Ikon talk:About
From Ikon
Who/what is Jesus to Ikon?
Hi Michael and Pete
Tried to contact Michael to say that there were 4 links to explicit porn (teen sex, somebody in a thong, etc) on co-ordinates and gatherings pages, and have deleted them myself (I hope!) Keep watch, its a guy called BlackDad. I left his comments in. May be Blackfreeze on the userlist!
Norah
So, a few things to bring up:
1) Wouldn't you say that you could have expressed the same truths without the unnecessary juxtaposition of so many mutual exclusives? Isn't it just for esoteric effect?
2) Honestly, to what extent has your journey come from negative experiences, not of theology or expressions of worship, but of individual people, churches or Christian organisations?
3) It seems that you're obviously trying to break away from contemporary church - isn't what you're trying to do in terms of rediscovering Christianity the same as what most theologians are doing? Would it be better to embrace this and marry Church experience with Academia rather than separating the two? Shouldn't we 'evolve' the existing church in order to rediscover it instead of separating off?
David P & Jon O
Hey there
I have to be quick sadly but wanted to approach an answer to your questions,
1) There may well be better ways to describe what ikon is about... but thats's precisly why we have gone for a wiki!!! The entire point of creating this open source approach is to help us improve the site and our ideas. Not sure what else to say. Is not this very format I am writing in now the answer to this question? Although you must disagree as you are aware of this by the fact that you wrote on it. In terms of esoteric this critisism is one I deal with on my blog (in short, I think it is a typical anglo-american pragmatic question, which I reject)
2) I can't speak for others in ikon but as the founder my expeiences of church have been nothing but great, I still am in relationship with various traditional religious organisations (such as YWAM, the Anglican church, many charasmatic and house churches) and get regular support from individuals in churches and religious organisations themselves... I can honestly say that I don't understand why you asked this, as my own blog is part of Ignite (run by Summer Madness) and most of the places I speak can be seen to exhibit my close relationship with religious organisations... Also some of the main leaders in ikon are regular church goers, training for priesthood and leaders in YWAM
3) I would go much further than you here and say that I think what we are trying to do is not only what most theologians are trying to do but also most christians... also I have given up academia to be commited to a concrete religious community, something that means I live on unemployment benefit and live without transport in a working class estate... what is it that makes you think that we seperate academa and religious life, the whole point of ikon is that we bring the two together. I find this critismism hard to take as I have dedicated my life to bringing these together (and it has cost me more than I care to think about)
Perhaps my responces are a little too raw here as I like what you have to say at the end about evolution (just finished Kester Brewins book on this which I enjoyed a lot). I also like what you say about rediscovering... if you live in Belfast and ever want to talk about these things face to face I would love to do so.
Hope that's helpful.
Peter Rollins
hello David P and John O
Having had many discussions with Pete about his previous experiences of church involvement I can wholeheartedly endorse his response to your question! However there are some people within IKON who have left church and are in a deconstructive phase in their faith journey in relation to orthodox Christianity - IKON provides a safe place for the to relate, ask questions etc.
I personally believe that the time is ripe for a new updated definition of IKON which reflects the communities values/goals, uses everday English for transparency and clarity and is written after a period of consultation and discussion with everyone within IKON. However Petes style of writing does appeal to some and I think it is unfair to say it is just for estoric effect.
Some of the people who go to IKON attend church regularly and also many work or are involved with other Christian organisations as well as IKON (it is a pretty disparate group so I do not think it is trying to break away from church) - it still sees itself within the Christian tradition in its broadest terms. Petes theological outlook has been formed by a combination of academic study and concrete practice in co-ordinating IKON.
I am an occasional attender at IKON and must stress that these are only my opinions.
Rodney
Thank you Rodney for your input and insight here... especially as you are not coming from a perspective of fully endoursing what we do (if I can say that). I am also interested in your thoughts about rethinking the co-ordinates (or their description), and the communal way you suggest for doing that.
As you may guess that fills me with some fear in one sense as I love the co-ordinates, yet I would not have been supportive of this ikon move to open source if I was not able, in principle, to move beyond these fears in some small sense. In other words, despite my concerns, I am very open to such a disccusion if there is energy for it... although I may suggest a middle way of a commentary on the existing co-ordinates to bring clarity rather than changing them (at this point). Although I have to admit that the co-ordinates where never meant to be written in stone like a creed.
