places that will encourage the ego to emerge and flourish. It is very easy for de-humanizing actions to take place under the safety of numbers, an environment where NO one seems willing to accept blame, as they don't see their individual actions being consequential (BP and Rupert Murdock come to mind as recent examples). I really see this phenomena of "mob mentality" to be the reason that Jesus rejected not only Empire, but religious institutions. Jesus CONSTANTLY criticized the institutionality of the Jewish religion, one that, though comprised of people, cast out or KILLED those that threatened it. Jesus AVOIDED large crowds and preferred to close-knit community of his disciples. He even resisted increasing THAT circle - he turned down Legions request to join his posse. After reading Existential Jesus (John Carroll) and then re-reading Mark through a new lens, it even became quite plausible that we have misunderstood the traditional "sending" of Peter to build an institution. If you recall the exchange, Jesus was wanting unconditional love from Peter, but the most he could offer was brotherly love. Any time something becomes an institution, power and hierarchy (ego) enter the picture, and preservation of the "brand" is the primary goal. THAT is NOT dying to self, is it?

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

D. Foster — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 07:57:30 -0000

Matt-I enjoyed this post. One thing
you're hitting on, which goes for the Church as much as Emergent, is
how people unintentionally become exclusive and unwittingly push
detractors off to the margins. I particularly like what you said
about the evolution of Emergent from “a space of support into an
institution itself.” I hadn't conceptualized it quite like that,
but that's precisely what I, as an outsider, have felt.

One idea I have trouble with is the
idea of being inclusive to all detractors. I know the context you're
speaking in is the LGBT controversy, but I think you can only take
inclusivity so far. Humans naturally organize around a group identity
that necessitates a certain a homogeneity in order for the group to
be united in a common goal(s). In order for the group to effectively
function, there have to be boundaries for what is and is not an
acceptable opinion. To make it a point to include every voice erodes
at the group identity because the discussion becomes to
particularistic, and ultimately becomes fueled by the varying
heterogeneity between the individuals rather than the common purpose
of the group. What do you think?

I don't think your post was pious, by
the way, just to add to what Cathy said above. I think it's very
fair, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions.

~Derek

Re: Killing the Institution and the System

Cathy Anderson — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:00:42 -0000

I think it is easy for you, who have not spent all of your adult life inside the church trying to change it, to cast stones at those of us who have and failed. I applaud your ideal. But it frankly ticks me off to hear you speak so piously about how I have got it wrong when you haven't done it at all. That being said, I am still thankful for your presence in my life and the way you challenge me to keep thinking and trying to be who I say I am.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Ebee — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:18:48 -0000

According to Neil Christopher, "When someone made the bold and just decision to make their dance hall
inclusive to any and every race something happened: There were some
people who still didn't agree with this decision and felt excluded by it
-- excluded because they were not on board with this new inclusivity.... By defining themselves as being inclusive, they had to make a conscious
decision to separate themselves from and make a stand against those whom
would disagree with this choice. Furthermore, they had to take steps to
protect those people they have decided to now embrace."

He also mentioned how important boundaries are. I think it's consistent with Christ's teachings to have a policy that's open to differing theologies about inclusion of LGBT, but set boundaries on (or exclude) violence, hatred, hate-speak labeling, between people of differing ideas. The Church cannot keep people from being violent, but it can set an example of how people can be civil while being honest. We as a society must also support civil protection outside the Church.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Brian Gerald — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:59:36 -0000

Neil Christopher never said we should exclude anyone. What he said was, when you make clear what the love and kingdom of God looks like (fully inclusive of LGBTQ people) some people who cannot stomach that reality will -exclude themselves-.

People excluded themselves when we started acknowledging the full humanity of people of color and of women. People STILL exclude themselves over these issues: the Presbyterian church I grew up attending split from its denomination over the ordination of women. We would never accuse the denomination of "excluding" anyone simply by affirming the value of women. The same is true when it comes to queer people. We are called by scripture to speak truth to power, to care for the least of these. Creating the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven, which includes LGBTQ people, is not exclusive. We always invite everyone, even the most rapidly anti-queer people, to join us. But we can't sacrifice LGBTQ for the comfort of their prejudice, their sin. LGBTQ are fully human, beautifully made and loved by God. To call our lives, bodies, and relationships sin is an affront to our humanity and an affront to God.

