Sound and Silence

when necessary, use words



World Machine Dream

David Priilaid hates descriptors, but 5 things that best describe him are:

  • He is an academic working at the University of Cape Town
  • He teaches entrepreneurship with a view that people have lost their voices and with insight can rediscover their “abilities to sing”
  • He is a post-anglican evangelical charismatic christian
  • Has experienced 10 years of Jungian psychotherapy and is a great fan of James Hollis
  • Loves Steely Dan, Bill Evans and a good glass of Cape Red at his right elbow

I had this dream in the early hours of Sunday 29 November.  The vivid and technicolor character of it made me feel that this was some kind of vision.  You as reader can be the judge.

Continue reading “World Machine Dream”


“Wild man wise man” session 6


In almost all cultures the world over, young people undergo rites of initiation. It normally marks the passage into adulthood. However in the recent west this has become less and less a feature of our culture, such that we live in what Sergio refers to as a “partly initiated society”.

We need to rediscover and reconnect with these ancient practices. These rituals are in essence an emotional and spiritual phenomenon, meant to be felt and internalised. While women encounter this naturally through the overt changes of puberty, this has become highly problematic for the modern male. What remains of these rituals – confirmation, or boy scouts, lack the visceral power of traditional initiations. It is left to gang membership and the military, which hardly transform us in the right direction.

According to Rohr, “men must be tried, limited, challenged, punished, hazed, circumcised, isolated, starved, stripped and goaded into maturity”.  This separates him forcefully from the feminine energy, and this experience wounds him ritually and “prepares the young man to deal with life in ways other than logic, managing, controlling and problem solving.” [P 31] Without this wounding, paradoxically, we shall never heal.

In small groups, a story was shared by a participant in which at 13 years old, he was told by his wise mother to get on his bicycle, and not to return home until he had a job. He was faced with the terror of the fact that he did not know when he would sleep at home again. He went from restaurant to restaurant adding his name to long waiting lists. But eventually he was offered a kitchen job and a beginner’s wage. He went home a changed person, and for 8 months, proudly made enough money to comfortably cover his weekend dream activities.

Initiation needs to be rediscovered in our society, Rohr : “Initiation always taught the young man to die before he died … a constant truth taught by Jesus, baptism, the prophets, Mohammed, the mystics… as St Francis put it , ‘if you have once faced the great death, the second death can do you no harm.'” [P 36]

Note, I have explored in some depth the topic of “The Shamanic Shadow” which inlcudes the biblical basis for a more feral spirituality including the sort of initiation proposed by Richard Rohr.

This post is part 6 in the series Richard Rohr “From wild man to wise man” with Sergio Milandri of The session was held on the 30th November 2009 at Sans Pareil, Hout Bay, South Africa.

Muzi Cindi – A postmodern nigger in the woodpile

Talking About God Thinking About GodAs epiphanies go, Muzi Cindi’s stands way out. As a preacher and churchman of some 25 years standing, God appeared to him in 2007 during a Radox moment in the shower. So far, only slightly unusual. Then, God actually spoke to him. That deserves, I suppose, a hearing, even in this day of revelation overload. But the clincher is the message, and it was this: “God does not exist”.

But instead of creating a debilitating crisis of faith for Cindi, this subversive “a-theist” anticreed has become his catharsis, motivation, and passion. The evangelical zeal which was his all along merely adjusted to a new message and is as far as one can tell, as strong as it ever has been, and certainly no less radical. The outcome of his visitation is now available as a book, “Thinking about God, Talking about God”.

Well, maybe I should say that it’s not so much a conventional book, as a documented process, largely unedited, full of spelling errors and dubious assertions, brimming with contradiction, but ultimately held together in a burning vision. Lordy Lordy Hallelujah! this is surely a testimony for the postmodern age.

As a text, and because this is a review, let it be noted that the index of howlers is unusually high, the problems ranging from simple spelling, incorrect word usage, to un-researched shortcuts, and the appropriation of whole chapters from other sources. This I am sure is due to the fact that this is an entirely self funded enterprise, and therefore wholly sidesteps normal publishing channels; but this is part of the “Thinking about God” charm. To stop at such nitpicking would be to miss the point.  

