All comments

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (1 day ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (2 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (2 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (2 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (2 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (2 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (2 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (3 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (3 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (3 days ago)
more
Syndicate content

OST in Prague

Posted 12 October, 2006 - 11:49 by peter wilkinson

OST conversations continued in Prague last weekend, where Annelise and I enjoyed a very pleasant meal with paulchen, his wife and sister. The chicken roulade accompanied by a light red wine was in all respects a good choice. Emerging theology is shy of definitions and conclusions, averse to systems and summaries, but the mixture of postmodern and neomodern discussion proved entertaining. The backpackers’ hostel The Czech Inn is thoroughly to be recommended to any wishing to try it. Sir Toby’s also held out attractions, and no doubt Miss Sophie’s also - each overseen by paulchen.

Prague can hardly be described as one of Europe’s best kept secrets any more, but prices are still hovering between east and west European levels, and its mixture of gothic, baroque and art nouveau architecture is astonishingly complete and perfectly preserved. Prague captures the best of Vienna and Budapest, but without the traffic, congestion and size. It is compact and walkable just about everywhere.

The Hradcany castle looms over the town, just as in Kafka’s ‘Das Schloss’, and houses abound where Kafka was born, lived, worked, slept, ate dumplings, drank coffee and woke up one morning metamorphosed into a beetle. For hardline history addicts, this is the place to come, as it lies at the centre of European history during the 14th century especially, and tells you a great deal about European racial, economic, religious and imperial conflicts which have continued to the present day. An extraordinary city, a wonderful weekend.

No votes yet

Comments

why Prague?

by john doyle - 17/10/2006 - 20:37

What theological events took you to this place? Is there anything to report discourse-wise?

is that a tease?

by samlcarr - 17/10/2006 - 22:47

Yes, tantalisingly vague. “OST conversations continued in Prague” and “Emerging theology is shy of definitions and conclusions, averse to systems and summaries, but the mixture of postmodern and neomodern discussion proved entertaining.” are just too tantalising!

Live to serve : Serve to live

Beautiful Prague...

by Virgil - 18/10/2006 - 03:38

The only time I was in Prague I got ripped off in the subway by one of the Subway cops. It cost me 100 Deutsch Marks to get my passport back from him…ouch…dirty cops!

Beautiful city though :)

a kafkaesque prague of the soul?

by john doyle - 18/10/2006 - 10:39

I begin to suspect gnostic messages embedded in Peter’s brief verbal sketch, alluding perhaps to some mysterious cabal of theologians converging on this picturesque yet corrupt outpost of the medieval. The allusion to Kafka is the key to the riddle, alerting the, er, alert reader that everything isn’t quite what it seems. Coded phrases can be detected in the text: “best kept secrets,” “hovering between east and west,” “astonishingly complete and perfectly preserved,” “religious conflicts,” “light red wine.” And Sir Tobie and Miss Sophie — just who are these two mysterious personages, and how did they come under the dominion of the eminence grise in this affair, this “paulchen.” We await further enlightenment from our reticent guide…

looks like

by stacy - 18/10/2006 - 13:32

looks like your wrist is better.

Prague for the soul

by peter wilkinson - 19/10/2006 - 11:46

I can’t cap John’s comment. “A cabal of theologians” - what an evocative collective epithet! It was actually just a weekend break, but facilitated by paulchen, who runs the establishments mentioned. We did stray into theological territory over the meal. Otherwise I do tend to fantasise; a social event can very easily become a conference of international significance in my mind, with a bit of linguistic tweaking.

Actually, in a Kafkaesque twist, Czechs have tended to airbrush Kafka out of their literary history - a rather dark reflection, perhaps, of anti German-speaking sentiment which predates WW2, going back to Austrian Habsburg hegemony from the middle ages onwards. The state opera was built so that German-speaking frequenters could sit separately from Czechs. As a Jew, Kafka would himself have been airbrushed into Auschwitz had he not died of tuberculosis in 1924.

