Author: david cl driedger

Calculating rightly

Do you ever have stretches of time where life as life exerts itself on you as a force that pulls, strains or simply weighs down?  There are no immediate pressures in life that are causing the pressure, rather it seems to come as a whole.  I ask this seriously because while I see others express similar experiences I don’t assume that it is so for many people.  Sometimes I think this is a condition of privilege; that I have a certain leisure to sit with and entertain such thoughts and feelings.  Sometimes I think this is a condition of arrogance; that I can account for the variables of life and attempt to create and navigate a true course and understanding.  So in no ways do I assume this is a healthy experience or one that can be characterized as indicating some profound nature (though in saying this I of course am tempted to view it as such).  This was simply the best way that I could characterize much of last week.  I was absentminded and removed though in some ways more attuned to what was going on around me.  I looked out and saw meaningless, well, maybe not quite.  I saw arbitrary meaning.  I could not discern and adjudicate the possible meanings.  They swirled, arose, and died again around me.  They taunted me asking which meaning I would choose.  Is this a false option?  Is this an incorrect framing of the question and circumstances?

Towards the end of Kierkegaard’s final published writings he speaks at length about the Instant or Moment (depending on translation).  Kierkegaard believes that humans are a synthesis of the finite and infinite and therefore can never exist as settled.  To do so is to collapse (as if that were possible) or at least tune out the dialectic.  The Instant is the in-breaking of the eternal.  It is a qualitatively difference expression then what all the resources of the finite are able to muster.  But our applied resources are just that.  We cannot speak, think, or act beyond the finite.  So Kierkegaard speaks of the ‘leap’, though from what I can remember he does not use this expression (to leap) in his writings on the Instant.  Rather he says this,

The Instant is when the man [sic] is there, the right man, the man of the Istant.

This is a secret which eternally will remain hidden from all worldly shrewdness, from everything which is only to a certain degree.

Worldly shrewdness stares and stares and stares at events, at circumstances, it reckons and reckons, thinking that it might be able to distill the Instant out of the circumstances, and so become itself a power by the aid of the Instant, this breaking through of the eternal, hoping that itself might be rejuvenated, as it so greatly needs to be, by means of the new.

But in vain.  Shrewdness does not succeed and never will to all eternity succeed by means of this surrogate.

No, only when the man is there, and when he ventures as one must venture (which is precisely what worldly shrewdness and mediocrity want to avoid), then is the Instant – and the circumstances then obey the man of the Instant.

. . .

For the Instant is precisely that which does not lie in the circumstances, it is the new thing, the woof of eternity – but that same second it masters the circumstances to such a degree that (adroitly calculated to fool worldly shrewdness and mediocrity) it looks as if the Instant proceeded from the circumstances.

There is nothing worldly shrewdness so broods over and so hankers after as the Instant.  What would it not give to be able to calculate rightly!

– The Instant  no. 10

In some ways that comes close to framing my experience last week.  There is always this grasping.  But the nature of the grasping does not seem to understand what it is grasping at.  I continue to read and reflect on accounts that I admit to complexity but implicitly or explicitly render formulas for personal or social change.  Can I believe that circumstances will obey the person of the Instant?

To what extent is this experience also an internal condition to a particular strand of the Christian tradition, that is existential angst?  Is it helpful to even speak of a human condition on these matters?  Sure I could retire into the refrain of the Preacher of Ecclesiastes but how satisfying is that and how much does it reveal that I need to be satisfied in this process?  Is this simply by definition a transitional experience that happens prior to another stasis, or just a rhythm of a larger pattern?

I am not ringing the bell

From an article in a local Danish periodical Kierkegaard writes,

Would it be best now to ‘stop ringing the fire alarm’?  This proposal has been made to me.  However, I cannot in this respect humour anybody (supposing it is I who am ringing the bell); it would be inexcusable to leave off tolling as long as the fire is burning.  But strictly speaking it is not I who am ringing the bell, it is I who am starting the fire.

The problem of presence

It would seem that a work or ‘the works’ of a particular philosopher cannot be complete without addressing the question of presence.  Do we have access to some-thing?  This was first impressed on me when I was introduced to philosophical hermeneutics and the question of meaning.  This question seemed stretched to its logical conclusion in the work of Derrida who denied our ability to capture or lay hold of meaning explaining that the nature of language is to remain in motion always being deferred in relation.  Kierkegaard picks up this question in Practice in Christianity when raising the question of ‘reflection’.  He criticizes the pastoral movement in his time that encourages ‘reflection’.  I think this marks a shift in this thinking away from earlier formations of developing ‘inwardness’ as the arena of faith.  Or at least he is developing a corrective or preemptive claim.

