Christian Discourses, Helplessness Blues, and the mechanics of liturgy

[This started as a simple update on my Kierkegaard reading then turned into something I wanted to edit and develop but I doubt that will happen any time soon so I thought I would throw it up in its disjointedness.]

As I mentioned in my last post, the first half of Kierkegaard’s Christian Discourses was firmly okay.  It was gently pastoral in tone while attempting to stir and provoke in content.  The second half entitled “Thoughts that wound from behind” promised to be more engaging.  The preface of the second half read,

The essentially Christian needs no defense, is not served by any defense – it is the attacker, to defend it is of all perversions the most indefensible, the most inverted, and the most dangerous – it is  unconsciously cunning treason.  Christianity is the attacker – in Christendom, of course, it attacks from behind. (162)

The final line is of course of utmost importance for what follows because Kierkegaard’s attack is against the notion that Christendom can implicitly produce Christians.  Kierkegaard begins by noting the role of circumstance in the power of a message how “the sickbed and the nighttime hour preach more powerfully than all the orators [because they] know this secret of speaking to you in such a way that you come to perceive that it is you who is being addressed, you in particular (164).  Kierkegaard relates this to his understanding of the ‘Lord’s house’ and how it is to be a place more terrifying than terror (for awakening that is) though pastors take it to be a place to preach for tranquilization.  The Lord’s house is by definition the space that a human encounters the truth, that is, encounters God.  This is a horror becuase it is an encounter with sin.

Here in God’s house there is essentially discourse about a horror that has never occurred either before or after, in comparison with which the most horrible thing that can happen to the most unfortunate of all people is a triviality: the horror that the human race crucified God. (172)

This discourse of terror is the first discourse and it is necessary.  The Christian is to use this discourse to win people – “but woe to you if you win them in such a way that you leave out the terror” (175).  So use this discourse to terrify people but “woe to you if you do not use it essentially to win them for the truth” (175).

While these discourses began with a pointed and promising account of attack or ‘awakening’ they settled into what (from a contemporary perspective) is a now familiar account of the need to ‘break from the herd’ in how you understand your own subjectivity and how it is formed.  I do not doubt the ongoing validity of this message it is only that the ‘herd mentality’ is now precisely in being unique and original.

How then does one break from the demand of uniqueness and become formed as an individual?

There is the already well commented on lines from Fleet Foxes recent single Helplessness Blues in which they harmonize on being some cog in a greater machine.

I was raised up believing I was somehow unique
Like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see
And now after some thinking, I’d say I’d rather be
A functioning cog in some great machinery serving something beyond me

In that instance the strength of individuality is in its submission to something  beyond the scope of a single subjectivity.  I think this is a fair response.  The problem of course is that there is no such static machine in which humans function as the cogs and pulleys.  The response in HB is a sort of almost naive localism.

If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m raw
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
And you would wait tables and soon run the store

I say almost because of the final lines of the piece.

Gold hair in the sunlight, my light in the dawn
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
Someday I’ll be like the man on the screen

They recognize that this too, this honest labour, is the production of the entertainment industry.  It is the production of flat subjectivity that will not truly intervene in the existing order.  For Kierkegaard subjectivity is based around the primary human dialectic of being a synthesis of the eternal and the temporal.

It is the final section of Christian Discourses that offers some help in understanding how the Christian can engage in the practices of faith while attending to the internal dialectic of subjectivity.  This final section is a collection of discourses to be read at Friday Communion services.  As such they offer a rare glimpse into Kierkegaard’s direct and public communication on church liturgy.  There is no strength in the basic repetition of Communion as an act that builds an alternate imagination.  This would be to function as a cog some great machinery.  Rather one does indeed approach the Communion table and share in the elements but when you leave it is as if the Communion table followed you (273).  It is only possible to speak of real presence because there is continuity with the table and with Christ.  “Where he is, there is the Communion table” (273).  The Communion table becomes present not necessarily at the religious site but at the site of reconciliation that is called for prior to sacrifice (Matt 5:23-24).  “The task is to remain at the Communion table when you leave the Communion table” (274).  A sermon should ‘bear witness to him. . . . At the Communion table, however, it is his voice you are to hear” (271).  The point here is simple.  There must be continuity and congruence.  And the perhaps the solution for the church is just as simple, that is, to call individuals to both leave and remain at the Table.