Sorry for not participating

by paulchen - 19/10/2006 - 12:13

Sorry for not participating earlier in the conversation and thanks, Peter, for reminding me.
As Peter mentioned, we did talk about OST, though. Not only did I find out that Andrew P. in Peter’s observation is one of the most humble persons he knows, but also that Peter is a teacher / pastor in his church! Thanks for taking us out, Peter,by the way!
We did talk about theology a bit when I was questionng whether there is something (and if yes, what it is) like the ‘foundations’ of our faith; the core; this element of a christian that can never be given up. I personally do have something like this but I doubt that there is something like this through all christian churches today; much less something that would be going through all christian churches through history. Maybe an interesting point to discuss and a discussion like this could make us a bit more humble in discovering that what we are considering ‘essential’ for our faith for sure differs from what is ‘essential’ in other churches and certainly 500 years ago.
Some theologians I know say that this was also the situation Paul found the different NT churches at: different theologies and in conflict with each other. Besides being a missionary what Paul did was to ‘unify’ all churches not under a ‘harmonious theology’, but under the ‘core’ faith that Christ was Lord.
I would be interested what others think about this…

my small (or big) foundation

by stacy - 19/10/2006 - 15:36

“I was questionng whether there is something (and if yes, what it is) like the ‘foundations’ of our faith; the core; this element of a christian that can never be given up…I would be interested what others think about this…”

i wonder a great deal about this these days. in fact it may be the single spiritual issue for me at the moment. what is faith? what is our faith? what makes a faith?

once it was an easy question, the westminster catechism of my youth, branded without question long ago. certainly it has been questioned and examined more than once in my adult life, but now this “foundation of truth” seems so cultural - this siingular way of explaining scripture, of explaining “god’s story,” so arrogant, that i find myself uncertain about not only my foundation, but the existence of any foundation at all.

i find that i am also without much of a rudder, without even the old “here’s how you search for truth” of my past, that i would say the only certain foundation i am left with is my shared experiences with the being i know as “god.” so even though it sounds half-cocked and heretical, i would have to say that for today, for me, these miraculous, intimate, inexplicable encounters with an invisible being are where my faith begins. it would seem that everything added to that is simply added.

www.theartofstory.blogspot.com

Historical narrative

by peter wilkinson - 19/10/2006 - 17:07

I don’t regard myself as being in an exclusive existential encounter with God, or Jesus as Lord; that wouldn’t make sense to me outside the story of what Jesus came to do - how he lived, died, rose again, ascended, poured out His Spirit, etc. That particular story obtains its meaning from the wider story - of creation, fall, Israel, new creation.

I think if we say there is nothing left to trust except our own personal experiences, then we are adrift on a lonely sea with no rudder. (That might be a pleasant place to be for some). But that would be buying into postmodern doubt in a way that capitulates to the culture too unreservedly, without bringing to that culture the necessary critique which the biblical story encourages us to bring.

There may be a place to reject modernist absolutism and intolerance, insofar as it has affected forms of the Christian faith, but that does not mean that the biblical narrative is unreliable, especially as it comes to its fulfilment in the life of Jesus. On the contrary, before modernism or postmodernism were a twinkle in Abraham’s eye, God was weaving a narrative for the destiny of his creation into history.

History exists - whether postmodernism likes it or not. Two hundred years of attempts to cast doubt on the veracity of ancient historical accounts as transmitted through the OT & NT writings have largely failed in their endeavours - almost everyone is agreed on that. We have a faith grounded in a historical narrative; without that context, it lacks meaning and purpose.

between two stools

by samlcarr - 19/10/2006 - 21:26

The postmodern enterprise is full of questions while denying that answers can be found. As a follower of Jesus, I reject many of PoMo’s ‘conclusions’ especially about the existence of the meta-narrative, meta-philosophy, truth etc. while gratefully accepting that there are limits to what I can know.

The great insights from postmodernism do not force me to be a sceptic about ‘the big picture’ itself, but I have learned that I cannot claim to know the whole picture and that is indeed a valuable lesson. At best I am muddled, stumbling along as well as I can.

That does not and cannot limit God in any way. God is not contingent on my understanding Him. So as long as I can keep my confusions and limitations in perspective, the macro-scepticism need not become all-consuming.

