The strangeness of contemporary arianism

The title is a bit of a joke.

Early today I stumbled upon a series of articles examining second temple Judaism and Jesus divinity.

I'll admit that I did not read all of them but recognized from the little I did that these arguments are very similar to the arguments for Jesus divinity from the likes of NT Wright? The argument basically boils down to a philosophical contesting over the difference between agency,essense,substance and representation. I won't go into the details but basically you can have the same arguments for Jesus divinity as his non divinity and simply diasgree over those four concepts. It's a bit ridiculous.

Politics, Religion and Ethics

There is much ink spilt in Christian theological discourse in recent decades over what is perceived as the false dichotomy between religion and politics. After much consideration I'd like to offer a little thesis.

Politics is a category that is not identified with ethics although in actuality politics is mass organization based on an ethical foundation.


I think such a thesis can inform my Christianity and it apparent political implications. They are not political so much as they are ethical. Now if I take the whole idea of 'political organizing' as itself an ethical matter I may just be an anarchist.

Communinty Contra Communitarian

I have preferential option for communitarian ecclesiologies. The same ilk as MacIntyre and the postliberal clan. But recently I have encountered a problem with language of 'community'. Living in an intentional community I have to say that what 'community' we are pursuing is not the same as 'community' in the sense of 'the Christian community', or 'the Francophone community'. These are not at all identical in my mind - yet they do have some relation.

When I speak of 'church' I mean the very practical embodiement of Christians living in face-to-face community. Yet 'church' to me also means showing some sort of solidarity with all who profess Christian identity. But to use the word 'community' to describe both is just confusing.

ALSO: the notion of face-to-face relationships opposed to relating to someone not face-to-face (not talking about merely technology) is an interesting ethical question for me. How are we to relate to people as we encounter people primarily as friends ,acquaintances and people you will never meet.

A Liberation from Illusion

Awesome post over at the de-scribe.

I've been struggling over the idea of the preferential option for the poor. I neither want to reject which I believe is unbiblical, nor accept it uncritically. I've been trying to articulate in my own mind for quite some time the relationship between justice and spirituality in a non-oppositional way. I think this begins to to do so.

One of the reasons I named this blog consumer liberation theology is out of the realization that yes hate poverty and systemic
injustice but do we really want to raise people to be consumers (in the case of economic liberation theology) or the various power issues white men have (in regards to other liberation theologies of gender,race and colonialism).

Deconstructing Institutions and Grass Roots

Here's a binary:

Institutions / Grass-roots Movements.

Let's be iconoclast and deconstruct that binary opposition!

Friendships

A little briefing on my journey of political thinking.

Until relatively recently I have criticized institutions but have tried not to fall into anti-organizational fallacy I think many of my anti-institutional brethren fall into.

Yet recently as I have thought about the dangers of institutional culture I have realized that one can not merely 'network'. The danger of networking is to see in a person the potential for connection but not friendship. Is this even ethical?

So I suggest a new paradigm: do no institutionalize, nor network, but organize with friends! Build long lasting friendships, including with people who may only seem as connections. Illich believes that the function of prophecy has passed on to friendship. I'm beginning to see the greatness of that!

So to all of you out there who read this who may have ambitious plans of networking and organizing: friendship first! friendship last!

Great Quotation on Worship

“In many church circles the only gifts that are valued for worship are musical ones or the ability to speak well. This attitude needs shattering, and opening up so that poets, photographers, ideas people, geeks, theologians, liturgists, designers, writers, cooks, politicians, architects, movie-makers, storytellers, parents, campaigners, children, bloggers, DJs, VJs, craft-makers, or just about anybody who comes and is willing to bounce ideas around, can get involved.”

Read more: http://www.emergentkiwi.org.nz/archive/review-of-jonny-bakers-book-curating-worship/#ixzz0vxqActzr
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial

Whose Modernity? Which City?

I found this a few days ago. If it is possible to have ETT it would mean being able to go from Montreal to Vancouver in about an hour, from Cairo to Capetown in three, around 2 hours from Beijing to Moscow and less than three from Santiago to Vancouver.

Here is an interesting site concerning ETT technology.

Of course this would have heavy socioeconomic consequences.

The title is a reference to Macintyre, and the reason I make that reference is I believe technology like this will really impact global politics to such an extent that the paradigm shifts resulting from this will cause us to inquire into what type of modernity we have created, where locality will be consumed in an internationalist hegemony and cities become part of one super-city.

Positive Ecology?

One of my core intellectual projects is a to encounter modernity theologically. Specifically in a Christian theology, grounded radically in the resurrection of Jesus and his proclamation of the reign of God, for the practice of the Church.

This big project idea has led me to explore many things: theodicy, transcendance, technology, consumerism, justice, liberation and technology. I now turn to ecology, which I have yet to really think about. What I want to discuss now is positive versus negative approaches to the environment.

By negative approach I mean one that's creed is "we must not destroy the environment". This approach is reflects the ideologies of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Just as the individual has rights and must respect the rights of others, so the environment has rights that must be respected. Yet these rights are in the negative, there is no positive relationship to the environment just as there is no positive relationship with society.

By positive I mean an account that, just as communtarian accounts describes society, describes the relationship in terms of commitment and responsibility rather than rights.

When it comes to the bible, was is a good reading to determine between the two?

my peculiar place

I feel the need to communicate that my stance on Christianity is peculiar.. here's a story I hope apophatically explains why.

In 1947 the Church of South India was formed. One of the largest ecumenical experiments in recent history the church brought together Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational and even in the 1990s some Baptist and Pentecostal groups. The sheer breadth of this unity is quite an accomplishment.

One of the churches earliest missionary bishops was Lesslie Newbigin. The bishop who was later involved with the WCC also inspired the Missional Church movement which has been extremely influential in my thinking.

Yet as I look at the Church of South India I am also reminded of this. There is a network of house churches in India that is showing to be highly effective in creating Christian communities and discipling people. Yet is not at all connected to the any church institution, let alone the CSI.

So how am I to reconcile this? On the one hand I appreciate the ecumenical movement as well as the liturgies and heritage of churches yet am very much drawn to the grass-root type stuff of simple church and in North America emerging church.

OCAP, The Salvation Army, the government and people

I will be honest every tuesday I think about Ivan Illich.

