If you can, get hold of a book called "Chaos" by James Gleick. It's a history of the development of chaos theory, and reads like what the history of the emerging church will be.
Before there was chaos theory there were sets of problems which people ignored because they'd been trained to ignore (just like Christians are trained to ignore certain sets of questions. Freud apparently said that the church trains its people to ask only the questions it can answer.). Experimenters would notice slight variations in their observed data - "noise" - which wasn't supposed to be there. Theoreticians work in a perfect world in which there isn't any noise, so they could simply ignore it. The noise was, it was thought, simply an indication of the presence of some annoying un-eliminable factors, like friction or air resistance, or slightly imperfect equipment.
However, a few crazies on the edge of the accepted way of doing things decided to investigate - in many cases on their own for many years, only slowly meeting others who were doing the same thing. This took decades and lots of work, from American cotton price fluctuations over 100 years to weather patterns to intermittent line noise...people buried within their disciplines were coming across the same sort of problem expressed in different ways. Very few people were doing cross-disciplinary work and those that were began to see a pattern (this is why we must not just look to theologians for our theological answers).
Slowly the momentum built until suddenly one day a critical mass of scientific opinion was reached and *poof* chaos theory was the new exciting thing. Scientists were pulling out incredibly simple experiments to play with basic questions, like determining the onset of turbulence (like a simple water wheel...slowly turn up the volume of water coming into the system and at some point turbulence sets in and the rotation of the wheel actually reverses - in non-predictable "chaotic" ways). They found out that chaotic systems could be created by using narrowing down the amount of variables in a system to just 3. Simple causes had complex effects, completely undermining the Newtonian physics of "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Phsyics had to be divided into "classical physics" and "new physics" (and of course quantum mechanics had a large part to play in this too, with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle showing that there is no such thing as an objective observer, a fundamental assumption of the old physics).
Then Mandlebrot (who solved mathematical problems by constructing a picture of the problem in his head and then playing with it until it felt right...definitey the wrong way of doing maths - but it worked!) discovered fractals and again a whole new world of possibility was opened up to us. In many ways it was just the same old world, but now it looked fresh...and full of exciting potential. Lines of zero length but infinitely many points (the Cantor set). The Lorenz attractor signified a shape of pure disorder but signaled a new kind of order. The (seemingly paradoxical) stable chaos in the red spot of Jupiter. The length of the boundary around a Koch snowflake tends towards infinity, yet its surface area remains less than the area of circle drawn around the snowflake. The length of a coastline is not an absolute value, but depends upon the size of the measuring tool used. The discovery of nonlinearity, meaning the act of playing the game changes the rules of the game. Scientists began to see that the way science is set up determines the answers it gets (echoes of the Freud quote above).
Chaos theory changed the very landscape of physics and science.
This is the future we have ahead of us in the emerging church conversation! Pete Rollins talks about the potential the emerging church conversation has to change the very architecture of western Christianity. Unfortunately it means being called crazy by the majority of the Christian community, who know better. Perhaps we'll even be called heretics. It means possibly long solo journeys with little encouragement, and wondering if somewhere along the line we've lost the plot. And times of working on things when nothing changes or is discovered...lost in the desert. But the task is worth it, especially through the dark and impossible times.
Perhaps you know a few crazies...and maybe you're one youself! As the Apple Mac ad says: "Here's to the crazy ones."
So a toast to all who think they've lost their mind, who are straining for a new way of being a Christian community in this new rainbow world, who have played in the old, classical world and have discovered - or been pushed to discover - something...something which changes everything in unpredictable ways. Someday we'll look back and it'll make sense - just like life, which can only be understood backwards but which must be lived forwards.
Cheers!
Technorati Tags: chaos theory, Emerging Church, fractals, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Mandlebrot, Pete Rollins
Comments
be brave, be very brave
When Chaos first came out in the 90's I immediately opposed it based on the assumption that the truth was "absolute" and that "order" was the ultimate reality of G-d's cosmos.
I tried to read it then and gave up, too hard. But in about 2000 I read Gleicks "Faster: The accelaration of just about everything" which was 10 times easier and a brilliant continuation/update of what Alvin Toffler started with his "Future Shock" in the 70's.
Then as I started getting in on the Emergent thing, as well as having been introduced to Matthew Fox's radical vision of the inclusiveness of all things (man, all religious traditions and the universe being intimately connected).
This lead to acquiring Lynne McTaggarts "The Field" (meaning the underlying "Zero Point Field" which unifies all energy) which shows how science and religion are beginning to converge after about 400 years of divergence based on Enlightenment thinking especially Newton and Descartes. So I reread Chaos as a primer to The Field.
Science is not really my thing - I am an artist and liturgist - but I am enriched having seen its connection to my life afresh.