"Those... who exhort patience in the name of a false peace, are in fact supporting segregation and exploitation. They would have social peace at the expense of social and racial justice." - A. Philip Randolph, March On Washington organizer

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

lizdyer — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:52:21 -0000

Brian - That is exactly what I was thinking. The reconciliation that MLK talked about was only possible when the oppressor's stop oppressing. I do not believe that MLK ever promoted otherwise.

I am also completely on board with what Neil said (in his recent post) about inclusion not meaning "anything goes" and that those who want to exclude end up excluding themselves from an inclusive community. I do think I need to do better at loving the oppressors but I do not think loving them means I welcome them as oppressors into an inclusive community. If we do "that" I think over time what we will see is that our "inclusive" community will be mostly (if not completely) made up of the most privileged (white, straight, male?) You say "MLK would not ever compromise the basic humanity of oppressed and marginalized people" and I say "hear, hear" and "neither will I"

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Rachel Swan — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:44:16 -0000

I just want to shout amen, huzzah and right on. Thank you for giving voice to my heart.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Dsrtrosy — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:55:24 -0000

YES! Finally! Someone else saying what I've been saying for years. It's not us v. them. We just make ourselves into the "them" we denigrate if we can exclude ANYONE. On any basis. Period.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Brian Gerald — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:35:45 -0000

I'm a bit confused because the MLK quotation you posted contradicts the message of your commentary. Specifically,

"We’ll help those of us who have been the victims of oppression, and those of us who have been the victims of injustices in the old order, to go into the new order with the proper attitude, an attitude of reconciliation"

Yes, we will love. And yes we will love so tirelessly that eventually we will wear you down with our capacity to love. And yes, in the end it will be a double victory because _we will have won you too_.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was perfectly clear what reconciliation looks like: there will be enough room for the oppressor because they will leave their oppressive ways behind. There is always enough room for the former oppressor, their is never enough room for their oppression.

Neil Christopher does not say that we must exclude people but rather he says if they cannot stomach the idea of equality, we must be willing to let them exclude themselves. MLK would not ever compromise the basic humanity of oppressed and marginalized people.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Andrew Martin — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:01:01 -0000

A wise man said "I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". It cuts every which way.

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

John Mark Wiggers — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:51:33 -0000

Excellent points made. We see many demands for exclusion of the exclusive lately. Can Tom's shoes provide shoes and presence to Focus on the Family without getting rebuffed? Apparently not. I see first hand how the exclusion of more conservative voices only hardens their resolve and the sense that they are battling some "agenda."

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

chamblee54 — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:16:42 -0000

I may or may not get into this conversation later. My comment now is about the medium, rather than the message.
Darrel made a comment at Facebook, with a link to this post. I come here and see the same comment at the blog. This is the right way to do this. While facebook comments and "likes" are appreciated, it means much more to a blogger to leave your comment at the blog.
chamblee54

Re: On (False) Inclusivity

Darrell Grizzle — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:46:21 -0000

I love what Matt has written! It bothers me as a gay Christian when I see others in the LGBT community attempting to exclude certain speakers from certain gatherings - or when I see Christian leaders attacking each other for not being "inclusive enough" (i.e., welcoming but not "celebrating" gay people) or for being "too inclusive" (i.e., friendly to people who take an anti-gay stand). A new form of left-wing fundamentalism is indeed developing in progressive and Emergent circles, and it disturbs me just as much as any right-wing fundamentalism does.

Re: Musings

themattscott — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:11:48 -0000

I should definitely read it. Especially considering it's been sitting on my bookshelf waiting for me since the beginning of last semester.

