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.

Ah yes more radical than “typical” expressions of Christian theology- I suppose though (given that you give an example of  subustitutionary atonement) that by typical you mean post-enlightenment mostly protestant (sometimes Roman Catholic) and probably American expressions of Christian Theology.   I hold to a theology that is more Radical than the above as well.  Though, I don’t think that “typical’ expression is very faithful to the tradition.

It is a bit humorous to me that in saying that you agree with my assessment of protestant ecclesiology that you give me both a protestant definition of the church that requires the dichotomy between institution and “sum of those who claim to act as Christians.” I try to avoid the word “institution” since it tends to have inorganic and impersonal connotations.  But I would say that “sum of those who claim to act as Christians” is an inadequate understanding of the Church. I say we must find someway to say more and say that the Church is a personal and organic “institution“in historical and spiritual continuity with Jesus and the first apostles. or something like that.  But getting into that we may be getting away from your post above. 

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. 

I understand your meaning, to translate into Pastoral Counselling speak - “trying to not be like ones father” is to focus on the qualities one disliked in ones father and psychologically almost ensures one will repeat the pattern one wishes to break.   I do see your point see it all about me in Christian circles attempts to be less individualistic have not broken our patterns of “individualism”

I currently am of the opinion that asking the question of the meaning and ontology of the Church is about a type of relationality.

Depending on the definition of  “Christian” I think i’d agree with you that our goal shouldn’t be to retain a “Christian” identity.  But I think we may diverge or get tangled up in definitions, and that I think ecclesial orthodoxy properly understood is not only radical but answers a number of problems and questions that keep appearing within Western Protestant Christian matrix.

An identity that is truly an ecclesial identity would be as you described, for in Christ God is about the work of Reconciliation and repairing broken relations.

Where we may diverge, or at least a question I have from our as of now very brief virtual encounter is whether separation can be avoided even in this losing identities reconcilation of forced separation and healing of broken relations?  I say this because it does seem to me that there are powers and human persons who do not desire personhood so understood, and in fact may be opposed to personhood so understood. This might be one way to talk of sin and the fall.

Also, as you might have noticed I am not only comfortable with traditional categories of the Church and Christian theology but take them to be quite radical. You might take issue with that, which I would welcome if you do.

As for ecclesiology while Moltmann is interesting and I have engaged him in the development of my own search for the Church, I think his theology never actually answers the claims of the ancient church and their heirs in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  That is I have already concluded that all Protestant ecclessiology is wanting.  That said I have not been convinced by Rome or the Eastern Orthodox.  Which leaves me in a space of loss of identity.  That said now knowing Tony Jones is engage Multmann I am much more interested in his new book.

I understand your meaning, to translate into Pastoral Counselling speak - “trying to not be like ones father” is to focus on the qualities one disliked in ones father and psychologically almost ensures one will repeat the pattern one wishes to break.   I do see your point see it all about me in Christian circles attempts to be less individualistic have not broken our patterns of “individualism”

I currently am of the opinion that asking the question of the meaning and ontology of the Church is about a type of relationality.

Depending on the definition of  “Christian” I think i’d agree with you that our goal shouldn’t be to retain a “Christian” identity.  But I think we may diverge or get tangled up in definitions, and that I think ecclesial orthodoxy properly understood is not only radical but answers a number of problems and questions that keep appearing within Western Protestant Christian matrix.

An identity that is truly an ecclesial identity would be as you described, for in Christ God is about the work of Reconciliation and repairing broken relations.

Where we may diverge, or at least a question I have from our as of now very brief virtual encounter is whether separation can be avoided even in this losing identities reconcilation of forced separation and healing of broken relations?  I say this because it does seem to me that there are powers and human persons who do not desire personhood so understood, and in fact may be opposed to personhood so understood. This might be one way to talk of sin and the fall.

Also, as you might have noticed I am not only comfortable with traditional categories of the Church and Christian theology but take them to be quite radical. You might take issue with that, which I would welcome if you do.

As for ecclesiology while Moltmann is interesting and I have engaged him in the development of my own search for the Church, I think his theology never actually answers the claims of the ancient church and their heirs in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  That is I have already concluded that all Protestant ecclessiology is wanting.  That said I have not been convinced by Rome or the Eastern Orthodox.  Which leaves me in a space of loss of identity.  That said now knowing Tony Jones is engage Multmann I am much more interested in his new book.

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.