Thursday, December 23, 2004

Foundationalism limits family growth

I have found that the foundations I built my thoughts upon (or local church upon, or current theology upon, or...) don't leave room for addition. Much like me home.

My "church" can't grow to include different forms, peoples, ideas, methods, etc. because we are building on the foundation that we struggled to "pour" at the beginning. So we built and built, always upwards (or renovating the lower stories). We got so high that any more additional floors would be too much, the center of gravity too high. It would take all our effort to keep the grotesquely tall structure from toppling... (small voice, "what DO you do with your time, then?")

And heaven knows we don't want to topple like that mega-church down the road! They run around from fallen piece to fallen piece convincing themselves they are still a huge, glorious [sic] structure. "Look at all these pieces!! We are obviously significant in the Kingdom!"

Then I wondered about the poor. They don't have a room. "Homeless" is now a double-entendre. My foundation doesn’t allow for this new, “liberal” expression of faith! We tried adding on before (remember that “handicap” ministry . . . whatever happened to that?) but it didn’t survive the climate.


What if we built on pillars? Then we could add, no? I could add the newly encountered Eastern Orthodox pillar to my Western, Evangelical pillar. I could have all three Western pillars: liberal action, pentecostal mystery, and conservative rationality. NOT some lame combination that ends up looking like something coming out of a Fear Factor blender. Incomplete but full-functioning pillars. With traversions. Rope bridges, hallways, swings. Unique connections to unique pillars.

Pillars big enough to build on. Build habits of love, habitats of connection, houses of worship and peace (as opposed to standing in a field of close proximity telephone polls, barely balancing on any one of them).

First thoughts - #2

Does it seem to you that current "philosophy" is more like sociology: identifying what is going on in the minds of "people?"

Why is philosophy seldom developed/used to grow people -- more than just challenge the current paradigm once. Descartes moved us and then we stopped. Why did we stop?

First thoughts - #1

Swinging on a pendulum is tiring. Perhaps there is Another Way. A bigger pendulum weight, maybe? Or more weights: one continuum with 4 weights!

Or maybe pillars. Pillars can be added where foundations are static. But both can be built upon.

Could "pillars" be akin to a combination of plurality and foundationalism? are they "multiple foundations"?