History* is a case in point. God has worked our salvation in human history. The very particularity of Jesus in history encourages us to believe in the meta-narrative. God has become man in order to save man. Jesus was born a Jew and lived, taught, healed, and died as a Jew. The whole point of incarnation is to force us to acknowledge God. It is a ridiculous contention, extremely foolish by any standard with an ending fit only for a C horror flick. That is God?!!!

It is certainly a plot that even Kafka would find difficult to digest. A story that we have extreme difficulty airbrushing out of history.

The stumblingblock for me in modernism is the attempt to make the supremely illogical and preposterous into something that is full of rational, logical certainty. I thank PoMo for helping me get out of that particular type of idolatry. I am aware however of the PoMo type of idolatry and that is in part its scepticism about all that is meta.

*Rich Kurz is a good evangelical friend and a historian/anthropologist to boot. I can’t put it clearer than he has at: http://www.chronograf.com/pdf/history1.pdf

Live to serve : Serve to live

what do you believe?

by stacy - 19/10/2006 - 23:44

to peter and sam or whomever:

i do not describe my current state becuase i think i have arrived. i am struggling to rebuild a faith and i certainly hope that i continue on. but at this moment - in the southern US evangelical church that surrounds me - conservative christianity does not cut it, but i dont have a clear understanding of what the tenants of the pomo emergent movement are in contrast. i am ready to rebuild what has been toppled, but i find a labrynth of thought, diffucult to follow. i dont mind the ambiguity if we say we’ve chucked the past - then im on my own between the trimmed hedges, with your stories to confirm or challenge mine. then the labrynth of thought is merely a part of this new “no one knows for sure lets carry on” reality.

yet i hear you both say - NO there are things we still believe with certainty. well then what are they? why the veiling? WHAT of what went before do you still espouse? i know you cannot speak for a movemnt or even for the clan that visits ost - so speak for yourselves. what is left? ive read andrews list - but i dont see that readily agreed upon in the threads i have read. simply - without academic mumbo jumbo please - tell me what you believe. (i have many years of scripture study - but it is lay - i am not a seminary sort).

in the meantime - sam, i will go to the link you suggest.

www.theartofstory.blogspot.com

where am I?

by samlcarr - 20/10/2006 - 09:06

Thanks, Stacy, for making me think things through!

On looking critically at what i believe, perhaps the biggest changes for me have been in hermeneutics, more method than matter!

I don’t see that my fundamental beliefs in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, fellowship, the ecclesia, and the bible have undergone any great changes. Even though I now think very differently, I am still very conservative in my thinking and beliefs. As John Stott put it recently, I can say the creeds without crossing my fingers.

What has changed markedly is the content of many of the key words like salvation, atonement, faith… i.e. it is more a shift in theology than in belief. Also, to be honest, interaction with the New Perspective (on Paul) theologians such as N.T. Wright and Andrew has perhaps had more impact on both my hermeneutic and on my theology than PoMo itself.

Where I come to PoMo is more from the standpoint that christian modernism’s method led to the older propositional type of thinking and that is something that I rejected even before I was aware of a PoMo alternative. I am now exploring whether this alternative is any better than its predecessor, but to be frank I’m not that sure of the final outcome. PoMo may need to be replaced by something else entirely, perhaps rooted in a more specifically christian epistemology, which I am not yet aware of being available as a systematic option (any takers?).

The reason for my fundamental beliefs having stood firm (so far) I think has to do with their being rooted in something other than philosophy/theology. Theology is a means for me to try to understand what has happened to me when I believe in Jesus. It is an effect and not a cause. What matters is what God has done for me in His Son. Whether my theology does or does not comprehend the reality is immaterial, for the reality is that God saves. He is Immanuel.

Similarly, the bible remains God’s word. It is so because the Jesus who saved me is spoken of only there by others who were the first to experience Him as man and as God. That witness is sure and any hermeneutic that wipes out that truth is itself a lie. My understanding of the text of the bible and of its message to me has and will keep changing, I hope, because of growing knowledge of the Author as well as by a better understanding of the narrative.