Somebody’s crying

My son is entering a steep learning curve in his language development.  He is just over two and is started to string together 3 and 4 word sentences together.  But more than that I recently noticed the transition he is making in understanding the value of clear communication.  Salem never went through anything I would call colic and even teething was not too bad.  But he would still cry as a form of communication and mostly communication as protest.  For instance in learning how to settle himself down to go to sleep there would be periods of crying.  After awhile though he seemed to realize that naps are not so bad and so stopped crying.  I think he is now starting to transition out of nap time (Lord help my wife) and so he is again starting to cry when we leave the room for his naps.  The crying now is different.  It is no longer a passionate plea but a more measured action.  As such it appears that he is thinking about why he is crying.  And so after crying (somewhat halfheartedly) he will stop, there will be a pause of silence, and then he will begin saying crying, crying periodically.  It is as though he now understands that verbalization should be a more direct and effective form of communication.  Just in case you were not clear mom and dad I am crying . . . crying as you should know means something is not right and I would like your help in rectifying it.

From here is eternity

I have not posted recently on my Kierkegaard reading.  Things continue to progress more or less on target.  I am currently in the middle of Christian Discourses.  I continue to have a mild reception to most of his religious writings.  The first section of CD comes off as firmly okay.  It is essentially an exploration of how living in light of eternity creates a reversal of popular (temporary) understanding.  So wealth and poverty are inverted, gain is loss, strength is weakness, etc.  There is nothing wrong with this approach in itself and there are moments of insight in Kierkegaard’s thinking here.  For instance when Kierkegaard develops the inversion of wealth and poverty he does so by demonstrating the nature of wealth.

Riches are indeed a possession, but actually or essentially to possess something of which the essential feature is losableness or that it can be lost is just as impossible as to sit down and yet walk – at least thought cannot get anything in its head except that this must be a delusion.  If, namely, losability is an essential feature of riches, then it is obvious that no essential change has occurred when it is lost, no essential change occurs in it by being lost.  Therefore, it is essentially the same, but then it is indeed also essentially the same while I possess it – it is lost – because it must indeed be essentially the same at every moment.  Lost, it is essentially the same; possessed, it is essentially the same, is lost; that is, in a deeper sense it cannot be possessed. (28)

A key element of how Kierkegaard energizes this dialectic is the role of eternity.  Eternity for Kierkegaard is a mode or posture of approaching the world.  In one key passage Kierkegaard describes how eternity creates a way of being more present as opposed to a future or spiritualized orientation.  In this section Kierkegaard is referring to self-torment as the next day.

The one who rows a boat turns his back to the goal toward which he is working.  So it is with the next day.  When, with the help of the eternal, a person lives absorbed in today, the decisively he turns his back to the next day; then he does not see it all.  When he turns around, the eternal becomes confused before eyes and becomes the next day.  But when, in order to work toward the goal (eternity) properly, he turns his back, he does not see the next day at all, whereas with the help of the eternal he sees today and its tasks with perfect clarity.  But if the work today is to be done properly, a person must be turned in this way.  It is always delaying and distracting impatiently to want to inspect the goal every moment, to see whether on is coming a little closer, and then again a little closer.  No, be forever and earnestly resolute; then you turn wholeheartedly to the work – and your back to the goal.  This is the way one is turned when one rows a boat, but so also is on positioned when one believes.  One might think that the believer would be most distanced from the eternal, he who has completely turned his back and is living today, whereas the glimpser stands and looks for it.  And yet the believer is closest of all to the eternal, whereas the apocalypt is most distanced from the eternal, then the next day becomes a monstrous confused figure, like that in a fairytale.  Just like those daimons we read about in the book of Genesis who begot children with mortal women, the future is a monstrous daimon the begets the next day. (74)

Obligatory posting of sermon preached on 9/11 – Instruments of grace

Mark 11:22-25

Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.  Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

It is a delicate task to speak about mountains being cast into the sea on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.  I choose this passage because its initial impression on me was that it spoke about something powerful, something significant.  As we acknowledge what this day marks we also look forward to what in many ways stands as the beginning of the year for the work of the church. As pastoral staff we decided to develop a series this Fall that would help us face various topics and issues that we shape and that we are shaped by.  Over the weeks we will look at the environment and economics, technology and inter-religious relations.  Squarely facing the pressures that come from these areas can often feel like facing a mountain.  Even more challenging is that in the Mennonite church we attempt to face our mountains without the traditional means of dynamite.  We attempt, whether or not we succeed, to approach the mountain without violence.  We affirm in fact that it is at the mountain that we un-learn violence.  As First Mennonite Church’s vision statement reads we seek to be instruments of God’s grace on earth.  So what of these instruments, these tools?  And what of the mountain before us?

