Category: Uncategorized

The Gospel According to Adam Kotsko; And a Kotskotian Conspiracy

I recently checked the price of Adam Kotsko’s recent book The Politics of Redemption and fortunately it came up with “Look Inside” feature.  I came across a content and tone of writing that may not regularly surface over at AUFS (note well that I am saying nothing of how the two forms relate . . . yet).

Christ restores connections that have been cut off, yet he doesn’t repeat the logic of possession by trying to control those he encounters.  He forgives sins, but is remarkably reticent about how the forgiven should behave in the future, reflecting how often “sin” functions as a stigma rather than a good-faith moral assessment.  He is chastised for his self-indulgence, and in his interactions with others, he very often seems to playing with them.  His persuasiveness is therefore based not on rational argument, but first of all on his general way of being in the world – his simply willingness to be with people whom others shun or simply ignore, his evident enjoyment of them.  His way of being does not end just with him, but spreads to others as a kind of “contagious sovereignty,” an empowerment that is predicated on empowering others rather than dominating them.  Several of those he empowers are sent immediately to continue the work among their own people, implying that no implicit instruction is needed.  His actual public teaching fits within this general pattern, mobilizing surprise in order to invite his readers to come to their own conclusions, a technique that is perhaps also motivated by the sheer pleasure that accompanies an unexpected narrative or discursive twist.  Perhaps the clearest indication of Christ’s approach is the feeding of the multitude, where simple generosity and sharing result in a wholly unanticipated abundance.

Pages started breaking up too far apart to continue reading with any coherence after this quote.

Two things struck me.  First this could have been plucked almost directly out of some of Jean Vanier’s works (especially content related to fear that surrounds this quote).  Secondly this quote led me to a conspiracy theory.  The Adam Kotsko of AUFS is a kierkegaardian pseudonym of the same name (to further nuance the matter) introducing an aesthetic form to the clear the way for his later moral and dogmatic expressions.  It all makes sense now!

Nourishing an Impoverished Theology

Over at AUFS another lacerating post and comment thread has been levelled against possible symptomatic trends in theology that divert attention from the ‘flesh and blood’ powers that actually affect people (the target this time is a post by Ben Myers).  I particularly appreciate the description of powers as flesh and blood.  I am becoming increasingly convinced of the need to teach and demonstrate the practice of description, a phenomenology of sorts.  This position is not incompatible with a discursive interpretation of situations but it demands an account of how discourse is constructed.  If we move simply from discourse to discourse we begin trading in unreliable fictions which is how I understand APS’s critique of Myers’s post.  This was a feeling I also got from Myers’s earlier post on writing.  The sentiments were pleasantly structured but they never seemed to ‘touch down’ (this of course being a personal response unformulated as a criticism at the time).  I suspect I am entering theoretical waters I am unable to swim in but I want to work out at least this thought.

What we are doing in theology or any other discipline or perspective may be the manufacturing, editing and recycling of discourses but this does not mean there is no evaluation and no resources outside of discourse.  The trouble with theology tends to be something like a multi-layered discourse on incarnation without someone’s flesh touching fire, experiencing ecstasy, or willfully sacrificing.  In this way theological discourse becomes a layering and protecting of nothing; and so an engagement with nothing but postures and prose.  APS called Myers out on this and demanded that if he look (at least in Europe) one will find matters quit to the contrary.  Theologians do indeed need to step back and simply look at what is going on around them and describe it, not as though they will arrive at some homogenous neutral view but that they become engaged in flesh and blood.  And here APS’s response also falls short (as all descriptions do).  In his description there is no account for ‘progress’ under right-wing policy.  If someone would come to Winnipeg’s West End and ask about Harry Lehotsky you would soon be inundated with stories of man whose vision of dignity and quality of life for a forsaken community changed countless lives and all this based on a right-wing approach to government and economics that was the result of repeated frustrations with left-wing approaches to social support.  In this description I make no meta claims about economics only that a man engaged the flesh and blood powers of oppression found tools more readily available under a right-wing government (this description of course needs to be contextualized within the Canadian context and historical which greatly affects its possible transferability).  In any event I struggle with over the top claims like the ones made by APS.  I take them to heart as a theologian or Christian (as I have become increasingly grateful for the overall contribution many of the folks at AUFS make) because they are needed but then his post must be further problematized or at least nuanced because of the varied stories of engagement.  An apparent global perspective does not trump and cannot trump a local engagement with flesh and blood.  This, again, should not be read as an attempt to overturn APS’s post but simply to add description which may allow resonance with others for getting on in the task of ‘progress’.