So, I guess that while in true PoMo fashion, I am now a theological sceptic, I do believe that the fundamentals are pretty much the same. Those fundamentals are not then the result of Calvinism, nor of the Reformation, nor of Evangelicalism, nor of church, but are of God.

The clearest change for me is that increasingly I see Jesus Himself as the gospel. The gospel (in the sense of proclamation) then, can’t be reduced to some set of coherent propositions any more than Jesus Himself can. We preach Christ…

For example, I can still say that I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. I recognise that as a truth which the bible teaches. Now, though, further delineating the how and what of this statement as hypostatic seems to me nothing but a best guess, and more importantly, I recognise that while the concept of hypostatic union may be the best that we can do, it is still unlikely to be anything close the REAL TRUTH. But to know that I will have to patiently wait till He allows me to ‘know even as I am known’. Also, while as an evangelical I would have spent a lot of time arguing for the concept, now it seems a bit passé. What I think about anybody’s ‘best guess’ has no ultimate nor any immediate impact.

What He wants me to do and has specifically told me to do - that is something worth discussing. I therefore find the emerging concentration on being missional is active obedience while for most in the movement, theology, philosophy and a lot else are still very much up in the air. We bemusedly juggle together and watch the balls fly and no one really seems to have a firm idea of where it’s all headed. So, let’s hope and pray that the result is increased faith and better obedience. Sounds a bit Schweitzerian doesn’t it?

I would also agree with Peter in that there are a lot of things cultural that cannot be accepted wholesale. Being missional with drug addicts, does not entail all of us becoming drug addicts. We can love and accept the addict without sharing the addiction. Similarly, not all PoMo ideas (or even most of them) are helpful. Methodologically they are revolutionary but revolution is not the end game - being better disciples of Jesus is! I look forward to the real scholars, theologians and philosophers out there giving us better guidance. Meanwhile, until that happens, let’s juggle together in a world of increased openness, let us converse more, and more fruitfully and follow as our Lord leads!

Live to serve : Serve to live

Core beliefs

by peter wilkinson - 20/10/2006 - 10:47

I believe the history of Jesus in the NT is reliable, and has a direct bearing for today - especially concerning his life, (teaching and ministry), death, resurrection, ascension, outpouring of the Spirit, and eventual return. Its reliability is attested by the lives of those who claim to have been changed through it - especially as recipients of the gift of the Spirit, by means of which they have become participants of a worldwide people of God, experiencing God amongst them, enjoying in part the promised new creation, and seeking to promote that new creation everywhere in diverse ways in anticipation of a climactic completion.

Sounds a bit like a creed doesn’t it?

A healthy new emphasis which I see being brought today, not necessarily postmodern in itself, is on the corporate nature of salvation, in contrast with the individualism which seems to have become a feature of western culture in particular. But this is not to jettison the personal nature of salvation. Salvation of course is being seen as a 1st century term meaning survival through catastrophe, but it also means much more than that - taking the whole orbit of Jesus’s history into account.

A greater emphasis in theology on narrative in history has also been a healthy development - which may or may not chime with postmodern sensibilities. A better understanding of how things would have been seen by 1st century Jews, in particular, has led to a more historically grounded understanding of what the gospel, the evangelion, means. I don’t go so far as Andrew in making this meaning radically and somewhat exclusively relative to 1st century events within Judaism, but I do see a more prominent place being given to the gospel as proclamation of Jesus’s victory over sin and death, and his summons as Lord. This would have to sit in the understanding of his unique servant leadership as set out in the gospels. However, I don’t personally jettison belief in ‘penal substitution’ - which, rightly and fully understood, also seems to me to be at the heart of what Jesus did on the cross. I see at least five ways in which the crucifixion of Jesus is presented, through different images.

Evangelical Christianity seems to me always to have got it right in placing the ‘good news’ at the centre of its understanding of Jesus, and therefore the key to understanding the OT and NT writings. Jesus himself was that good news, and his history as described above. Protestant interpretations of wherein that good news consisted have tended to insist on particular doctrinal affirmations as tests of orthodoxy, and while doctrine is important, recent developments in biblical theology have served us well in emphasising that we are saved by Jesus and believing in him, not by believing in, for instance, a particular doctrine of justification by faith.

