hi john d. roth @GoshenCollege is #IAmFelix the #renewel2027?

Summary

Sola Scrip­tura
was the out­cry of the Swiss Brethren, the first Anabap­tists in Zurich:
Not coun­cils. Not tra­di­tion. Not author­i­ty.
→ Only what Jesus taught: non­vi­o­lence as a con­se­quence of love, no church or sec­u­lar hier­ar­chy, shar­ing instead of pri­vate prop­er­ty, legit­i­ma­cy through lived trans­paren­cy.

Sola Crit­i­ca
is the out­cry today:
No rev­e­la­tion. No creed. No con­fes­sion. No tes­ti­mo­ny. No promise of sal­va­tion.
→ Only what can be observed, decon­struct­ed, ver­i­fied and crit­i­cized is accept­ed as “true”.

An Open eMail to Prof. Dr. John D. Roth, @GoshenCollege

Dear John

Do you see it this way too?
Sola Crit­i­ca is the new Sola Scrip­tura.

The Swiss Brethren offered rad­i­cal answers to the social ques­tion –
in the lan­guage of faith of their time.
The rad­i­cal forces of the Ref­or­ma­tion were killed or exiled –
some all the way to Goshen Col­lege.

Not because of the­o­log­i­cal nuance,
but because they demand­ed a con­crete way of life.
Not beau­ti­ful words – but embod­ied form.

Did you know, John:
In the Ger­man-speak­ing world, two major schools of soci­o­log­i­cal sys­tems the­o­ry emerged –
not from moral high ground,
but as a response to the Holo­caust.

Biele­feld (Niklas Luh­mann)
Zurich (Peter Heintz, Sil­via Staub-Bernasconi)

The Zurich school devel­oped a pow­er the­o­ry
that close­ly reflects the dimen­sions
embod­ied by the Chil­dren of Peace:

1. Non­vi­o­lence as a con­se­quence of love (Men­non­ites)
2. Order with­out dom­i­na­tion (Amish)
3. Com­mons instead of pri­vate prop­er­ty (Hut­terites)
4. Legit­i­ma­tion through trans­par­ent, lived prac­tice (Quak­ers)

Does #Renewal2027 move in a sim­i­lar direc­tion?
Would you be open to a pub­lic con­ver­sa­tion?
Per­haps a pod­cast – if you hap­pen to be in Zurich?

#IAmFe­lix
dissent.is/IAmFelix

Sola Critica – an outcry from the next culture

Sola Scrip­tura was the out­cry of the Swiss Brethren.
They did not stand at the begin­ning of the Ref­or­ma­tion, but against its course.
Not coun­cils. Not bish­ops. Not dog­ma.
→ Only what Jesus taught should count.

And what was that?
Non­vi­o­lence.
No coer­cion. No prop­er­ty. No titles.
Only life itself as tes­ti­mo­ny.

They did not take a posi­tion – they left the old order.
And because they dared to do so, they were drowned, burned, exiled.

Not because they believed – but because they with­drew from pow­er.
Not because they preached – but because they refused to play along.
Not because they demand­ed – but because they lived dif­fer­ent­ly.

Today, some­thing sim­i­lar is hap­pen­ing again.
A new out­cry is ris­ing: Sola Crit­i­ca.

No faith. No creed. No rev­e­la­tion. No tes­ti­mo­ny. No promise of sal­va­tion.
→ Only what can be observed, ver­i­fied, decon­struct­ed and crit­i­cized is accept­ed as “true”.

But what appears as cri­tique often func­tions as new con­trol:
Cri­tique as gate­keep­ing.
Cri­tique as dis­tinc­tion.
Cri­tique as exclu­sion – cloaked in the lan­guage of enlight­en­ment.

As then, the real move­ment is not in the cen­ter, but on the mar­gins.
Those who refuse to be rep­re­sent­ed.
Those who not only think, but act.
Those who no longer ask who is right –
but how the social can be changed.

They no longer reach for the book – but for prac­tice.
They orga­nize dif­fer­ent­ly.
They share dif­fer­ent­ly.
They dele­git­imize through trans­paren­cy.
They act pub­licly – not because they are allowed to, but because they must.

Sola Crit­i­ca is not a schol­ar­ly method.
It is a sign of cul­tur­al tran­si­tion.
A shift.
A break in the frame.

Where cri­tique no longer cre­ates cer­tain­ty – but opens space.
Where cri­tique no longer sep­a­rates – but risks con­nec­tion.
Where cri­tique no longer wants to win –
but becomes part of it.

Not only cri­tique. But tes­ti­mo­ny.
Not only analy­sis. But con­cre­tion.
Not only the word. But the form.

Sola Crit­i­ca – as lived dis­sent.

#IAmFe­lix