The reason is on Tuesday nights we go on StreetWalks where an outreach worker with the Salvation Army tours us around downtown Toronto explaining social justice issue. One questions that is perpetually on my mind anyway, and even more so on tuesday nights as the youth ask similair questions, is how can non-professionals show love and hospitality to those who have severe addictions or are criminally cultured?

Coming from the perspective of Youth who on the most part, realistically, will never be trained to be professional addictions counselors and are much to young to do anything like activist work this question is potent. I will not go into details but the youth are really impacted by this walk. Yet at the same time no non-institutional way of grapling with the issues is presented which leads them with out really anything to do about the issues.

Quotation

"Is there not in the Western view of human beings and society a delusion, which always looks to the future and wants to improve it, even when it implies an increase of suffering in your own societies and in the South? Have you not forgotten the richness which is related to sufficiency? If, according to Ephesians 1, God is preparing in human history to bring everyone and everything under the lordship of Jesus Christ, his shepherd-king—God’s own globalization!—shouldn’t caring for and sharing with each other be the main characteristic of our lifestyle, instead of giving fully in to the secular trend of a growing consumerism?" - Bangkok Declaration

This was written during the late 90's Asian Financial Crisis.

Theology as Lover

How are we to understand theology?

I ask this partially out of experience of people being adamantly against the discourse where I love it. One understanding that really captures me is Paul Tillich's in the History of Christian Thought where he describes the relationship between Theology and Scripture as Theology penetrating scripture. When I read that line the image immediately evoked is one a diver diving into water, that's what a theologian does to scripture making sense of by diving through it, swimming and exploring all it's details and basqueing in it's temperature.

Another image I had is theology as lover, lover on the scriptural text. It is not identical to the text, but it loves it. It serves it, it courts it, it has fights with it, it reconciles with it, it swoons over it, it gets confused over it, it desires it and it dreams about it. It hopes to produce something out of the relationship, and hopes the relationship last long.

What do you think?

Critical Praxis and my Summer Experience

So this summer I've decided that each week I will relate some of my mission experience with a favourite theorist, theories or theologians. Here is my tentative schedule for the next 8 weeks.

Week One - Service Sites, Institutions and Youth - engaging with Ivan Illich
Week Two - the Church and the Churches - ecclesiology, Christian non-profits and A missional ecclesiology - Darrell Guder
Week Three - Justice, prophetic action and leftist politics - Walter Brueggemann
Week Four - new friends at sites and the other - a little riff on Emmanuel Levinas
Week Five - the Story I find myself in - Narrative Theology
Week Six - the ideologies of missions trips - Marxist theory
Week Seven - finding meaning in service through Language - Derrida
Week Eight - the last week - I'm reading Moltmann this summer and I want to end with his eschatological ideas (to be fecisious)

On Consumption

I read this in my cultural anthropology textbook today:

"The amount of goods that the world's population consumed in the past 50 years equals what was consumed by all previous generations in human history." - page 98, Cultural Anthropology, fourth Canadian edition

Naomi Klein against Apocalypticism? Part I

I have begun reading "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. As part of my reflection of Graham Ward's notions of the Body politic, particularly in "The Politics of Discipleship" and his reflection on constitutional monarchy, Francis Fukuyama's misguided liberal-democratic interpretation of Hegel and the necessity of some sort of monarchy I have often, in jest, suggested that the Lewis', the Canadian political family should be the Royal family replacing the current British one.

Naomi Klein, who's husband is Avi Lewis the son of Stephen Lewis, writes the following at the end of her introductory chapter:

"This desire for godlike powers of total creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions.. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments..that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world." (page 24)

These concluding remarks finish her discursive activity in the introduction; with frequent reference to neoliberal economists and policy-makers as 'fundamentalists', a quotation from Milton Friedman when he describes himself as "an old-fashioned preacher delivering a Sunday sermon", a quotation from a Republican congressman from Lousianna where in passing reference suggests that the events of Hurricane Katrina somehow was God-ordained in order to reform the education system in favour of the free-market and of course the quotation from Genesis 9 (the narrative of the global deluge) that begins the chapter. Even the title of the book suggests some sort of religious reference.

Klein, again "Rooted in Biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." (pg 23)

In her introduction Klein distances her position from a kind of 'unattainable purity' position of 'dangerous ideologies', such as but not exclusive to neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics. She gives a brief glimpse into her own political location, favouring among other things the disbelief that Markets are inherently violent (because she suggests that it is possible to have a market economy demands 'no such ideological purity') and supporting a somewhat Keynesian position of a mixed market, quasi-socialist state.

I would like the file a grievance of some-sort, but I will do it by telling a story that Klein narrates at the beginning of her introduction. Speaking about how these "Shock" capitalists were using the tragedy of Katrina in New Orleans one of the characters in Klein's story asks "Are they blind?". As in blind to the immense suffering of the impoverished citizens of New Orleans who have lost so much because of poor planning and terrible natural events.

"'A mother with two kids chimed in. 'No they're not blind, they're evil. They see just fine.' " (page 4)

That mother had the courage to label what it was that these people were doing. Evil. Now although I appreciate Klein's insistence that this ideology leads to violence I feel that universalizing the tendency that all notions of 'purity', essentialism or the absolute leads to violence is false. Not neccesarily more dangerous, although perhaps it is, but false.

With her journalistic efforts and crusades I am sure Klein would find herself agreeing that we have to be rational and not ideologues in our search for justice. But may I continue by adding in the words of Alasdair Macintyre "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"

With her support of diversity and her suggestion that perhaps some sort of 'free' market could exist she seeks co-existence with other communities with different belief systems. In evoking the communitarian discourse of Macintyre I am really asking if this contempt of things that are "contemptuos of pluralism" (page 23) really understands the meaning of difference, especially of different communties.

To take another angle her suggestion that 'purity' of ideology, belief or vision leads to violence seems to suggest she holds on to an 'ontology of violence' (Milbank). Such an ontology, as Milbank points out in "Theology and Social Theory", a book greatly influenced by Macintyre,is at the heart of classical liberalism, pragmatism, a little bit in Hegel and Marx, and certainly nihilism.