I guess we all can see that this stuff is HEAVY. Anyone reading this, don't be put off if you don't get it, its very difficult. But please, ask the Chaos Dog questions, even if they are very basic. Be brave in this brave new world.
And so Roger, your exceptional insight also results in great joy for me, as I continue to break down false barriers, go with the chaotic flow, and move towards the Oneness of all things, presided over, I believe, by Christ.
Fox
Hey Nic, i've been thinking of getting Matthew Fox's "Original Blessing" - is it any good?
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Original Blessing
Hi Stray
Well you are asking the converted. It's one of the 5 most powerful books I have read in the last 30 years.
I totally recommend it. But speaking as a Charismatic Evangelical, you will have to be theologically brave; it will challenge the fundamental structures of the Orthodoxy we have inherited.
When I first read it a year ago, I was stunned. It was everything I had been searching for for 10-15 years. Based on the power of the encounter, I vowed not to read Fox again until I had read several of his sources first.
So I read Meister Eckhart, Hildegaard von Bingen, and Teilhard de Chardin first. Then I carried on with other Fox books. They do not disappoint. But you need to be aware that he has a very painful excommunication to deal with, so he can be a little too strident against his ex-church, and especially Ratzinger (now Benedict, the current pope), his inquisitor. Hey, no-one is perfect!
I'd be delighted to have your views on it. I may even have a spare copy for you if you can't get one.
Awesome
He he, would love to know the other five :)
Hmmm... interesting references there. I know Richard Foster quotes a lot of Hildegaard von Bingen and Meister Eckhart (If I'm not mistaken.)
Thanks Nic. You rock :) I see that loot.co.za (the best bookstore ever) is able to get it for me :) Thanks for conversing with me here, and being open about your wrestling too :)
If I could be so bold to ask - are you able to provide a quick summary of how you see the concept of original / ancestral sin? I'm currently trying to resolve this doctrine in my mind. My healing post has something to do with this doctrine too, I'm sure of it.
If you want, you're more than welcome to post your views at my latest blog entry. It may give readers something to think about... This is a doctrine I'm taking some time to resolve, as it influences many of the other doctrines. You can view some of my struggle there about this doctrine, and why I have a feeling that 'original sin' as it's currently taught in the mainstream may be a little off track. One of the elder's at my church (and a good friend) has told me that what I see as 'original sin' or 'sinful nature' may not be exactly what some of the theologians (like Wesley etc.) are referring to. So, it could just be the way I have interpreted the teaching more than the teaching itself... have you wrestled with this doctrine?
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Original Blessing
FYI, a new project related to Original Blessing that might be of interest to you and your readers:
http://www.originallyblessed.com
Peace,
Matt Henry, D.Min
Thanks Matt
Thanks Matt,
The address doesn't work though... did you mean www.originallyblessed.org?
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
stinky, smelly theology
What I have wrestled with is the Doctine of Hell - called "Eternal Conscious Torment" by some, I call it "Everlasting Punative Separation".
I think it relates fairly strongly to the Doctrine of Original Sin. Origins vs Destiny, and how G-d is involved in that.
Fox, strangely, does not have a lot to say on Hell, but a lot on our First State - Sinful or Blessed?
Right now, original sin seems to be a very henious piece of manipulation to me. I don't want to avoid statements like "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", - thats true - but I'd like to deconstruct the theologies around this: where did they originate and who benefitted / benefits from them? And who are their slaves?
Stray, perhaps we should consider synchroblogging on this, if you think there is interest from a greater group of people. If its your lone search, then thats fine, lets not force things. It doesn't have to be anytime soon.
If its not taking you too far from your enquiry, take a look at my thoughts on Universal Restoration (about 6 posts from the last year).
I shall look at your offering forthwith.
Synchro
Synchroblogging might be quite a cool idea - just not sure how it's done! :) Would be happy to, though, could bring a lot to the conversation!
Will definately read your post on universal restoration. It may surprise you, but I spent about two years trying to formulate what I thought of the doctrine of hell as well. I have rejected the notion of eternal conscious torment somewhat, and found Biblical Universalism (perhaps the same as what you've posted... will see) to be quite favourable. However, Biblical studies of concepts and words, plus just trying to feel what the Spirit is saying, and general wrestling, seems to have led me more towards eventual annihilation / obliteration of the wicked. That doctrine can also seem a little unloving, unless you see it in a very inclusive light (inclusive as to who lives for eternity in the new earth...) However, I am still searching :)
Sheez, gots lots of reading to do - with you, Roger and Envoy, there's a heck of a lot here to take into consideration. Thanks!
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
How to Synchroblog, lesson 1A
OK (I am making this up as I go along as usual).
I'd say that the optimum is between 5 and 10 articles. I've done synchro with almost 30 and as my offering was last on the list it was only the crazies like Envoy who read it - after about 15 articles you might as well be reading the New Yorker.
Take a look at our current offering called "Moving Toward Worship".
Post new comment