Continue reading “Obligatory posting of sermon preached on 9/11 – Instruments of grace” →

Part of the power

I think part of the power that an infant has in public spaces, part of the reason a child can draw such uninhibited joy from complete strangers is the way a child, a young child, can simply stare at you.  There is nothing of the layered power of a knowledgeable gaze that becomes so loaded later in life.  We long for that line of sight and we relish in it when it occurs.

Book Review – Imperialist Canada

Below is a book review I submitted to Canadian Mennonite.

Todd Gordon. (2010) Imperialist Canada. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Todd Gordon’s Imperialist Canada is perhaps not in the type of book typically reviewed in Canadian Mennonite.  It is not a piece of theology or a devotional work of spirituality; it is not written for or about the church; nowhere are Mennonites mentioned within its pages.  The content of this book, however, forms a clearly articulated account that I submit should be of great interest to Canadian Mennonites.  As the title implies this work is an attempt to demonstrate that Canada has and continues presently to operate under an imperialist logic and practice.  This portrayal of Canada is brought into direct contrast with popular caricatures of Canada as peacekeeping or a sort of benign moral compass for our southern neighbours at best or their obedient lackeys at worst.  Gordon argues that these caricatures exist simply because the global presence of the United States quantitatively overshadows the role of Canada not because Canada functions under any qualitatively different structure.  In this way Canada is now framed as a sort of junior (though maturing) player in global imperialism.  So what does it mean for Canada to be an imperialist nation and why is it important that we as Canadian Mennonites pay attention?

While the era of direct colonial control over nations by Europeans is (largely) over Gordon argues that the logic of imperialism that fueled colonialism remains intact.  Citing David McNally imperialism is described as “a system of global inequalities and domination – embodied in regimes of property, military powers and global institutions – through which wealth is drained from the labour and resources of people in the Global South to the systematic advantage of capital in the North” (26).  It is important to note that imperialism is here framed predominantly as an economic issue and more specifically a capitalist issue.  A significant contribution to this book is not only with regards to Canadian imperialism but to the growing sentiment that the logic of capitalism is reaching or has surpassed its carrying capacity (it is straining under the weight of its own growth).  This comes from the central (and profoundly simple) insight that “just like the other major capitalist powers, Canadian capital is driven by a logic of expansion” (10).  The phrase ‘economic growth’ is so deeply embedded in our cultural lexicon that we don’t often stop to think about the implications of our growth or why there is a need for growth.  For economically stable westerners economic growth means the material accumulation of things like funds, property and products.  How can such accumulation be made possible?  Gordon asserts that it is made possible by an imperialistic logic of expansion which will create advantages for the wealthy at the cost of the poor.  Gordon goes on to spend the bulk of his book demonstrating how Canada is directly and often independently involved in these sorts of practices.

Gordon follows Canada’s imperialist logic down several pathways.  Beginning at home Gordon looks at the clearest historical trajectory which is Canada’s relationship to First Nations people.  While these practices are given increasing (not to say sufficient) attention in the Mennonite church I will shift to the later chapters.  From domestic relations to First Nations people the book shifts to Canada’s global vision and outlines the implications and effects of the global liberalization of southern economies (often referred to as neo-liberalism).  The claim of neo-liberalism is that if smaller more impoverished economies can come on board as international trading ‘partners’ they can stand a better chance at improving their domestic quality of life.  Whatever the intention of these shifts in global economics the reality according to Gordon is that more affluent nations have been able to open up formerly isolated or marginalized nations where they are able to profit from extracting natural resources or exploiting cheap labour.  Here Gordon cites the expansion of Canadian based mining companies in places like South America or Canadian clothing manufacturers in Haiti.  And in contrast to public claims by neo-liberal advocates Gordon cites studies that shows poverty growing fastest in countries that have opened themselves up extensively to wealthy trading partners.  Proceeding chapters continue to outline how these imperial economic practices inevitably bring ecological instability, social unrest and military enforcement.  Particularly unnerving is the account of Canada’s role in overturning the democratically elected president Jean-Bertand Aristide in Haiti in 2004.

Gordon covers a vast and complex array of issues related to Canada’s domestic and foreign practices.  Many of the claims are of course contested by other groups and individuals.  One reviewer criticized Gordon for not being more balanced in acknowledging that many practices in the globalized economy can improve the quality of living in particular locations.  In some ways this criticism can be likened to those who cite the positive experiences of some First Nations individuals who attended residential schools.  It is important to give voice to people’s experience and part of the human spirit is its ability to exist and even flourish in a variety of circumstances.  These stories however cannot detract from those wishing to take a step back and examine the functioning of larger social structures or policies and their effects on people’s lives.  In this matter Gordon is clear in his claims.  Contemporary capitalism as it is expressed in Canada remains an imperialist and colonial project.  As such it is inherently and explicitly violent and needs to be rejected.  This is claim that the Mennonite church, as a peace church, must at very least understand and then to wrestle with how we can respond.  A peace theology with any integrity or hope of relevance must continue to understand and explore the economic structures that now weigh so heavily on so many.  Imperialist Canada offers itself as an important dialogue partner in that process.