Following the Kick-Ass Jesus; Or, Caged Faith

I was recently made aware of what should be an unsurprising website Jesus Didn’t Tap.

Jesus Didn’t Tap was one of the first Christian based MMA clothing companies to hit the scene. In the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, to “tap” is to quit or give up. The message of the Jesus Didn’t Tap line is that Jesus didn’t quit after going through unimaginable suffering and pain when he was crucified on the cross. The company aims to represent both the competitiveness of MMA and honoring God in all of their designs and hopes it will help spread the Christian message of salvation to a whole new audience. (from the website)

This is unsurprising and, for me, now a surprisingly clear example of heretical faith.  It is not heretical because it is ridiculous.  It is heretical because it believes that faith can be expressed analogically.  I will briefly qualify that statement by saying that I am unqualified to speak about ‘analogy’ as it is used in systematic theology and so these comments may or may not relate to a larger discussion.  My observation is simple.  Faith cannot be analogical because faith cannot be reduced from entirety into examples of totality.  This website reflects a belief that the ‘kernel’ of faith can be translated into the medium of fighting.  As a sport I actually have a relatively high regard for certain forms of MMA but this is viewed from a larger complex of social, ethical and personal perspectives.  What is at issue is the belief that you can ‘close’ the door of cage and function faithfully and independently within a confined space.  This is not a new insight but it is claiming more ground in how I view faithfulness.  This is how I would understand the word ‘piety’ as it used by folks at AUFS and also Hauerwas’s criticism of American as too ‘spiritual’.  Piety or spiritualism reflect those actions and postures which assume some effectiveness despite the realities of a larger context.  As it is Thanksgiving in Canada ‘piety’ might mean thanking God for a prosperity that comes at the direct cost of others without the means to object.  It is an act isolated from its relations.

I do not have the book on hand but Kierkegaard in his preface to The Sickness Unto Death speaks of faith as that which fearlessly encounters all of life.  In this way I have become much more receptive to ‘secular’ and ‘materialist’ expressions that attempt to thoroughly examine the functions at play in religion and culture (a critique of ideology it is often called).  To the extent that an expression distracts or insulates from an identifiable aspect of life it must be deemed unfaithful because it rejects the basic theological premise that the whole earth is full of God’s glory.  The basic posture of the Christian must remain to see, to hear, to feel, to taste, to smell.  This connects to the reason I began a new blog.  The hope was to learn the discipline of description.  I am not sure how I feel about the idea of accuracy in description (and I certainly reject any notion of neutrality) only that we tend to go through our days bypassing the basic acknowledgment and engagement with our senses.  Our mind already has enough patterns to live by assumption and guesswork and not take the time to recognize the utter uniqueness of everything (a bit grand of a statement I suppose).  So when I see examples like the one above I am reminded not of how ridiculous they are but of how tempting it is to cage faith in containable expressions allowing other forces free play in the ‘real world’ the one in which people live, breath and die; the one fallen and full of the glory of God.

I came across this quote from the website as though it was looking to enhance my point.

When Jesus stepped inside the cage of life to take on the cross, human legs did not kicked his out from under him. It was not human hands that broke his arm during the arm bar of adversity. It was not a human fist that knocked him to the mat for our sins. It was not a human that kept him inside the triangle choke of suffering. It was not the fighter’s sent by Satan to tap him out that beat him.

God gave him strength while on his back being pounded in the face by the elbows of sin. Those same hands that formed the universe. Those same hands that held you and me before the foundation of the world.

Take a jog out to the mountain of the skull. Out to the cross where, with holy blood, the hand that placed you on the planet wrote the promise, “God would give up his only Son before he’d Tap Out on you.

Truly, Jesus Didn’t Tap! – Are you tapping out on him?

Live Blogging From a Starbucks (Update)

I write this sitting next to a table of young women likely in their second year of university.  A few excerpts,

(regarding intro to philosophy)

– I mean I sat there the whole class listening to the professor ask whether or not a coffee cup was really there. I mean this is the most retarded thing. I haven’t learned a single fact. I don’t know what to study. I mean look at this textbook (pulls it out).  What the hell is that .  . . hieroglyphics (Of Grammtology?).  I mean I don’t need this I just wanted it as a GPA booster.  And its not going to be that.