Cindi’s essential point is this: the Christianity he was brought up in, is not only unsustainable and discredited, but already defunct. “The Christian world is disintegrating, because the story on which it is based is losing its power.” He supplies abundant (though somewhat chaotic) data to support his claims. But his offering is essentially a visionary one, involving wide theological, philosophical, and scientific thought. He seeks to address the seeming incompatibility of a deep love for his evangelical tradition – and his faith in Jesus – with his philosophical embrace of the new atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

And this embrace extends to just about everything that contributed to the end of the modern era, from Copernicus and Galileo’s pioneering cosmologies, Darwin’s evolutional insights, Einstein’s discovery of relativity, Paul Tillich’s theological atheism and Karen Armstrong’s religious demythologising.

DoNotBelieve“Don’t believe what I believe” is one of Muzi’s rallying cries, and I look forward to the T-Shirt. In case this gets interpreted as mere reactionary anarchy, he explains to us the apophatic (negative theology) traditions from where he draws his succour: Meister Eckhart, the 13th century mystic, Paul Tillich, and Don Cuppit. And he gives credit too to all reformers – Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the evangelical fathers Wesley, Edwards, Moody, and the South Africans such as John G Lake and Nicholas Bhengu. And references are not just to Christianity: universal, ecumenical appeals to the wisdom of all the worlds’ faith traditions pepper the book.

One of the most curious questions I have about Cindi’s explosive energy its relatively sparse dealings with the question of African roots, and bringing in more post colonial thought to buttressing his extensive postmodernism. Where, for example, are the fathers of the African revolutions, where is his own South African literary tradition amongst the plethora of first world sources? I do not want to prescribe who he should be, but it is a little vexing that the vast majority of his thesis of a post-God God is found in European and American thinking. I’d be delighted to see him take on African traditions with the same zeal he has taken on his own Evangelical roots, and even further to see him unpack an authentic Ubuntu as part of the rebuilding of Christianity.

I find myself identifying with Cindi’s vision, including his passion for knowledge, his hermeneutic of suspicion, his honest confusion, and his pariah status. At the same time I share his love for the evangelical tradition, and the ancient way of Jesus. He affirms, “A redefined Jesus still stands at the centre of my God experience”. Furthermore, I broadly concur with his inclusivity and embrace of all wisdom traditions as a way forward in a post Christian age. “Thinking about God” is flawed and fabulous, a headily chaotic brew, diverse, divisive, and delicious.

Muzi Cindi is a self confessed heretic, and draws strength from making peace with heterodoxy. The book is prefaced with an unattributed quote, “For every orthodoxy was once a heresy, and every heresy is fated to be orthodoxy. All countries were founded by traitors. All our churches were founded by heretics. The patriotism of today glories in the treasons of yesterday.” But to accuse him of lack of accountability would be short-sighted indeed; in addition to his relational ties to his mentors, the book is remarkable for its sheer range of references.

MusiHis vision is no idiosyncratic delusion, but rather an extension of a variety of well acknowledged intellectual and spiritual traditions. And we need his energy and his attempt to reconcile the old and new views of God and the cosmos. Despite his rambling style, I do not believe that this is a “mish-mash” of thought, so much as an emerging, integral vision.

Overcoming the taboo associated with thinking outside of our boxes, especially our religious ones, is a foundational shift which requires great courage; as Seal sings, “We’re never gonna survive, unless we get a little crazy”. Cindi is not shy of being regarded as a holy fool, and having recovered from the fear of asking questions, the potential for “error” appears to have no limit. And yet, all progress, and all evolutionary shifts, require these chaotic conditions. With startling audacity, Cindi has created them.

His life’s work, I intuit, will be to ensure that this chaos does indeed lead to a sustainable spirituality. Perhaps chief amongst the questions will be the one “Where, now, is our authority?” which emergent thinkers like Phyllis Tickle have been addressing.