It is unfortunate therefore, whenever what is ‘postmodern’ or ‘emerging’ in theology sees the need to define itself by rejecting whatever is ‘modern’ or ‘evangelical’. That is a straw man approach, and the richest possibilities for belief come to those who can see that ‘post’modern does not necessairly mean ‘non’modern or ‘ex’ modern. That is my position. The Holy Spirit hasn’t been asleep for 2000 years, so that we are suddenly realising what He really intended, after having got it wrong for all that time.

There is a kind of absolutism, even imperialism, which can attach itself to attitudes within faith communities of all kinds. There is a place for certainties, it seems to me, but these certainties need always to be of the kind mediated by faith, not by the absolutist tendencies of modernism (or medievalism). Faith therefore always presents a perspective on how things are, not absolute certainties which can be objectively proved. Faith communities need to recapture this attitude, in relation to their surrounding communities and cultures.

The ‘postmodern’ seems to value personal truth and story; this seems to fit well with such an attitude to faith. Nevertheless, although there is a need recapture the sense of presenting a perspective rather than arrogant assertion of truth, there is also a sense in which that perspective can be presented with confidence. The postmodern seems to value community over individualism, relationship over institution, the organic over the mechanical, and so it goes on. Each of these emphases presents a positive way ahead for an entirely traditional faith, but helping it to recapture its roots in a more dynamic and authentic way, and more imaginative and creative contexts of community.

thanks, both

by stacy - 20/10/2006 - 14:26

sometimes i forget that i am on a theology website, where you guys are looking at developing a language for the beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves. that was helpful to hear from both of you. i appreciate the time you took.

toward the end of your conversation i again see something odd, and not at all new. the desire to change the church for the people on the outside because it “might not reach” them if it “doesnt change.” after 42 years “in church” i want some leadership for how to help us live within the church. all my life, the best attention i have gotten from people “in ministry” is what i need to do or give to someone else. (hang with me for a minute) i cannot give what i do not have. i cannot “be missional” because it is a good way or beacuse it is needed or because christ was. i dont want to radically change the church so that we dont have an image problem - i NEED the church to change so that it is real and potent in my life. i want a freakin blowing wind! i know that i am empowered to love when i have been loved. i am empowered to give when i am grateful. trying to become missional is only a trendy political idea - another agenda to spew at me from the pulpit - unless you intend to show me how you struggle with love yourself. unless you show me your fear and inadequacy and incompetance. otherwise you are just being modern all over again with a different agenda. you “have arrived” and the rest of us can hang at the fringes or hide our humanity and try and look “together” and “loving” like you. oh the despair this brings to my heart.

what is going to empower me to radical sacrifice? christ? then show me christ, not how you want me to be like him. show me HIM. but dont show me him like its done right now, i cant make myself cry in gratitude for his gruesome death and i sure as hell dont want to clap my hands over his blood. i dont know what to do about the blood. its gross and i have no way to comprehend it. it freaks me out. i didnt grow up killing doves and lambs on a regular basis to cover my ass because i disobeyed my parents.

i dont know what i want. thats why i hang around bugging you guys. i grew up around theologians (my dad went to biblical when it met in a house as an offshoot of westminster - later he worked there) my best hope is that my honesty helps us all in some weird way. i have always pressed the thinkers to apply.

but really, when you read the stories of the christ, do you generally see yourself as the harlot or the christ? i see myself as the harlot. so looking at those stories doesnt make me want to be LIKE christ, it makes me want to be LOVED BY christ. now - true - it might make me want to leave my water pitcher at the well and run back into town. but thats about it. ive spent decades endeavoring to humbly “love the world like christ” - and i have had many beautiful, rewarding, stunning and miraculous experiences, but i am telling you that “living like christ” as a goal is eventually debilitating. now “living like christ loves me” that might work. that might bring a blowing wind and make me lay down my life for a friend. but i will never be tempted to lay donw my life for a friend because i have learned that some guy 2 thousand years ago did and i should emulate him.

ill stop now. spewing at a halt. i appologize if this is totally wrong for this site. sorry andrew, you can always ask me to stop.

appropriate?

by Daniel D. Farmer - 20/10/2006 - 15:25

If this site is about the developing theology of the emerging church (which it is), and if that theology claims to be missional (which it does), then rants like yours are essential to what this project is all about. The sad alternative would be mere inapplicable theorizing.