Now I believe co-existence is neccesary but "What existence? Which communities?" (Macintyre again), for the co-existence of Reformed and Anabaptist church in the Netherlands had very different views of what co-existence looks like, as the mainline Church-state relationship though in their refusal to be part of the state church as so non-conformist as to be dangerous to the state. Certain Islamic groups would have a view of co-existence, for example in the Ottoman empire Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to exist but with less privileges that the dominant cultural group. In Canada following the seven year's war a more positive situation arose where the french Catholics of New France and the british settlers and Loyalists were able to co-exist, with the establishment of the Quebec Act which guaranteed french cultural (read economic, legal, linguistic and religious) rights. But one must remember that at that time the Quebec act was so offensive to some of the Enlgish that it became part of the Intolerable Acts leading to the revolutionary war.

I think Klein must be clear that she is coming from a Non-Marxist Keynesian socialism which is a tradition in itself. It is not a universal view which hopes for peace in putting communities beside each other in co-existent pluralism but a particular view that may want to establish a happy faced hegemony over various traditions watering them down and making them the same. Sure there maybe Islam, or Christianity, or what have you, but they are really not Islam, Christianity or what have you in the traditional sense but simply historically cultured enclaves that have delayed degeneration as an imminent liberalism conquers all. Is this the End of History? Perhaps Klein is philosophically similair to her neoconservative (classically liberal) enemies in her refusing 'purity', or more outrightly particularity, she sets up a situation where her Keynesian politics 'consumes' other political and religious traditions.

If only she would come clearly out of the closet and like that mother label these other traditions as 'evil', or at least imperialistic.

Which brings me to the most important question for me: is it possible to have a tradition that is not imperialist? Outside of classical liberalism which paradoxically denies tradition yet produces similar 'Empire' can we have a tradition that is anti-imperial intrinsically? I will be honest I appeal the crucified God as the only honest way out of empire.

Part II of this post will deal with the biblical Apocalyptic as inherently anti-imperial, despite the distaste for it Klein displays in her introduction.

Also forgive the untideness of this post, I think I had go ideas but they did not really arrive on screen very well.

A facebook response

The following was a response on facebook to suggest that the theology beyond creating a department of peace in Canada was actually idolatry. The response made me quite angry, and here was my first response. I say first, because likely there will be more.

Idolatrous notions? You mean believing that trying to do good and find peace is somehow idolatrous?

And in the apocalyptic literature God is warrior, or more specifically victor. He is a victor through his dead on the cross, and Chirstians are called to likewise surrender and to trust God who raises the dead, as he did Christ.

The true Idolatry is making the prince of peace into a God of war. We worship the God revealed in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth, not the Empire building Ceaser.

As for there is no peace for the wicked, I would like to briefly quote Romans "While we were still sinners; Christ died for the ungodly". Now if you say this verse refers Christians and that other enemies should not have peace that I am reminded off the response of the Older Son in the parable of the prodigal son who chastises his father for his grace towards the other rebellious son who became the enemy. Saying there is no peace for the wicked might have some biblical background but quite clearly Jesus commands us to Love Our Enemies, and if we love those who love us we are no better than pagans.

But besides the theological notions the department of peace seems to me to be moving in the right direction. I am not sure whether or not it will pass, but for any body of people, any organization, especially the organization of nation-state with it's resources, is willing to put the resources into finding alternatives for war and in peace-building.

Saying that war and conflict is grounded in human nature is both true and a cop out. Let me explain. You can not avoid the responsibility one has by wiping one's hands and saying "It was just nature". Yes creating this conflict is part of human nature but it is not an excuse, it does not make us innocent, if we cause it.

Most conflict in the world today stems from human nature to be sure, but in not so clear ways. It seems to happen mainly out of injustices and divisions that are deeply rooted in history. Sin does not just appear, it does not happen in a vacuum.

For instance the genocide in Rwanda has a history in the colonialism of the Belgians (who, as I may point out, were considered 'Christians') who through their legal structures perpetuated the differences between Hutu and Tutsi.

To pick on the Belgians a lit bit more, look at the Congo. In the last two decades many people have died from a civil war in that country, second only in history to the second world war. Terrible! Yet you look at the Countries history with the terrible attrocities the tyrant Leopold II of Belgium enacted on that country in search of personal wealth, killing according to the New York Times millions (although it might have been sensationalistic, less than that number likely died but still A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE MURDERED), following after the 1960s by a dictator established by US government for their interests (whether they were good or bad is up to debate, nevertheless a dictator was established), which further destablized the nation. Then the real conflict began as the conflict in Rwanda spilled it's borders.

These are only two examples, not to mention the countless examples of the International Monetary Fund, in their apparent rationalist wisdom, charging unpayable Usury (which the Bible and Christianity in general has serious doubts about, including denouncing as absolutely unethical) to many of the former European colonies, trapping them in cycles of abject poverty as their governments have no money to invest or build the country. The poverty leads to starvation, which leads to desperation which helps create the scenario for violent conflict and war.

It is the root causes, these injustices and others like them, that such a department of peace would address. I see that as a good thing, and do not comprehend whatsoever how this desire is arrogant or overly ambitious. Surely it will not solve all problems, or even a majority of them, but if it can stop some it is far better that not.

Food Freedom

I just added this blog to my RSS feed.

Check it out. The latest post on American agro-business in India is particularly enlightening.

The Event, Badiou and Yoder - or Jesus for or against revolution ?

I remember reading about Alain Badiou's 'ontology of the event' where he grounds the discovery of such ontology in the unique event of the resurrection of Christ. Badiou, who is not a Christian, recognizes somethings radically new in this story, a new ontology. An ontology of 'the event', something unprecedented in history. He theorizes that it is only with this ontology of the event, grounded in it's own unique and bizarre way to the Christian story, that a real revolution can happen.

Today I was reading from "Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution" where Yoder after a brief historical analysis. He narrates the events of history, events as diverse as the Boer War, the French revolution, the decolonization of Latin America, as mainly originating out of aristocracies on the revolutionary side who were able to use the revolutions to set up Apartheid, make way for Napolean and exploit the poor respectively.

I thought it was interesting to compare the two; both trying to do scholarly work but one in support of what might be called the Modern Revolutionary Tradition and the other Christianity (or 'the resurrection tradition' to put it tongue-and-cheek). Both use history and scholarship to support their views, but are both coming from specific traditions.