Re: Musings

Marika Rose — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:29:06 -0000

That's pretty much exactly Ernst Bloch's argument in 'Atheism in Christianity'. You should check it out.

Re: Immigration and the early Israelites

Kyle Robinson — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:11:40 -0000

An interesting and thought-provoking post. I get the feeling you've genuinely given this subject more thought than most open-borders advocates have. But still, I can't even remotely find myself supporting more immigration, and certainly not any more illegal immigration.

The drain on taxpayer-funded resources is an issue for more, but that takes second fiddle to what I feel is the bigger problem: cultural decay. American culture is fundamentally based on the values of protestant England and western Europe's renaissance/enlightenment ideals. The idea of the "melting pot" was originated by a Jewish-English immigrant who didn't live in the US, and has precious little evidence to support the idea. When you allow vast numbers of people from another culture into your country, that's going to change the fabric of your own.

If a bunch of people from, say, Scandinavia, were to immigrate to the US, this would have minimal impact on American society because a country like Sweden has similar cultural values to that of the US. But a country like Somalia or Mexico? Huge difference. When you allow limited immigration, the immigrants have to adapt to living in their new culture, and change their way of life. For example, I live in Japan. Surely you would agree that it would be unreasonable of me to demand Japan bend over backwards to accommodate my Western, individualist mindset. I don't complain about having to bow, sort garbage, drive on the left side of the road, or the lack of centralized heating and cooling. Instead, I make the effort to adapt myself to Japanese culture and live as quietly and un-obstructively as I can in relation to the native population.

However, when there are large communities of foreign people clustered together, this makes them much slower to change, if at all. Surely you know of how many Mexican children in American schools know little to no English in states like California. This is not always a problem: in the past, Chinese and Japanese communities formed in America. But there is a crucial different between them and modern ones from places like Mexico or Somalia: though poor by our standards, China and Japan were not third-world countries. They had sophisticated, well-developed cultures that made it easier for them to adapt to life in the US. And you cannot have a third-world country without third-worlders. And every culture is different.

Consider the Somalian immigration in the northwest US: Crime has dramatically increased as Somali gangs have caused problems in Minnesota and elsewhere. Mexico is in a state of absolute chaos. If it hasn't yet, it will spill over into the US. Latin culture is much, much different from that of the US. And there are already Mexican/mestizo nationalist activities in the US that will only increase with a bolder population. England is in an advanced state of decay, showing the negative effects of having large numbers of Muslims as Sharia law is implemented and the nation's glory days are long gone. The great irony is that as immigration increases, a cozy liberal lifestyle becomes impossible as organic grocery stores, free trade coffee shops, and other Stuff White People Like haunts are swallowed up by considerably less-civilized third-world culture that is more conservative than the most stereotypical Tea Party members.

The bottom line is that all immigrants can not and should not be allowed into whatever country they please. The US should offer hard-working, intelligent immigrants the opportunity to come to the US and add their talents to the nation, if they're willing to adapt the the culture. Letting in vast numbers of illegal immigrants is an insult to those who got here the hard, legal way. Although I didn't have an easy time getting into Japan, ultimately I respect and understand why Japan is so picky about immigration and I'm willing to play by their rules.

Now, as a Christian, I absolutely agree that on a personal level, I should be charitable and loving to everyone, even if they are illegal immigrants. I believe that you are correct in that the Bible is very clear about treating foreigners well, and American conservatives should strive to be more compassionate and less hypocritical in this respect. But personal behavior (which I believe those passages specifically address, and fits in with the ANE values of hospitality) and national policy are two totally different things. And God's provisional commands to the nation of Israel are not universal to all nations. I don't know about the anti-immigration stuff in Georgia and whether it's the right way or not - I sure don't have the answers, and I'm not going to argue about it. But unlimited, unfettered immigration will cause the ruin of the US if it is not addressed. There is simply no historical evidence I know of to suggest that allowing vast numbers of people from a foreign culture into your own country is anything but ruinous.

Re: the lackluster return of themattscott

Andrew Martin — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:14:20 -0000