To reflect means, in one sense of the word, to come quite close to something which one would look at, whereas in another sense it implies an attitude of remoteness, of infinite remoteness so far as the personality is concerned.  When a painting is pointed out to one and he is asked to regard it, or when in a shop one looks at a piece of cloth, for example, he steps up quite close to the object, in the latter instance he even takes it in his hands and feels it, in short, he gets as close to the object as possible.  But in another sense, by this very movement he goes quite out of himself, gets away from himself, forgets himself, and there is nothing to remind him that it is he that is looking at the picture or the cloth, and not the picture of the cloth that is looking at him.  That is to say, by reflection I enter into the object (I become objective), but I go out of or away from myself (I cease to be subjective).  . . .

For Christian truth, if I may say so, has itself eyes to see with, indeed, is all eye; but it would be very disquieting, rather quite impossible, to look at a painting or a piece of cloth, if when I was about to look I discovered that the painting or the cloth was looking at me – and precisely such is the case with Christian truth.

Kierkegaard is interested in contemporaneousness with Christ.  And it took me a little while to realize is how dramatically this must be distinguished from historical knowledge of Christ, that is reflection on Christ.  There are of course many questions to be asked about this distinction but it always pushes for, better or worse, is a subjective engagement.

As I was writing out this quote I was reminded of a recent art installation I happened across as my wife and I were walking in our neighbourhood.  The installation was inside the new Plug In Institute for Contemporary Art.  It was created by Lani Maestro and entitled ‘her rain’.  The installation was sparse and what I would call ‘conceptual’.  Below is a picture of one of the works that made up the four room installation.

This neon light filled a room accompanied by second mirrored piece which ran ‘NO BODY LIKE THIS PAIN’.  The works throughout the installation are ‘unframed’.  They are meant to immerse the space they inhabit which include the subjects and subjectivities that move past them.  What I appreciate about this installation is that it makes it difficult to both take it seriously and remain objective about the pieces.  One has the option of dismiss the installation as being ‘artsy-fartsy’ rubbish but one can hardly ‘admire’ it or ‘reflect’ on it in the Kierkegaardian sense above.  One moves through it and must make a subjective decision about it.  It is bodily but not framed and so it opens itself to touch other bodies.  It is subjective.  This word has been so maligned that I think it is time again to slowly build up its intended place, which is not only a place, but also and primarily its impact.

Deep calls to deep

I became an ordained minister this past Sunday.  While it is not always the tradition to do I decided to speak at my own ordination.  The preparation for this ‘sermon’ was different than how I had prepared for a sermon in the past.  My guiding thought was not about communicating the meaning of some particular text but in communicating a sense of how I understand my role and my calling.  As such the sermon developed more along the lines of ‘imagination’.  It was, I guess, poetic.  I sat somewhat uneasy with that direction.  I became concerned that it was too pious or was just some pretty window dressing.  My hope was that it was an inhabitable imagination that would draw, challenge, and invite change for those who heard it.

Well, in any event, here it is.  Based on Psalm 42:1-2, 7-8.

Continue reading “Deep calls to deep” →

Reflection on a brief occupation

I visited Occupy Winnipeg today.  With nights already dipping below freezing I had one initial question on my mind.  The answer is yes.  They are preparing for winter.  I only spent about hour at the site chatting with a few individuals.  After biking away, alone now with my impressions, I came to the confession that it is and would be quite easy to mock this local expression.  My conversations were peppered with grasping sentiments about being connected to something larger, vague allusions to support from people with power, comments about getting good press, politically correct placating, bitching against the Man, and some straight-up bullshit.

I would not be surprised if the greatest immediate need this expression fulfills is to have egos rubbed both for people who are valiantly braving the cold in support of justice and also for others who can bring a pot of hot chili and bag of sweaters to feel good about supporting the cause.  Why do I say this?  Do I say this to discredit them or the expression?  I call this a confession simply because it is being honest with my perception and experience. I do not want to create from nothing hopes and notions that do not relate to reality.

And this initial step of confession is important, for myself in any event.  It is important because of the presence of another element I encountered.  What troubled me reflecting on the ‘spirit’ of the people there were the resources  being drawn upon for hope.  One person talked about being connected to something epic another sensed the significance of what was happening, others appealed to the power of vague traditions.  Some dropped ambiguous allusions to the ‘lawyers and doctors’ connected to their cause.  One even said the provincial government ‘supported them’.  In fairness, there was also clear acknowledgement that this is, at the local level, starting from scratch.  They are not even beginning.  They are trying to figure out how to begin.  At this point they are gathering.  And it is a diverse and motivated gathering.  And this I support.