I wish to throw a bit of Gadamer in here as well: can there be a fusion of horizons here?

re-thinking Christendom

A lot of the intellectual issues I try to deal with our fundamentally about the relationship between the Church, it's theologies and political practice. Recently I have decided to try and work through something that John Milbank poses in an interviewover at the The Other Journal:

"And that means of course, re-think Christendom. But now in more festive, pro-body, yet more interpersonal, less fearing terms and ones celebrating much more excellence and virtue in every realm including those of craft, farming and trade. And having a greater will to the democratization of excellence."

Considering the anti-Christendom strain in my thinking and the traditions I have been apart of (Anabaptist,evangelical,anarchist and missional) this quotation is directly challenging. The political thinking intrinsic to Milbank is that theology has a place in the economic, social and political world beyond the position of prophetic utterance or face-to-face relationship. Examining my thought it seems that the ecclesiology I pertain to puts a monopoly first on the personalist 'face-to-face' and the Anabaptist/liberationist 'prophetic utterance'. For me Milbank has effectively de-stabalized these two monopolies in my mind.

In Missional Church, a book I have mentioned before, Darrell Guder describes the relationship of the church, the people of God, to the reign of God as "the sign,foretaste,instrument and agent of God's rule in Christ" (pg 221). The church is not identical to the reign of God, but is certainly related and the relationship is not easily severed. I will call 'Christendom' a social arrangement which is not identical to the reign of God and neither identical to the Church.

Milbank seems to mention some of the harsher criticisms of the Christendom arrangement including the less festive,anti-body,impersonal,fear-mongering,lack of virtue and lack of respect for the common person as citizen and worker. He is open about the reality that historic Christendom has major flaws but does not abandon the project altogether after the failure of both socialism and liberalism in avoiding both wide-scale genocide,economic injustice and nihilism.

As a member of those various traditions above I would argue about, or more precisely add to, his constructive politics of a re-thought Christendom is a heavy suspicion of power, a rejection of violence, a need to reconcile localism with global technocracy and a recognition of cultural diversities. I would also caution that european imperialism has been an experienced reality of the last five centuries partially out of the failures of the old Christendom.

Re-thinking Chistendom means for me thinking through my cautions and additions to what Milbank is saying. Much of what seems to me to be 'post-Christendom' political theology seems to bubble out of a dialect between an ethical aim (to respond to the other, to have justice) with political suspicion (which comes out of a lived reality of imperialism - such as the Anabaptist persecutions by the state churches in Europe). Yet at the same time in quite clear terms Post-Christendom theology must come to the realization that it is not politically neutral and that even the concept of 'Christendom' is the recognition that our theology will inevitably, if taken to their the logical conclusions, will produce or support some sort of social arrangement which although neither the reign of God nor the Church is something related to the two.

First of all, following Macintyre and also Milbank and 'Theology and Social Theory', we must recover a robust understanding of virtue. But I would caution that this must be 'textured' by the Scriptures and should be more from the Spirit than Aristotle. This means both practice and understanding arising out of the New Testament, especially Paul's epistles. Perhaps love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" can be the virtues of this new order.

Secondly the suspicion of power and rejection of violence must be taken into account, especially as informed by the New Testament. This means both the development of virtues and communities of nonviolence and a communal respect and distrust of power. There are practical ways of exploring this including favouring the local and de-centralized institutions, including economic and politics ones.

Thirdly - learn from De Certeau and Ellul about technology and it's use. Technology is not a bad thing intrinsically but has the potential, as is shown in actual history, to be very alienating. There are ways to use technology to build community, strengthen the local economy and build towards what Illich call 'conviviality'.

Two things in those whole Christendom discussion:

First - it is secondary or ever tertiary. Not in the sense that it does not matter but in the sense that ethics come before politics. What matters primarily is not the setting up of an order but the spiritual flourishing of individuals and the church in the willingness to suffer and love the last,the lost, the least,the widows, the orphans and the enemies.

Secondly we must head Illich's warning "Responsibility is the soft under-belly of power".

Moltmann quotation.

"We however need another theology of liberation for people incapable of living - for melancholic and apathetic and in this sense godforsaken people in the First World" - Jurgen Moltmann

That sums up what I've been trying to say, to write, to express.

The Body, the Eucharist, Sacraments and Symbols

I've mentioned that a lot of what I do read is the movement known as Radical Orthodoxy. What I do severely enjoy about it's corpus of writtings is how they engage with contemporary philosophical,political and cultural issues ranging from the destructive habits of late capitalism to a theology of the body.

It is the theology of the body which challenges me the most. Mainly because their theological account of gender,marriage and sexuality is centred around the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Having listened to their arguments and been somewhat of an observer of the discourse I can say that I do really desire to have the same understanding of the Eucharist as they do simply because from the point they are able to narrate a different world, a 'city of God' so to speak. From that point they are able to talk about Bodies in a meaningful way because they hold a sacramental view of the Eucharist.

So now I'm stuck. I want to engage with a discourse and theology on bodies but now have been forced to really think and pray about what the Eucharist really means.

Consumerism - Part II

Alienation.

Consumerism, as a system of economic organization which creates profound social and personal effects, is fundamentally alienating. In "Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire" William Cavanaugh points out three things that Consumerism alienates us from:

Producers - those who make our stuff and grow our food. Those people across oceans who stitch our shirts and cultivate our coffee. Those who work in factories, most of the time under terrible conditions, to produce our junk.

Products - Cavanaugh points out that Consumerism even detaches us from the products themselves as it is oriented to always more. One can not be satisfied with the products that one has rather one must always buy and buy and buy. The author also points out that this can be read as an alternative to Christian ascetism which also wants to be detached from products, but for a different reason.

I use the word Alienation in the same way Jacques Ellul used it in The Ethics of Freedom - which I urge everyone to read at some point.

Consumerism - Part I

It has been pointed out to me that despite the title of this blog I have yet to discuss consumerism. Here I hope to introduce what will be a series of posts on consumerism, especially as it related to theology.

Consumerism I use as a concept is developed out of a critique of what once called Materialism. Materialism was a kind of value-system where people 'desire' material goods more than out of need but out of desire. The problem with Materialism as a discourse is that, in my mind, it seems to ignore the economic system and social consequences of materialism and simply focuses on only one aspect of it.

Consumerism is more systematic. It is more than just an individual's one time sin - it is cyclical vice that fuels the political order of society. Where 'investment' was valued by the early Calvinist settlers of the US, purchasing has become eroded to immediate gratification based on bad debt (money that is not there). More than that the influence of Consumerism is part of the global social order. The world economy is based on the consumption of goods by the World's richest cultures, but it is not only consumption but conspicuous consumption.