If the world is to remember Muzi Cindi the author, he will have to employ a good editor. And if it is to celebrate his personal legacy, he will have to help those still ensnared in modernistic thinking, to emerge. He will need to fully develop his empathy, creating sound bridges for others to cross. And he will have to gain the trust of those who not so long ago, would have gloried in his immolation at the heretic’s stake.

Muzi’s Website.

The “Kingdom”: of God?

Part of a syncroblog on the “The Kingdom of God.” For other posts, see below.

“In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”

netsMost people agree that these words are deserving of full acceptance. But I’ll guarantee that despite their elegance, determining what exactly constitutes “essentials”, always seems to prove their undoing.

However, as far as Christians go, one notion that holds a considerable place as an “essential” is that of the “Kingdom of God.” This is after all the deep uniting theme that emerges from the known words of Jesus. The Kingdom of G-d, (Gk Basileia tou Theou) is for many the overarching raison d’être – the fundamental descriptor of G-d’s purpose in history, a notion bigger than say “salvation” or “Church”. Continue reading “The “Kingdom”: of God?”

Revisioning Atonement

A year ago, around Lent, a competition was announced on emergent village for people to rethink the meaning of the Cross of Jesus. Several new ideas emerged, together with some fresh reflection on the issue, and an interesting interview with Mark Baker and Tony Jones. I would like at this time of thinking about the Cross, to present a visualised framework, which might help us to come to terms with something much debated through the ages, the issue of Atonement.

Most accept the doctrines of their tradition without much deeper thought. Continue reading “Revisioning Atonement”

So Long, Sola?

One of the pillars of the Great Reformation is the doctrine of “Sola scriptura”, meaning “The Bible Alone”). In this (according to the wikipedia definition) the Bible is held to be self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to reason, self-interpreting, and the final doctrinal authority. To those who have grown up in Protestantism, especially of an Evangelical flavor, these points might seem so self-evident and beyond reproach that it might seem strange, even heretical, to question them.

But in the light of the types of questions being raised in the Emergent Conversation, and especially in the wake of focusing events like the recent Great Emergence conference, “Sola scriptura” is coming under scrutiny. I want to offer some thoughts on this, some my own and many from others more studied.

As we engage the notion of Sola scriptura, many shades of meaning emerge. To some, it is a welcome justification of their deeply held love of scripture. To others, it helps to define a “high view of scripture” in the face of liberalizing relativism. And to yet others it is a doctrine at the very core of faith, an assurance of life itself.

While I love scripture, and see myself to hold a high view of it, I question the doctrine’s modern application. In essence, I see it as excluding and reducing truth, as reactionary, and ironically, as unscriptural. But before we detail these objections, we need to look at a few background assumptions: what we understand as the “word of God”, the canon, the scriptures as “law” not narrative, and the taints in this view of enlightenment rationalism.

  • While today we see the “Word of God” as synonymous with the “book” called the Bible (it’s more of a library of books between 2 covers), in the vast majority of cases in scripture itself, it refers to a breathed, and spoken word. If scripture is made to mean the written or printed word of God, then it represents only a subset of Gods greater expression.
  • Regarding that library, we have received by tradition what is known as the canon. For Protestants this means 66 books in total. This was “finalized” between 393 and 419 CE at the synod of Hippo, under the aegis of St Augustine. 
  • Despite the canon being considered “closed”, Martin Luther in his reforms rejected the apocryphal books, still part of the canon for much of the church.  While Luther emphasized scriptural authority, he rejected scriptures then current. And while he rejected Church authority, he accepted the rest of the canon which had been ratified by the church and passed on by that authority.
  • In the wake of rationalism and scientism, we tend to view scripture as a book of law, a textbook, or a set of logical propositions, rather than a book of story. Our post enlightenment view has caused us to require scripture to be “perspicuous to reason”, and non-contradictory.

A closed canon, a rejection (or fear) of contradiction, a literate culture where the oral and non-written is set against and over what is printed, and the static and deterministic  worldview of modernism has caused us to close down and defend the bible. When Jesus said “You have heard it written… but I say to you…” (Mt 5:39) he might have been addressing us. We still fail to see revelation as evolving, despite the fact that Jesus and his ministry was founded upon a progressive revelation of God.