Counter tagging

In an earlier post reflecting on my experience trying to learn the language of tagging in my back lane I made the passing comment about wanting to create my own tags that might, at least for an instant, give some fence-sitting kid pause.  Well it looks like someone beat me to the punch.  A couple of tags have shown up down my back lane that look to be from the same individual.


I have to say that I actually quite like these tags.  When I thought of doing one I considered creating some expression of care; some sort of ‘I love you’ sentiment.  It seemed so ridiculous to me.  Why would such a sentiment scrawled on a dumpster mean anything?  In thinking about a tag I was always assuming myself as the subject.  In these tags, however, symbols prominent in First Nations culture create the orientation for the text.  I do not assume to know what some First Nations youth might associate these images with but so far as spreading constructive images I thought these were not half bad.

Notes from the Exodus

I would say the most concerted and continuous effort that I made in formal studies was in the area of biblical Hebrew. This is a sort of sad statement given the level of proficiency I have maintained. Recently though I have taken to preach on the OT passages of the Lectionary and, being summer, I find myself with a bit more time to work in the ‘original text’. This Sunday will be Exodus 1:1-2:10. I have greatly appreciated the small (and significant) nuances that have emerged from even a basic walk through the Hebrew.

Many of the observations can be made from the English as well.  The most clear is the precedent of ‘creation’ as a guiding motif in the Moses narrative.  We find Joseph and his brothers dead but the Israelites remained “fruitful and prolific” a common refrain in the creation story.

In light of this expanding foreign race Pharaoh decides to deal ‘shrewdly’ with them so they do not join the enemy.  The word join is a play on the name Joseph (to be added to) a figure of blessing for Egypt who has now been forgotten and his descendents are deemed a threat.

Pharaoh sets slave-drivers over the Israelites in work of ‘mortar and brick’ which is an allusion to the building of the Tower of Babel.

In response to Pharaoh’s increasing pressure on the people (and their increasing expansion) there is an order to kill the male children in child-birth.  Here we find the famous mid-wive’s of civil disobedience who do not follow the law.  What I find interesting is that their names, Shiphrah and Puah, indicate a type of ‘signalling’ of what is coming.  Shiphrah is a feminine form related to the Shophar which is a trumpet that is often used to refer to the coming of the presence of God (Ex 19:16).  Puah, as near as I can figure, is a variation on an onomatopoetic verb used to describe the sounds of a woman in labour, again ushering in the presence of something new.  The women here stand as the vanguard in the revolt creating space for the liberation of their people.

Verse 12 of chapter one contains two interesting expressions.  The NRSV reads,

the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites.

‘Spread’ is a suitable translation but does not have the visceral connotations as the Hebrew does in which there seems to be some implied ‘breach’ of a clear boundary.  When used in the relation to a holy space the word is often translated ‘break’ as in the Lord will ‘break out’ upon you.  ‘Dread’ is also a curious translation.  The word is not used often in the Hebrew Bible.  The term is used in several instances to refer to a sort of naseous sickness over a given situation.  It is the way the people feel after having eaten manna for too long.  It is the way a person can literally feel sick with fear.  Given some of the recent readings on abjection I picture this verse to be saying that the Egyptians tried to crush the Hebrews like a bug and ended up splattering guts all over them.

Thinking about the abject as neither subject (self) nor object (enemy)  also led me to consider another image that was not really illuminated by the Hebrew but important nonetheless.  Verse ten of chapter one reads,

Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.

In this construct the Israelite is neither self nor object.  They form a type of appendage to the Egyptian kingdom.  The abject is a part of what sustains the subject so long as it does not ultimately become the object (or worse become its own subject!).  So long as it does not ‘break out’ of the boundary set by the subject (read: colonialism).

And of course one of the more well known observations is how the ‘vessel’ that Moses is set adrift on is the same word for Ark used in the Flood account.

So anyway, we’ll see if this takes me anywhere closer to a coherent sermon.

Science and wealth

It is no real wonder that science is elevated to the status it has in our culture.  As a discipline it provides endless opportunities for new markets and new products.  All the while it contains no internal mechanisms or orientations by which to critique the manner and context in which it receives capital for further research and development.  The trick is to leverage our desire and value to be placed in the promises of science.

PS I do not hate science.