My heart groans with yours Stacy (and the Spirit with us).

Have you ever heard of http://www.emergentvillage.com/? Whenever Brian McLaren gets questions about where people can get plugged in (locally) to something like the emerging church, this is where he directs them. Perhaps you’ll find something there that’s of interest to you?

Much love,

-Daniel-

relevance

by samlcarr - 20/10/2006 - 15:41

Sorry, sometimes I forget that what I say has to connect and not be just a bit of off-the-cuff philosophy.

let me mull a bit before i muddles some more.

Live to serve : Serve to live

you are relevant

by stacy - 20/10/2006 - 15:57

no - i love what you said sam. keep it coming. and add my press to the mix. thanks for the encouragement everybody. i just posted a new story on my blog that may pertain to this discussion in that very indirect way fiction does. www.theartofstory.blogspot.com

harlotry

by samlcarr - 20/10/2006 - 22:55

Thanks Stacy.

Luke 7 shocks me more. You are right, we are the harlots, the tax collectors, and we desperately need to be loved. I sense in the gospels three types of hearer, those who know that they are trouble, the ‘mass’ of followers and the disciples (perhaps one more is the ‘religious’). I see myself in either of the first 2 categories.

I think that the part that you want me to express more clearly is exactly the bit that I can’t. I can tell you my story and I can tell you how I think I came to believe Jesus and I can tell you the struggles I have had after, with my faith and in my fellowship.

The essence, for me, is reading the gospels. Each and every time I do, I meet Jesus. A sinner and yet I meet him, amazed at his love, amazed at His wisdom, amazed that he knows what’s in my heart yet forgives and loves me. Amazed that He wants me to learn and to follow.

When I read the epistles, the same sort of wonderment gives me a sense of understanding for where Paul or Peter, James or John are coming from. What they say makes sense because they are talking about that same Jesus whom I have already met. Reading Acts just leaves me bug-eyed. And Revelations (eschatology, yes it permeates the NT) but I feel totally at sea with it. I know there’s lots of stuff there that I should be getting but I’m just a bit dense.

I know that i’m not saved by my thinking or by my theology. It is Jesus who saves. Whatever good results in me - being missional, or reaching out to someone in trouble, that’s Him, and when it comes naturally, from the heart I know that He is succeeding where all others have failed. I hope that He is also working on my brain, coz that’s where most of the trouble, certainly pride, blindness and a lot of other stuff resides.

My hardest struggles right now are with fellowship. I find it much easier to really be in community with people who don’t ask many questions. But is that community? All of my friends know that I think oddly about christianity and they feel really uncomfortable with me if I say anything (say at a bible study) and it’s not friendship to be thinking one thing and saying something else.

But, all that is manageable because Jesus is. I have no idea of His plan or of what He is going to do with me. There isn’t much doubt in my mind as to what He wants me to become. The one thing one cannot complain is that Jesus’s commands are hard to understand. Hard to do - very! And that’s the most amazing thing. I know that I will fail, have failed to follow. No excuses, I knew what I should have done. Yet, still He understands, He holds my hand, He forgives and He encourages. Knowing Him, that’s it and it is inexplicable and it’s inexpressible.

“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven – for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Luke 7:44-48

Live to serve : Serve to live

A Night at Sir Toby's

by john doyle - 21/10/2006 - 08:18

Stepping in from the weak cold rain that had been falling for as long as anyone could remember, John hung his cloak on the peg by the door and slumped into an empty chair by the fire. The wench brought him a beaker and, raising it in good cheer to the assembled theologians, he quaffed deeply and spoke.”God knows I’m not an emotional man, nor a kindly one. Some might deem me cautious; others, arrogant.”