I realize I have said a lot, and it may seem a bit confusing, but these article on Consumerism seems to illustrated my distaste of it.

But the real purpose of this blog is not criticize consumerism as such, but to provide a theological alternative to it. I find myself agreeing a lot with Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire by Cavanaugh.

I use the terminology of 'liberation theology' to evoke that specific theology which begins by acknowledging that the class position of a reader of the Scriptures and of the Church should effect our theology and praxis. My proposal is that whereas traditional Liberation Theology came from the perspective of the poor, and to liberate them from their oppression, that as North American's we should come from the perspective of the average consumer who needs to be liberated from false desire, indifference,brand identification, loneliness bred from the breakdown of community, greed and participation in the oppression of the Global Economy or politico-poetically called "Empire" and other things related to consumerism. Instead a theology concerned with Consumer Liberation will look to community, simplicity, solidarity, liturgy and Spirituality as things to be restored.

Now one thing I must make clear: I believe it is God who liberates. It is only in Christ can people truly become free. I think that our readings of Scripture has been shaken by the affleunce we have, and the consumerism we practice, I think it is still possible to participate in Christ.

The right idea from the wrong place

I have been thinking about a post on Marriage I read some time ago defending Marriage from an Eastern Orthodox liturgical point of view. It reminded me of an interview with Graham Ward I read a while back in which the subject of bodies,sexuality, Marriage and Judith Butler were brought up. It is a good read. But one thing I realized is in a lot of the discussion of marriage, gender, sexuality etc. I tend to find myself drifting to a somewhat litrugical understanding in my ways of thinking. Considering the emphasis on the sacramentality of marriage, which relates to the sacramentality of the church, in both of the previous positions (Eastern Orthodox and Ward's own) mentioned I wonder how to approach any discourse on marriage without referencing it's sacramentality.

I mean most of the people I hang out/ worship with do not have the same sacramental understanding as I do. The one even accepted the label of 'sacramental anarchist'. Yet they believe in the 'sanctity' of marriage. I agree that marriage is sacred like they say but I see no real reason for them to believe that. Thus they seem to have, as the title suggests, the right idea from the wrong place. I don't believe I should attack them, or bring it up, but I do see issues that might need to be worked out in the future.

This post was inspired by this one.

De-Institutionalizing Ideas

Below, sometime ago, I have written about the institutionalization of hospitality as seen by Ivan Illich. In his book "The Rivers North of the Future" he discusses how it became evident to him that it is off immediate importance to work within the framework of institutions and that culture because of how systematic it was. As I have been reflecting on this top this past weekend I have one very simple piece of advice for those working in institutions:

Make friendships. Real Friendships.

If you are a pastor at a church get to know on a good level some of denominational staff. Not only that but for the people you are serving make sure that some of the relationships go deeper than just a pastor-congregant relationship. It is only in these friendships can change actually occur. Illich went so far as to label these friendships as the new form of prophesy. Do I agree? I am not sure exactly but I know real, lasting friendship is one of the primary means to be human in a beaurocratic techno-societies.

re-traditionalization

I came upon an interesting post over some time ago which used the concept of "traditionalization".

"According to Ogbu U. Kalu, during an era where Japan was trying to modernize its industry, there was something called “traditionalization,” or patterning Japanese industrial practices consistently with traditional Japanese mores (Kalu, 9)."

The idea came up in my own personal reflections. Today I spoke at an Intentional Community forum called SharedSpace in which I discussed how I entered into Intentional Community. I explained how my family's experience both in the Apostolic Christian Church and the Banat Swabian persecution. I also referenced my time in my Churches youth group and the emphasis on Service and Mission.

I realized, although I did not use this particular language, that I re-traditionalized both my family heritage and youth group experience into something which seems completely new and foreign to both, yet connected quite intimately.

All this also reminded me of anti-work articles in a recent issue of Geez that I read. It seems ironic, on the surface, that a magazine connected to Anabaptism and Mennonites who are essentialized as hard-working farmers would advocated non-work. Yet on a deeper level they are re-traditionalizing the social and political distincteness of the Anabaptist reading, which focuses on both peace, the poor and has an anarchist tinge, of Christianity in the context of the 21st Century (I hesistate to label it anything else)

My appreciation (or appropriation) of media and cultural studies.

I appreciate media and cultural studies.

What I mean by that is not that I study it - although as someone who reads a lot of theology I come across a lot of the same thinkers and discourses. Here I want to focus on MacLuhan's "The medium is the message". I'm not going to analyze and explain but to suffice to say it is something important for Christians. The message we are trying to spread, or at least owe loyalty to, is the gospel. The gospel might be expressed differently in different circles of sub-traditions of Christianity but it is still the gospel.

But "the medium is the message" has challenged. The medium I use the most, academic theology books, usually talk about things related to or around the gospel. Yet if "the medium is the message", a belief that I think is justified, have I turned the medium of theology books into the message of the gospel? In more practical terms have I defined discipleship not as serving the Risen Christ so much as reading books?

Cultural studies plays a helpful role in this too. Where as media studies analyzes the characters and effects of media and media technology cultural studies looks at the social consequences of economic structures. It uses the metaphors of production and consumption for culture, useful metaphors in my estimation. I have to admit besides being the medium of books that which I read, and possibly define as my message as indicated above, is also tied into the economic forces of business. Grands Rapids is my cultural capital in economic terms since almost of all my favourite authors and books are published by Eerdmanns .

Have I defined my discipleship, then, as an intellectual pilgrimage through Grand Rapids?

These are questions I am dealing with.

Hermeneutics of a Sent Disciples : a proposal

I recently picked up Hermeneutics: An Introduction from the EBC library.

Here I intend to propose my own hermeneutics before I begin reading the book and then, in about a weeks time, respond to what I have read and re-formulate my hermeneutic based on what I have learned. The project is not too ambitious, but I do hope to critique and better my own hermeneutic.

The author's definition of hermeneutics is
"Hermeneutics explores how we read,understand,and handle texts, especially those written in another time or in a context of life different from our own. Biblical hermeneutics investigates more specifically how we read,understand,apply, and respond to biblical texts."