Sola scriptura is a reaction

One of the key features of the Reformation was the rejection of the papacy and the refocusing on scripture as the final source of authority. As radical as these changes were, many aspects of reform did not deconstruct the prevailing Orthodoxy, but rather switched it wholesale. So the notion of infallibility which had attended the Pope, we transferred onto the Bible. No longer was a man, or a position, the final word on revelation, but a book.

We would honor history to bear in mind the extent to which the Catholic Church moved away from basic biblical values; indulgences, inquisitions and the corruption by total power as brief examples. It is not surprising then that the reformers veered to opposite extremes, the extent to which most now appreciate.  And we need to bear in mind that what Luther meant by “sola scriptura” is almost certainly not what we have come to see it as meaning after our 500 year journey though modernity.

In hindsight then, Sola Scriptura was and is an over-reaction. Nonetheless, the pendulum is swinging, and we must do our informed utmost to be true to the fullest possible revelation as we forge a new age of Gods rule.

Sola scriptura is excluding and too simple

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with Sola scriptura is the first half: “Sola”. In context, there were 5 solas (also Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo gloria) representing the Reformations pillars or fundamental beliefs. Sola scriptura, however, seems to have taken on a life of its own in the minds of those pondering the question of ultimate authority in an age of Biblism.

Anyway, in essence, the problem is that a closed starting point will result in a limited system. By declaring any source of truth with the proviso “alone” we automatically exclude whatever else might reveal it.

John Wesley expanded this view in what has come to be known as his “quadrilateral”, in which truth is found in Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. However, he also maintains that Scripture is primary. At least his system is wider and more generous than the early reformers. (It might be suggested that we add 3 more sources, Creation, intuition and imagination, despite the potential and inevitable problems such an idea might introduce regarding authority).

The problem of Inclusion vs. Exclusion is theologically speaking, the problem of our times. One might adopt either emphasis “based on scripture” with relative ease. Indeed as the writer of Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for everything under the sun: we all encounter times of exclusion and times of inclusion, personally as well as corporately.

However, in trying to read (dependant on your eschatology) the greater narrative underlying the message of the Kingdom of God, it appears that Inclusion is God’s ultimate aim. This cannot be achieved, however, without excluding (or destroying) certain things, for example sin and evil. But if we are to err, let us err on the side of Inclusion. A view of the bible as expressed in Sola scriptura ends up being at odds with things it ought not to, such as science.

One of the fundamental problems with an exclusion approach is that the level of exclusion or inclusion – where the “line is drawn” – is quite arbitrary. For example, leading up to the synod or Hippo, a book was investigated and declared canonical or uncanonical, but once canonical, no part of that book (i.e. a verse or verses) could then be subject to that same investigation. If you can do it to a library, why can’t you do it to a book, or a part of a book? What is it that makes the unit of acceptance of a text a “book”, especially since many of the books of the bible – Genesis for instance – had multiple authors?

Sola scriptura is unscriptural

There is no place I am aware of in the Bible which uses the words  “alone/only”, with (Gods) “Word” together such that a doctrine of “Scripture alone”, especially written scripture, might be derived.

I would like to reprint Steve Jones’ point-form analysis of the assumptions wrapped up in the concept, which may or may not apply to all who hold to Sola scriptura, but certainly illustrate the logic often apparent in the thought processes of its supporters. (The full article is highly recommended; at time of writing his blog seems to be offline).

  1. The Bible was written through supernatural means. God used men to pen these writings, but they are as much God’s own words as men’s.
  2. The canonical writings make up one divine book, a “manual” of Christian faith.
  3. The Bible is, accordingly, free of error.
  4. All questions of belief are to be brought to its pages. That which can be upheld by chapter and verse must be believed by all Christians. That which is contradicted there must be rejected.
  5. Its precepts are relevant and binding through all ages. The Bible addresses us in this century as much as it did the primitive church.