– I don’t think I want to take the LSATS.  I mean there is so much hypocrisy in law. How could I feel good at the end of the day. But now I’m screwed. I don’t even know what I’m doing with myself. I’m thinking, like, social work. I’m even looking at occupational therapy. The work seems really interesting. It works with body and mind . . . and its helping people. I don’t know. I’m so lost. I mean I always wanted to be vet.

– Yah but you have to put animals down.

– Yah.

– I always wanted to be an actress or a teacher.

– There is nothing I feel passionate about except dogs.

– Maybe you could be a dog groomer?

– But I want to make lots of money.  Well I mean I don’t need to make a hundred thousand dollars.

– I saw X the other night and she looked so different.  She’s so skinny now.

– Does she look better?

– Yah, I think she got prettier.

(silence)

(extended exchange on Facebook and text activity)

I really don’t know what to do with myself.  Laugh, cry, scream.  And all of this intoned in a thoroughly unconscious valley girl accent (all four of them!).  They all want to be good and nice.  They want to help people.  They don’t want too much but they want enough.  And then, oh mercy, they cut people down.  I really loved the I haven’t learned any facts comment about philosophy.  Just give me something I can categorize, put my hands on, show to others!  Just don’t make me think through this!

Update! Two young men walk in and take their seats.  And in mid conversations,

– Reading Donald Miller, was revolutionary.  Reading it now, I’m like this is totally where I’ve been in the last two years.

(after losing the conversation for awhile I pick up on it again)

– So I’ve been working on my potato cannon . . .

I don’t even know.

Update #2

The young women are still here.  They continue to explore what the future holds for them.  Again there is this tepid middle road they desire.  I want to love what I do.  I want to make a decent income.  I don’t need to drive a Porsche.  And then finally the line comes.  I just want to be comfortable. Is this what will kill us in the end?

A Theology of Home Owning

My wife and I are, for the first time, looking seriously at buying a house.  My first impression is that I did not expect it to be as ‘spiritual’ of a process as I am realizing.  First there is the question of ownership.  My recent theological trajectory arcs towards the need to identify where I try and control questions of God, truth, morality, etc.  To what extent do I remain open even vulnerable to changes that I did foresee or create?  How does this relate to home owning?  My impression is that the saying a man’s home is his castle remains powerfully relevant (to what extent the gender ascription is relevant I don’t know).  The modern house is designed to be a space of dominance; a space where control and predictability are attainable.  We essentially colonize a small space for benevolent or destructive ends.  Is there a way of approaching home ownership that does not fall prey to this tendency?

What I am beginning to see is that the process and act of home buying must be integrated into a person and family’s larger theological and spiritual orientation.  For instance my wife is interested in a space that can be renovated so that it can be a type of canvas to explore new environments of living that can facilitate and nurture relationships.  I am interested in examining my motivation for location so that our purchase does not entrench further social, racial, economic boundaries that are based on fear.  From my brief conversations I find fear to be probably the most influential emotion in how people have gone about decision making.  It is certainly not the only influence and it is not always the strongest but it is almost always present.  I have had little fear in my life so I need to be careful in recognizing the roots and realities of other people’s fears.  Theologically, however, these fears must be discerned and sorted so that they do not create decisions that only enforce a continually fearful world for other people.

And of course tied in with all this are questions like the proximity to work, family, friends, and schools as well as the issue of transportation (what is walking and biking distance). What this means is that there is no one right house or approach to home buying.

Then there is the whole question of trust.  So we begin with a trusted friend who refers an agent.  We meet the agent and the agent refers a mortgage broker., etc. And suddenly a web spins out that would have looked entirely different had we cast an alternative first strand.  I cannot become an expert in all these fields while starting a new job, caring for a new child, all the while living under my in-laws roof!  So we trust.  Lord help us.