First of all let me state my belief that hermeneutics is one of the most important issues facing the Church today, specifically as Christians try to engage personally and corporately in a world of diversity, violence, injustice and confusion. The divisions between high church and low church, 'Christian realist' and 'Peace Church', first world and third world, Emergent and Established seem to be caused by how we interpret the Scriptures.

Secondly I can not say I believe in a 'pure' hermeneutic, one separate from historical and social conditions. Even the concept of 'hermeneutics' can not be separated from the recent history of Christianity,the western academy and continental philosophy. Basically what I am saying is that any possible hermeneutic is text-ured, meaning that it is formed and built under the influences of certain texts. The primary one of these texts is the Scriptures themselves but also certain philosophical and theological texts - even the unconscious influence of Schleiermacher on Christians who have never read him. Finally even the personal and communal experiences we have are like 'text's, a metaphor I find appropriate.

Thirdly if a hermeneutic is text-ured it should also have a strong memory. Not only of the tradition of the church but of the tradition's hermeneutic. In the ancient Church, in the age of the patristics, one hermeneutic was the rule of faith which was basically a general understanding of the Gospel which guided the interpretation of scripture. Other 'rules of faith' or sources of authority include the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Theoria.

Now to my hermeneutic itself -

First of all I adopt and adapt the patristic Rule of Faith. An issue with interpreting scripture through the gospel is that a primary text of the gospel is scripture itself. This new part of the the rule of faith I will call the Missio Dei. That concept already has a history of it's own, as illustrated by the wikipedia article, but I am using it here as part of my hermeneutic. Why? Where as the rule of faith interpreted as the Gospel is certainly a step in the right direction often in talking about the Gospel the references to the New Testament are abundant but reference to the Old Testament is scarce. The missio dei is an altogether better concept. Through the work of both NT Wright and Christopher Wright (which I have yet to read) the connections between the incarnation,life,death and resurrection of Christ and God's work through the old testament is profoundly connected under the Missio Dei, which is latin for the sending (of) God.

I will not go into it here but the basic belief that the sent-ness of missionaries is part of the deeper character not only of the church, or the scriptures, but of God himself. Thus the Missio Dei becomes the first part of my hermeneutic. Thus the sent-ness.

The second aspect is an adoption and adaptation of Theoria and Theosis. Both of these presuppose a God who not only acts but also reveals himself to and transforms people. Theoria is this vision of God and theosis is becoming like God (in the sense of Character). I want to build on these concepts with the ideal of discipleship. Discipleship not only acknowledges both theosis and theoria, albeit perhaps in Methodist-evangelical fashion, but also is grounded in the scriptures as a call of Christ to the apostles. Discipleship builds on the concepts of theoria and theosis as possibility by also acknowledging ecclesia in the form of community as well as the call to political discipleship. Here I can once again point out the text-ured part of this hermeneutic, as community is a value coming out of much discussion in the Emerging Church and political discipleship coming out of liberation theologies and Peace Church type thinking.

So here then is my hermeneutic: one of sent disciples.

Ecclesial Alliances

This is another in my series of posts on Peace Church type stuff.

The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.

Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology

Agents or Witnesses? Contesting ecclesiology

Some time ago I picked up for myself The Green Bible.

In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.

The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.

The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.

Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):

- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking

Missional Church, Scripture and Tradition

The great gift/distraction of the internet to people who like to learn are sites like Wikipedia and Google Books. Thus it was a gift/distraction for me to be able to read part of the book Missional Church.

The final chapter had this quotation which I have been thinking about a lot the last three days:
"One of the most important and earliest ways in which the church's universal connectedness witnessed to the gopel was the process of canonization of scripture itself." (pg 251)

What the author is saying here is that in order to be missional, to organize both personally and corporately underneath the Missio Dei, the church essentially created the Bible. This is an alternative understanding compared to the usual discussion concerning the authority of Scripture. Though I feel those discussions are important I feel this different way of understanding it can be a better way forward both theologically and practically in terms of witness.

It also got me thinking about a lot of other things like how this can relate to Ordination, denomination and what is commonly referred to as the Wesleyan quadrilateral. There's a lot of potential here and I hope to explore it further.

More about Peace Church

What prompted my other post on Peace Church the other day is that I am currently reading Violence, Hospitality and the Cross.

This quotation struck me as something I need to work through:

"The resurrection mandate of pure hospitality needs to be tempered, therefore, by the wisdom of conditional hospitality. Inasmuch as we are still constrained by current historical conditions, our welcome of the stranger and the prodigal will necessarily involve some restraint, conditionality and even violence. The penal element of the atonement offers some significant insights into the way we should act in our everyday social, economic, and political realities. Practicing hospitality is a difficult and painful task." (178-179)

He is arguing that although the resurrection promises pure hospitality the hospitality we offer is always conditional. He expands what he means by conditional by saying that it will mean, sometimes, violence. He accounts for this conditionality theologically by reading the violence of the cross as an example of how we, in our 'everyday social, economic and political realities', should act. Although his definition of violence is broad, a definition that ends up placing restraining your children and genocide in the same category, he does not advocate it's use arbitrarily. Yet he does advocate some violence based on the violence God use on the cross.

Now that I have un-packed his writing a bit I will go on to articulate my position.

First of all he has the presupposition that to act in nonviolence will actually increase the violence. I do not necessarily disagree but wonder if he is now basing his ethics on an ontology of violence, the belief that reality is essentially chaotic, aggressive and Malthusian, which, along with Milbank, he accuses Levinas and Derrida of possessing. Perhaps this binary opposition between a harmonious ontology of peace and discordian ontology of violence needs to be deconstructed to account for what exactly the Church means when it theologizes saying "this is a fallen world".

Boersma consistently references Paul in his book but I do not believe he takes an adequate look at a Pauline pneumatology and certainly he does not connect pneumatology to ethics. The phrase "the Spirit who rose Christ from the dead" is one of the canonical idioms in the Pauline corpus almost to the point of become cliche. It captures Paul's theology of the spirit quite adequately.

Because the Spirit has risen Jesus from the dead those who are part of the Church can be justified in participating in a different praxis. This praxis is no longer based on the conditional hospitality of a violent reality but based on the 'eschatological hospitality' (Boersma's wording) of the resurrection.

This different praxis is 'Christian' in the very literal meaning of the word, being based on the actions of Jesus. The actions which were to act non-violently in surrendering to the crucifixion rather than acting violently against the Roman or religious authorities. More importantly he did not put confidence in violence to establish the reign of God, nor did he accept that he had to match the chaotic reality on his own terms, but rather chose to obey God (cf. the Gethsemane narratives in the gospels) and was rewarded in being risen from the dead.