I have struggled with the banner of ‘We are the 99%’.  Perhaps it really is the best possible rallying cry to bring these diverse groups together.  But I struggle with it because of those who do not even factor into the equation.  I am thinking of two experiences I had in the last two days.  One was witnessing a person steal three boxes of diapers (no small accomplishment and no doubt accompanied by no small amount of nerve or desperation).  The other was seeing a neighbourhood kid I have gotten to know riding around on the sidewalk with a bike that had a flat tire and no seat.  Both events stirred that experience of not knowing whether I would laugh or cry if I were to express my emotions.  It is almost comedic in its tragedy and definitely tragic in its comedy.  It is the refuse and rejection of our society.  For me it was encountering the ones that do not have a place holder in the calculation of percentages.  In both instances the people involved were First Nations females.

If there was to be some hope that I took from visiting Occupy Winnipeg it was that there were a number a First Nations women present (a relatively high proportion in a small overall number).  As I stood there not really instigating any conversation one of them simply poured out her life dramatic fashion.  I have experienced enough to call this a dramatic telling not to question whether or not it is factual but to recognize that tragedy  has become one of a limited number of modes of communicating that some people seem capable of engaging in.  But it appears at this site the unrepresented and uncounted are finding some sort of representation.  And that is a good thing.  When my church gathers to occupy our sanctuary I have not encountered the drawing out of the unrepresented.  This is not such a good thing.

For the Barthians and Anabaptists

If you cannot endure contemporaneousness [with Christ], cannot endure the sight in reality, if you are unable to go out in the street and perceive that it is God in this horrible procession, and that this was the case for you to fall down and worship Him – then you are not essentially a Christian.  What you have to do then is unconditionally to admit this to yourself, so that above all you may preserve humility and fear and trembling with relation to what it means in truth to be a Christian.  For that is the way you must take to learn and to get training in fleeing to grace in such a way that you do not take it in vain.
– Kierkegaard, Training in Christianity

A lot of Barth and Bonhoeffer there, seems to me anyway.  And for the Anabaptists,

Christ’s life here upon earth is the paradigm.
– Kierkegaard, Training in Christianity

Though the interesting question here would be whether Kierkegaard’s critique of historical knowledge of Jesus would hold against Anabaptist appropriations.

Book Review – Unsettling Arguments

The following is a review submitted to Canadian Mennonite.  It is my attempt at short, concise review coming in just over 500 words.  I would welcome any comments on the book or the review format itself.

Pinches, Charles R., Kelly S. Johnson, and Charles M Collier. (2010) Unsettling Arguments: A Festschrift on the Occasion of Stanley Hauerwas’s 70th Birthday. Cascade Books.

Unsettling Arguments is a collection of essays honouring the life and work Stanley Hauerwas on the occasion of his 70th birthday.  A potential reader might assume that some familiarity with Hauerwas would be in order to appreciate these contributions.  However, I found that working through the book not only served as an overview to Hauerwas’s thinking but read almost like a primer in theological ethics considering the breadth of work spanning his career.  The range of topics sprawled from medical ethics, to political theory, to hermeneutics, and beyond.  Indeed, there is even a chapter on a topic that Hauerwas has not written extensively on (racism) asking whether his silence in fact tells us something.

What held these chapters together is that Hauerwas is a person of practice.  Things cannot be known (particularly in ethics) apart from their embodied practices and the relationship those practices are set within.  The church cannot speak to the dignity of the human body without also walking alongside those cast off as undignified.  Theologians cannot speak for the church unless it is somehow reflected through their practices in the church.  Each chapter explored how Hauerwas has and at times has not pushed the church to reconsider her practices.

As the title suggests this collection is not simply a chorus of praise for Hauerwas.  Well, perhaps it is, in that Hauerwas is known for introducing provocative, controversial and critical elements into any given exchange.  And so in each chapter we find authors reading against the grain of Hauerwas’s contribution to a particular field of study looking for gaps, inconsistencies or counter-arguments.  If there is a failing to this approach it is that the chapters become formulaic so the reader finds that often where there is a perceived gap Hauwerwas actually makes up for it another, unexpected, area.  For instance, Jana Marguerite Bennett agrees that feminists have a legitimate criticism against Hauerwas’s work but only to the extent that they ignore his work on the disabled.