John waived his hand dismissively. He filled his pipe and, plucking a glowing twig from the edge of the fire, slowly coaxed the dried leaves to smoldering life. Not without irritation did the others wait for the emissary to continue.

“Wouldn’t this be more…,” John hesitantly began. “Imagine if all this were imaginary? The cabal, the inn, even the endless rain, each one of us – all conjured by the imagination.”

“Not the ale though, I trust, lad?” The hearty laughter of well-fed men and women circled the room without echo.

“Not my imagination,” John clarified. “I would not have imagined the tobacco, even as I find myself smoking it.” Though they had wondered about the pipe, speaking of it among themselves, none had asked John about it, assuming it to be a custom, perhaps even a ritual, associated with his obscure legation.

“What of God then, brother?” asked the Cistercian.

“You mean is it God’s imagination that gathers us comfortably around this congenial hearth?”

“Your thought, not mine,” the Cistercian muttered to the oblate, who was too busy attracting the attention of the serving girl to notice. Dogs wandered hopefully among the theologians.

“Perhaps God,” John mused. “Or perhaps God is as we are.” With his pipe he gestured vaguely around the room, shimmering in the steamy heat of the fire.

yeah

by stacy - 21/10/2006 - 16:19

see? stories. they dont explain; they tell what we wonder.

A night at Sir Toby's (continued)

by peter wilkinson - 21/10/2006 - 17:32

By now the weak rain had hardened into a persistent drizzle. Obscure breeds of dogs were nipping at the feet of the inn’s increasingly numerous clientele, all seeking refuge from the inclement weather outside. An occasional yelp arose above the steady murmur of conversation as the dogs were kicked unceremoniously aside.

The theologians pondered at the profundity of the remark that had just been offered by the wise elderly man with the flowing grey beard, who now quaffed contentedly at his Dačický. At that moment, a sharp rap at the door interrupted the reverie. P. looked up. Someone must have been telling lies about P, for without having done anything wrong, he was arrested that murky evening.

Two men pushed their way into the throng - with short beards, and faces narrowly resembling each other. Each wore a leather jacket, furnished with all sorts of pleats, pockets, buckles and buttons. Addressing P, one of them said: “It has been reported to us that you have met here tonight with a cabal of theologians. It is our unpleasant duty to inform you that your arrival at this hostel should beforehand with the castle angemeldet worden sein. You will receive notice of the exact terms of the charge, the penalties pursuant to such an offence, and the date of the trial in due course.”

A rumble of dissatisfaction arose from the cabal, subsiding into silence as Artur and Jeremias, emissaries from the Graf, glared at the assembled group. In the rest of the Inn, conversation had ceased, and all eyes were now on the cabal, and the elderly man in particular. He cleared his throat, and looked up.

“As you all know, I am the Landvermesser, called here to attend to business with the Graf on behalf of our complainant, P, whose case I will now outline.” He paused, puffing at his long clay pipe, then continued.

“Having been tenant to a rich Graf, not thriving, I resolved to be bold and make a suit to him, to afford a new small-rented lease, and cancel the old. In heaven at his castle I him sought; they told me there, that he was lately gone about some land, which he had dearly bought long since on earth, to take possession. I straight returned, and knowing his great birth, sought him accordingly in great resorts; in cities, theatres, gardens, parks and courts; at length I heard a ragged noise and mirth of thieves and murderers: there I him espied, who straight ‘Your suit is granted’ said, and died.”

The old man continued, “Kindly convey my salutations to the castle, and inform them that P’s suit to the Graf has already been granted - and that he is schon angemeldet worden.”

He returned to his Dačický, with a murmur of approval from the cabal. Artur and Jeremias, now resembling nothing more than a couple of knaves on playing cards, turned tail and fled into the wet gloom. Conversation resumed in the Inn. The cabal continued its deliberations.