Now theologically, the historical life and especially resurrection of Jesus, means that the eschaton and it's reality has appeared in the present. Theology discourse, especially of the radical reformation variety, uses the language of God's kingdom having "broken in" within history. This has implications for our ethics. It means acting nonviolently is based not on pragmatic ignorance towards the violence that this might allow but based on three theological confessions: the counterintuitive death of the Jesus, the surprising resurrection and the inheritance of the Spirit.

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Romans 8:9-14, NASB

In this Paul is not directly talking about nonviolence but it is not inappropriate to use this passage to illuminate any discussion on the issue. Paul here contrasts 'the flesh' to 'the Spirit' in explaining some of his ethics and he manages to work the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus into this account. I understand that the historical reading of 'the flesh' has a significant amount of quasi-gnostic meanings to it but I do not have the space to go into that here. The point of the passage is because Christians have the same spirit who rose Jesus from the dead we no longer have to live according to 'the Flesh' or, in the context of my argument, violence, because we have been empowered to live otherwise.

Now it is not clear but Boersma seems to be saying that although we do have hope for that 'eschatological hospitality' because of the resurrection of Jesus we live in the time of 'conditional hospitality' (read: necessary violence) where the violence of the cross has implications. These implications it seems (he may be saying otherwise but I see no hint of this in his book) means necessary violence now which could mean things like the death penality, just war (or maybe, since he is Canadian, 'peace-keeping') etc. This seems like a bizarre reading of the implications of the cross to me, and I would suggest he read NT Wright's work (one of his main sources) closer and perhaps even the New Testament itself (which I admit, saying that is a bit polemical on my part)

There that is my counter-reading of the hospitality of the death and resurrection of Christ and it's implications. I will now proceed to show areas where further, critical reflection is needed on my part as I hope I have already shown some areas where reflection is needed on his.

Copious amounts of graphic nonviolence: the presupposition that is held by Boersma and not necessarily challenged by me is that nonviolence actually has no power. I believe that I need to do a lot more critical thinking, careful reading, meticulous observation and authentically pray about this issue. The hypothetical situation set-up to criticize advocates of nonviolence is that mass scale use of nonviolence will lead to very bloody war. I have had to engage with this situation on a theoretical level as well. Not to long ago I found this blog post which critiqued this view pointing to examples in history of nonviolence resistance, such as Gandhi, the civil rights movement etc.

Perhaps it is the historical situation (I refrain from saying it will always be the case) that most people, including most Christians, do not believe in nonviolence. And it is this particular situation which socially constructs the belief that nonviolence is ineffective and will produce more violence.

But it is this particular situation where the Church is called to act, and according to my belief act nonviolently. Which means, in effect, that our nonviolence will not stop violence. But I am finding myself disagreeing that the proliferation of violence makes nonviolence a choice complicit in this proliferation.That is to say makes nonviolence irresponsible and a contributor to violence. It is not people who choose to act nonviolently that causes the nonviolence but the fact that those who choose nonviolence are in the minority.

The final issue is my defense of a nonviolent stance from the position of my pneumatology. What does it mean that The Spirit gives life to our mortal bodies? Does it simply mean the wisdom and courage to act nonviolently or, alternatively, does it mean that our nonviolence will actually be effective?

Nein! Barth adding to Milbank

"Nein!" was Karl Barth's boisterous response to the question whether there can be any natural knowledge of God apart from revelation. Here I intend to very briefly show that Barth's "Nein!" can add to Milbank's Ontology of Peace contra an Ontology of violence.

Can an Ontology of Peace be a known, as an alternative to a ontology of violence, by natural reason apart from revelation?

"Nein!"

Well, that is my creative synthesis of two theological projects. To be honest I am not sure whether I agree with my syn-thesis. But I think it would interesting to explore. Especially since an ontology of peace is drawn primarily from scriptural texts that are considered by the Christian tradition as authoritative, and are not be natural reason alone.

Modernity and Christianity

I remember when I read Paul Tillich's "The History of Christian Thought" I was struck immediately by a quotation, one that I can no longer find, where he points to both the establishment of democracies and the advancement of science as a positive result of the Enlightement. He found it strange that how Christians reacted so strongly against these which were generally good.

I find myself agreeing with him on this. Despite being a John Milbank fan and being highly influenced by Theology and Social Theory I disagree with the two-cities dialect inherited from Augustine and interpreted against modernity. I am starting to drift toward the Tillich camp in the belief that we need a different Method of Correlation to account for the relation between Christianity and Modernity. But unlike Tillich, who identified as an existentialist-Christian, I identify more with a narrative Anabaptist position tempered by a missional impulse.

Peace - - Church: why you can not have one without the other

When asked about my family's background I point out their denominational heritage. I consider this far more important than our ethnic heritage even though the account of my grandparent's and their families being put in a concentration camp has effected me greatly.

One of the reasons I find this more important is I generally concede I lean heavily towards a pacifist interpretation of Christianity. Although this is not a-critical as many of time I have been challenged, by close friends and even by other family members, in this position. Although I still hold to this position I would like to point out something I have learning through critical engagement with the larger Christian tradition.

There is no PEACE interpretation without the supplement of CHURCH. What I am saying, therefore, is that pacifism is an ethic stance rooted in the church and thus peace-thinking is an ecclesiology.

I started thinking this way while reading a journal article of the stance of Reinhold Neibuhr which questioned whether he had an adequate ecclesiology. Neibuhr's ethics were national and not ecclesial, he based his answer to the question "What shall we do?" in the context of the American establishment and not the Church. To use contemporary Anabaptist discourse he answered as a citizen of the polis but not as a member of the ecclesia. This discourse use the greek concepts of polis (literally: City) and ecclesia (literally: Assembly or Called-Out Ones) and reads the bible through this lens. The church, the 'called-out ones' of God, must witness and provide a better alternative for the polis, or the human political establishment. Neibuhr answered from the perspective of an American citizen who also was a Christian but in the discourse of Peace Church questions whether you can answer from both perspectives as suggest you can not.

I generally agree with that line of reasoning and I would like to here an Ecclesialogical defense of violence from some-one of the just-war interpretation.