What I must shed regardless of our decision is the notion, the illusion, that a home can be a refuge or escape from the world.  The world will always reside within our homes in one form or another.  Our purchase then cannot be about possession and control because there remains too many variables (internal and external) that will continue to effect my family’s life no matter how well I reinforce the castle walls.  Our actions, spaces, and objects emerge as spiritual realities (whether residual or ontological).  They are not neutral.  They are engaged with God’s work of creation and redemption.  The image becomes almost levitical thinking of how priests concerned themselves with the mold on walls and binding of diverse threads.  Spaces and objects can be holy or profane, clean or unclean and they are never in these states permanently because these states are bound up in our ongoing engagement with God.  This gives me hope.  Perhaps the holiness of God can even be encountered as far away as the suburbs . . . perhaps.

The Torah’s Vision of Worship – Part II.2 – The Liturgy of the Covenant; Covenant as Sanctuary Building and World Building

(Table of Contents for  NOTCP series)

Exodus 25-40 deals primarily with the construction of the tabernacle which has been a hobby horse for many arm-chair architects over the years.  Though if one approaches this section in such a pragmatic fashion you will be “faced with a unique combination of long-winded description on the one hand and total omission of various particulars on the other” (citing M. Haran, 137).  Balentine, instead, explores the theological construction that is occurring in and around this section.

Continue reading “The Torah’s Vision of Worship – Part II.2 – The Liturgy of the Covenant; Covenant as Sanctuary Building and World Building” →

Notes from the Road and Homecoming

Well I have survived three days of twists and turns, rock and water that is northern Ontario.  A few thoughts emerged along the way.

1. The slow lane is great.

I left on a Uhaul truck pulling my car on a trailer.  I knew I could not be an aggressive driver and so I left with an entirely different pace and mentality.  While I am usually trying to jockey for position I was now unconcerned about passing or being passed.  In three days driving I passed maybe five people.  This was far and away a more enjoyable ride.  I also felt free to be gracious to those trying to merge and forgiving to those cutting me off.  I simply did not care.  I was driving by an internal orientation not a reactive one.  It was wonderful.

2. Think ahead when it comes to coffee.

My greatest nemesis on the road was bad coffee.  For a solid day and a half I endured weak, lukewarm coffee that for some reason always has a hint of cinnamon or something to it.  Finally in Thunder Bay I ran into a Starbucks where I stocked up on their instant VIA packages which brought me the rest of the way home.

3. The Greasy Spoon is a romantic illusion (no that is not true . . . the food is all too Real).

I thought that for at least one of my breakfasts I would stop at the smallest little town and pick up a some local flavour.  Well the ambience of the little cafe in Iron Bridge was great.  Locals discussing the accuracy of long-range rifles.  The owner describing the perils of my journey ahead . . . had I been driving in winter.  A framed hand drawn picture on the wall of the family’s trip to Vegas.  But the breakfast . . . or the ‘special’ it was called (I did not know bacon and eggs could constitute a special anywhere) . . . was horrible.  I am trying to forget the chewy potatoes.  Well, it was just something I needed to do.

4. You will always stop at the wrong place.

You need to make decision.  If you want to eat or you want to stop for the night you need to make a decision.  You could wander forever.  And no matter how selective you have been you will always pass something that looks better after the decision was made.

And so finally I arrived in Winnipeg and with that, on the first day, two things happened.  One event was singularly encouraging while the other a cruel reminder of my new reality.

The first was simple.  In five years in southern Ontario I suffered perhaps five mosquito bites.  In the first five minutes of my walk in Winnipeg I suffered the same.

Second, I was hoping to drop my books directly off at the church so that I would not have to move them twice but unfortunately no one was available.  There was, however, a 7-11 across the street from the church.  Now Winnipeg is the Slurpee capital of North America in its per capita consumption.  Slurpees I must remind you is not a generic term but a product of 7-11 in distinction from the Slush Puppy, Thirst Burster, etc..  Now I have been known to be a little bit of a Slurpee connoisseur in my day, often breaking off in 15 minute tangents on what constitutes the perfect Slurpee (including both internal and external factors as well as subjective orientations).  Needless to say I was excited to have my first Winnipeg Slurpee upon arriving.  When I was selecting my blend (I am no purist, and have little patience for a purist as such) another woman was about to get one.  I told her to go ahead as I was deliberating.  She leaned over and told me, “I think they have been messing with the Pepsi.  It used to be the best at this location.  It was the, the . . . ”  “The consistency,” I said.  “Yes,” she replied.  She understood.  I was home.