P’s head began to spin. Fragments of Kafka, George Herbert and Lewis Carol, images of Gandalf, Hobbits, Prague and the Czech Inn began to swirl around in his head. The cabal, theological discourse, coded messages – it was too much to take in. He turned to those seated at his table – but the table was empty, the guests gone, the Inn deserted. Slowly he realised that this was Easyjet flight 5392 bearing him back to Gatwick. “Is everything all right?” said Annelise, sitting at his side in the window seat.

in the midst of them

by stacy - 21/10/2006 - 17:46

“ha-ha!” she cried,

clapped her hands in glee

while the men told tales,

made magic of debate.

eyes shining she sat

at the feet of seers.

“more!” she cried

“he comes.”

www.theartofstory.blogspot.com

back on the ground

by john doyle - 23/10/2006 - 11:05

I was sorry to feel the wheels touching down on the tarmac and the brakes dragging us to a stop. I would like to have stayed a lot longer, maybe even forever, in the rarified Kafkaesque atmosphere of Sir Toby’s. But this particular OST thread either ends here or it picks up where it was headed before: core beliefs of the faith, what do I believe, what ought I to believe.

I believe that, no matter how widely-defined the territory, no matter how permeable the frontier, I will be outside the gates. I participate in discussions on this site not through faith but through imagination: how might this text be read differently, how might these seemingly inconsistent tenets be reconciled, how might this postmodern idea relate to the historic faith, and so on – if I was a citizen of this kingdom. To me, OST is Sir Toby’s. If when we get back to reality Sir Toby’s disappears, then so do I.

There’s a core integrity to this site and its participants that I admire and that I hope persists. I’ve enjoyed my stay at the inn and I’m grateful for the hospitality that’s been extended to me, put perhaps it’s time to pack my rucksack and head down the road.

Room at the inn

by peter wilkinson - 23/10/2006 - 11:33

The story can continue. I think it should, because one can explore things through stories in a way that far exceeds rational debate. I was thinking about the story all through the weekend! The Sir Toby’s of the story is the kind of free-flowing community I’d like to be in.

You’ll be aware that I took some liberties with the first episode, and altered the outlook of the central character - but that was all in the interests of suggesting different ways of looking at things. I may have pushed the boundaries too far with literary allusions, but it all seemded to fit around some loose associations with Kafka. The inn seemed to be a place where very many people could be very diverse things.

The challenge to me is whether the Sir Toby’s of the imagination, the cyber Sir Toby’s, can ever find expression in the real world. Stories are a powerful way of connecting imagination with reality, or providing conduits in which the imaginary can become the reality. I only realised after I’d written it how much I yearn for this kind of imaginary Sir Toby’s in real life. The first episode was the catalyst - even if our standpoints are different.

Stories are a way of conducting theological discourse ‘by other means’ - offering connections on a deeper level than argument.

cheers

by john doyle - 23/10/2006 - 13:33

Well said. My wife just got back from six days in Paris. I told her the highlight of my time while she was away was the little flurry of activity in Prague.

I thought the Kafkaesque turn was just right. I wondered a bit about the theological implications of the atonement offered by the bearded man on behalf of P., but I let it pass.

Dog in a manger at the inn

by peter wilkinson - 23/10/2006 - 14:31

The atonement story was actually a verbatim copy of a sonnet by the 17th century poet George Herbert. If you substitute Lord for Graf (and mansion for castle), you’ll see all rhyme-endings of each line. The poem masks profundity under a guise of naive simplicity. It wasn’t the theology of the character in your opening scenario, but as a story within a story within a Russian doll of three personalities, I thought it captured some postmodern allusiveness, and it happened to fit in with the Kafka.

I probably didn’t need to explain all this to you, and I was probably being too ambitious in the first place.

Anyway, why shouldn’t the cabal continue its deliberations without P? I don’t quite know where that would leave the Trappist Cistercian though. Maybe with a split personality? Or a headache?

I grow pursie and slow...

by john doyle - 23/10/2006 - 15:21

…trying to keep up with the intricacies of Toby II. It is said that every text contains within it all other texts. The ambition did not exceed the execution. I believe that, although the disguises are convincing, the cabal deliberates here daily.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.