Chapter 4 by J. Alexander Sider on the question of personal happiness in Hauerwas’s social ethics may stand as the best approach to this critical engagement.  Hauerwas, influenced heavily by John Howard Yoder, consistently downplays the role of personal happiness subjecting it to the life and activity of the church in which true love and fulfillment are understood and entered into.  In one of the most personally poignant chapter Sider observes that in this area Hauerwas does not always preach what he practices revealing Hauerwas, the person, who does indeed care deeply about individual health and happiness.  The chapter ends with a standing challenge for Hauerwas to further integrate his practice and theory.

Hauerwas is not only one of the most influential public theologians writing in English but, through his significant relationship with John Howard Yoder, is also a person who has accomplished as much any to put Anabaptist thought and practice on a larger stage.  For better or worse we in the Mennonite Church are associated with Hauerwas and we would do well to continue to learn from him so that we could effectively read for and against him and continue the conversation on what it means to practice being the church faithfully.

Forced corruption

Remember. The problem is not corruption or greed. The problem is the system. It forces you to be corrupt.

This line is a quote from Slavoj Zizek’s speech at Occupy Wall Street.  I will not try and wade into the larger conversation about this movement (see here for frequent updates).  I want simply to focus on this line.  For me this line is a stumbling block; and I believe stumbling block is precisely the correct term.  I continue to believe in autonomous morality.  I continue to believe that it is possible for each individual to make a morally valid decision in real life circumstances.  I believe this despite the fact that I know it is not true.  And so I come to a stumbling block, an offense.

I sat with this line as I visited a man from my neighbourhood.  Our church is not exactly a hot spot for those seeking material support though we get our share of traffic.  The process is almost always the same.  There is prefacing story which sets the person both in morally acceptable or pitiable conditions.  This often includes acknowledging some religious conviction, some desire to work, and some immediate pressing need.  I will then wait for the second half of the conversation in which the person will move inevitably towards his (almost exclusively a male) best shot at getting something out of the exchange.

And there I sit, Solomon on his throne, judging how best to suggest sawing his child in half to reveal true motivations.  I stand as the face and gate-keeper of what should be the symbol of consuming charity.  Now to be sure charity is not paternalism but why does paternalism exist in the context of giving charitably?  Still one must learn to be responsible, correct?  To the extent that responsiblity lies in the realm of economics I will continue to be corrupt in my engagement with those in need.  To the extent that responsbility is integrated into a relational fabric there may be a chance to level out life experiences.  Current capitalist economics demands a responsibility based on severed points of accountability.  It demands I take care of my house.  And this is where existentialism remains important in conversations about social systems.  One must ultimately be converted into a larger house; a house that still has rooms and boundaries but a house that also has a larger and expanding commons.  The church in North America, by and large, cannot offer a commons to those who seek it.  And until then I may be forced to remain corrupt.

The essential genius

I wasn’t pleasantly surprised by Kierkegaard’s short piece entitled The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress.  This piece explores what it means for a public performer to move the masses (my phrasing).  Kierkegaard wants to get beyond any external advantages an actor or actress might have (ie, youth, vigor, good looks, etc.).  What is it that would sustain the presence of someone.  Kierkegaard speaks of a metamorphasis of something internal that is externalized.  Here are some of the qualities of someone in possession of this ability.  First there is a copious restlessness.

Restlessness, in the sense of the hubbub of finitude, soon palls; but restlessness in the pregnant sense, the restlessness of infinity, the joyous, robust originality that, rejuvenating, invigorating, healing, stirs the water is a great rarity, and it is in this sense that she is restlessness (309).

This is the first ‘fieriness of an essential genius’.  Kierkegaard then goes on to speak of the comedy.  The initial task of the comedian is not to incite or stir the crowd but rather to calm them.

While we laugh and laugh and privately revel in the exuberance of the caprice, we continually feel calmed, indescribably persuaded, and lulled, as it were, by the complete safeguard, because his caprice gives the impression that this can go on for any length of time.  On the other hand, if a spontaneous comedian does not calm first and foremost, if there remains just a little bit of anxiety in the spectator as to how far his caprice will extend, the enjoyment is virtually lost.  Ordinarily it is said that a comedian must be able to make spectators laugh; perhaps it would be more correct to say he must first and foremost be able to calm completely, and then the laughter will come by itself, because genuine laughter, this laughter right from the bottom of the heart, does not break forth because of a stimulation but because of a calming. (311)

I like this contrast but I wonder how it plays out in the contemporary need for awkwardness in so many comedies.  It is more simple in the Tom Green and Kickass style shows which will eventually run on empty because the whole point is to push farther.  Thoughts?