Peter
Yes, that is helpful. I think I was guilty of uncritically accepting the stereotype of a member of the emerging church being someone who was generally just annoyed with the church as it was, and who had cut themselves off from it (a stereotype that I do think has some real basis, might it be said). I respect what you say about living the lifestyle.
However, with regards to:
"in short, I think it is a typical anglo-american pragmatic question, which I reject"
(I had a quick scout on your blog, but couldn't see what date you posted about this subject. Let me know, and I'll have a look). To be more specific, the main language I contend with is that in the introduction, including especially:
"unambiguous as possible about our ambiguity, clear about our lack of clarity and insightful with regards to our blindness"
I also take issue with the concept of 'being emerging' without ever expecting to 'emerge,' (although I like the concept of being Iconic).
I think that these statements sound impressive at first glance, but they collapse when you actually try to attach any meaning to them. I disagree that it's purely about 'anglo-american' pragmatism; it is certainly a pragmatic concern, and being English I have a keen desire for things to be pragmatic, but I would hold that the same pragmatic concerns would hold true in any language or culture (does the UN have different bills of human rights for those who come from cultures concerned for pragmatism and those who don't?!)
Of course, this is based on the assumption that you primarily want About:Ikon to convey something meaningful. I can accept (and I'm not just being flippant) that you might want to give an 'impression' of Ikon through a more poetic use of language, without that language necessarily having meaning. However, to that I would suggest that the best use of language would be one that conveyed meaning and was poetic (some might put the US constitution in this category, to pluck an example from the air). I would also say that when it comes down to it, there is a dichotomy between these two concerns: in one the aim is for language to be drilled down to the most specific meaning possible; in the other, the multiplicity of meaning that each word possesses is drawn out and maximised.
Regards,
David.
A definition of Ikon?
The coordinates seek to provide a (non) definition of Ikon. Presumably this method is a preliminary attempt at opening our minds by challenging whatever prejudices we may each be approaching Ikon with.
However, since we always tend to define things or experiences, whether as individuals or as social groups, I want to generate some discussion on how people (both insiders and outsiders) actually define Ikon.
Let me begin by proposing that we define Ikon as Christian. I suggest that Ikon is defined in this way by its association with past and future Christian elements. For instance, regarding the past, Ikon is defined by Christianity in much the same way that a recovering alcoholic is defined by alcohol (in other words, Ikon consists of a group of recovering Christians seeking to create a new identity for themselves out of a previous Christian identity). Regarding the future, Ikon is defined as "becoming Christian", as the Emerging coordinate indicates; thus it seems that Ikon wishes to "recover" Christianity and evnisages a state of being Christian in the future. The past and future elements merge to form a presently defined mode of Christianity.
So Ikon is basically Christian. This will be obvious to most. But why then is Ikon not explicitly defined as being Christian? Why only apply this label to certain elements? And why stick with the label Christian at all?
Hi David, and all readers
If I may put in a penny’s worth to the discussion.
It is true that the (non)definition is poetic- my compliments to the author- but, unlike David, I find rich meaning in these words. To be “unambiguous as possible about our ambiguity, clear about our lack of clarity and insightful with regards to our blindness” is, I believe, to acknowledge the inevitable limitations of our attempts at interpreting the world. Inevitable because, for a start, we cannot step outside our own existence to have an objective understanding of what we are talking about (frequently ‘God’ in ikon discussions). We all bring our wishes (sometimes hidden) and power struggles and self-serving ideologies to the table (Freud, Nietzsche, Marx respectively - I recommend the book Minikon tackled last year!). Perhaps the best possible scenario is that we are aware of this subjective interference, and so critique our own thoughts/beliefs with this in mind. Knowing this, we realise that we are in an ongoing state of flux- we are emerging rather than emerged- never grasping ‘Truth’ in its entirety.
The author goes into more detail with each of the coordinates, and not in an empty poetic style, but with a playful use of language that I enjoy re-reading for its depth.
Oh, and can I encourage everyone to create an account and sign off comments with 4 tildes (~) which, when logged in, looks like this...
Cazi 16:30, 15 April 2007 (BST)
IS TRUTH THEN NON-EXISTENT/INACCESSIBLE AND WE CAN MAKE UP ANY KIND OF TRUTH WE WANT TO == NIHILISM..........
josh