What Jones goes on to point out is that as reasonable as these axioms might sound, none of them is entirely without problems. Above all things, he makes the claim that none of these statements can actually be demonstrated in the bible itself.

Brian McLaren makes this same point, with an emphasis on the problems of Western Modernity:

“Interestingly, when Scripture talks about itself, it doesn’t use the language we often use in our explanations of its value. For Modern Western Christians, words like authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute and literal are crucial … Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extrabiblical words and concepts to justify ones belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren, Zondervan, 2004, p 182-3)

This idea of inerrancy, pointed out in Jones’ 3rd axiom, places an enormous and quite unnecessary burden on us. But McLaren artfully finds a way forward that does not undermine the value of scripture in any way:

“I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view of scripture: God’s inerrant word is inherent in the Bible, which makes it an irreplaceable, essential treasure for the church, deserving our wholehearted study and respect, so that we can be equipped to do God’s work.” (The Last Word and the Word After That, Brian McLaren, Jossey-Bass 2005, p 111)

Scripture is neither errant, nor inerrant: It is not errant, but rather inherent and inspired. And it is not inerrant, because this is asking the wrong question. It’s a Greek question for a Hebraic library: contradiction can be held in a narrative, but not in a set of logical propositions.

And Peter Rollins cheekily (though seriously) rebuts the idea that the “word of God” can ever be “made clear”:

“… if we were to do the impossible and render the text into the ultimate fantasy of the fundamentalist (a text at one with itself) then the Word of God would not be clearer; rather, the Word of God would be systematically eradicated”. (The Fidelity of Betrayal, Peter Rollins, Paraclete 2008, p 57)

In conclusion then, we should welcome challenges to the doctrine of Sola scriptura. What was a pillar of truth half a millennium ago, has become an untenable deadweight (one is tempted to say an idol) in the life of the church. Whereas it surely liberated and focused us during the tumult of the reformation, it is time to reevaluate – to re-value – where it is our faith actually lies.

We need to rediscover the meanings of the “Word of God”, question without fear, like Luther, what constitutes the canon, authority and truth, and reconnect to the exhilarating story inherent in the words and life of the Redeeming God, the God of All truth.


“You pro-test before you can at-test” Paul Ricœur, in conversation at the Taizé community.

“The removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.” Heb 12:27, NIV

“What would Jesus deconstruct?” John Caputo

Those who have been part of a transformation from a culture of protest will know, it’s far easier to oppose something than to create it.

It’s easy to destroy. Destruction takes a measure of anger and a short sharp shot, and it’s “over”.

The card pyramid that took 5 minutes to erect, flattened in a second. The act of courage which took many months to build up, quashed. The trust which gently overcame fear, vanquished. The slight that was cast on a families pride, avenged. Continue reading “protest.attest”

The Ambivangelical

The kind of conversation I like is one in which you are prepared to emerge a slightly different person.
[Theodore Zeldin]

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” [Mark 16:15]

I became an adult under the influence of evangelical Christianity. Quite willingly – it was my idea, or at least my assent to someone else’s idea, and it was based on a primal epiphany. And as I re-evaluate my life and my choices, as we all should do, I see good and bad in what I took on.

The key tenants of the church culture I made mine, were those of the evangelical. To quote Wikipedia,

Evangelicalism is a theological perspective, most closely associated with Protestant Christianity, which identifies with the gospel … most adherents consider belief in the need for personal conversion, some expression of the gospel through evangelism, a high regard for Biblical authority, and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus to be key characteristics.

Continue reading “The Ambivangelical”

The blessings of heresy

This post forms part of a synchroblog, “Emerging Heresy”. For other contributors, see below.

Now I’m just a scullery etymologist (someone interested in words) but right up front I’d like to cut to the meaning of this word heresy, as supplied by wikipedia:

The word “heresy” comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αἱρέομαι, haireomai, “choose”).

In actual usage then, it indicates either “a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers”. Do read the whole article; it lays a good foundation of this discussion.

If we can accept that heresy simply means choice, then I would propose that any authentic act of faith, or a decision to live within a certain myth, amounts to heresy. Continue reading “The blessings of heresy”

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