Personal Emerging Politics

I will spare the story but in the past two years I have become increasingly political. Four real reasons: international injustice (do you know how many children die each day from preventable causes??), peak oil (people are way to ignorant of this), unsustainable corporations (co-operatives are so much better) and the quenching of community through consumerism (this hurts). All these reasons come down to a desire to see good and be part of good in the world.

I realize that some of these are already implemented, some of them are idealistic and likely will not happen and others maybe slightly incoherent.

So here are a list of political positions that are developing but not quite there:
- credit unions should be established and should charge non-profit interest (against Usury)
- > including national credit unions
- worker's co-operatives should be everywhere
- > along with this one of the priorities of government spending should be setting these up
- non-profit social insurance co-ops are needed urgently (Canada is facing a major crisis in a few years with it's spending)
- > along with worker's co-operatives should be funded by the governments but this is higher priority at the moment
- solar and wind energy driven economies
- > we can not survive on oil - the technology exists to go solar/wind
- > to do this a system of carbon taxes, renewable tax credits and laws for certain key sectors that must go renewable
- the IMF needs to change
- > be managed by a board of more equitable representation globally
- > SAPS need to have reasonable interest rates
- > SAPS should encourage the above mentioned government projects and not the selling off of major public works
- > heavily indebted countries need to be forgiven their debts immediately
- the nation-state model needs to be replaced with a continental union model,
- > the African union, the Central American union and the South American union are essential to get off the ground now
- expropriate the patents and rights to their GMOs from Monsanto
- make it illegal to buy non-fair trade purchases (just as Asbestos was made illegal)
- truth-and-reconciliation commissions should be set-up
- > between former colonial powers and colonies
- > between ethnic conflicts the world over
- > in the Great Lakes region of Africa
- > between North and South American post-colonial states and their indigenous peoples
- > between the United States and the various countries it lead coups in during the Cold War
- high-speed trains
- > several long projects within the new continental unions and across borders to create a new internationalism

Things I think about but have reached no solid ideas about:
- the environment - there is danger but what happens when we switch our energy sources?
- education - Illich showed me the disturbing reality of schooling which added to my own suspicion of the institution - where do we go from here?

MY DEEPEST CONCERN:

Community and consumerism - the point isn't to arbitrarily create wealth, although I believe my suggestions will create wealth in the long run. I worry that wealth might lead to excess consumerism and more breakdown of community - more isolated individuals living somewhat meaningless lives moving from place to place with no real friendships, enduring connections or hope for an intentional life.

It will be hell - the damned fires of satiation and excess, greed and loneliness.

That's why I started this blog. It is not that I have confidence in the good human soul but I believe with the technologies that exists a better political order can be founded. This is not some idealism, I believe there is the agency to do so. But hidden within that agency is a dark spirit that will rage a deep spiritual violence on people who live in political peace and economic prosperity but who are not living 'the good life' nor being form into the 'Imago Christi' having forgotten the Imago Dei.

Postmodern Monastaries?

This an older but still relevant and interesting post on Postmodern Monastaries.

What interests me is how this differs from other New Monastic communities in that it is (a) more Monastic in the emphasis on learned skills (b) its emphasis on technology and creativity is not really part of the New Monasticism which is more, well, Amish-y.

One life many stories

One New Years Donald Miller blogged about living a good story as an alternative to New Years Resolutions. I thought the idea was interesting and renewed thoughts in me concerning narrative theology. So I picked up a book of mine, Why Narrative?, and began to read.

What caught my attention was an essay on narrative and ethical theory. The gist of the paper was the importance of narrative as a category in ethics. The more I thought about this the more I wanted to engage with the reality of multiple narratives and the ethical self.

Although this surely is a postmodernist influence on me, that is thinking about the fragmented self, I believe it is important issue, especially for ethics. Personally my story is one that is both as a Christian,as a Canadian, as a member of my family, as a second generation-Canadian who is in Canada because of the actions of Communist Yugoslavia in the 1940s, as a reader of theologies, as a member of an intentional community... all this is me.

Now the question I want to explore is this: what does this mean, because of the many narratives which make up my life, in regard to my discussion on textual community?
I think a textual community needs to be aware of the other narratives that the community members hold to. I think the different ways of interpreting the sacred scripture needed to be informed by these others narrative. On top of that I believe interpretations can be then more intentional seeking to understand, critique and synthesize these other stories.

This is certainly not an end to these thoughts: what do you think?

Altruistic-Profit-Organizations?

Now the title I chose for this post is quite fecisious. I apologize for that.

This idea came to me a few days ago: now we have Non-Profits Organizations and then businesses but not really anything in between. What if there was some sort of legal entity that could be created that could function as a business, by selling some goods and services, providing a small amount of surplus for increased wages and expansion but with the main purpose of giving (most of) the profit away to charities, hospitals, third-world projects and other community-building exercises?

Imagine this: an electric car co-operative in Ontario employing two thousand people. Now as a legal entity they are allowed to use surplus cash to increase workers wages and to expand by a certain percentage but beyond that they must give it away. The co-op chooses to build wells in Africa with it's profits.

Now how is that for some legislation that could be past?

Prophets or Friends?

In "The Rivers North of the Future" Ivan lllich explains his views on prophecy. According to him to the NT form of prophesy has ceased but the function has not. According to him the function of prophecy in the early Christian communities was a warning against the Anti-Christ, which to him means a perversion of the gospel - an example of which is the institutionalization of hospitality.

Today the function of prophecies expresses itself, according to Illich, in the form of friendship.

This idea is a productive one. First of all, as someone who identifies with the missional church movement with a holiness background and having read the Prophetic Imagination and being anti-dispensalitionist I obviously have thought-through and continue to think through the role of prophesy. I would define a prophet and prophetic ministry differently. Nevertheless his emphasis on friendship is key.

Why is it key?

The idea that social change, wisdom and hospitality can come in the locus of something as organic, authentic and powerful as friendship not only fits into Illich's gospel Critique of institutions but it also makes sense from the perspective of social activists and others who believe the world social forums credo "Another World is Possible".

Some today criticize the Counterculture for being essentially hypocritical. In producing products to consume no change actually happens. Rather an illusive dreamstate instead or real political actions occurs.

I really enjoy the idea of the radical nature of friendship. As the new year dawns I will really have to consider this. I think it is this idea which goes under the more technical name 'networking' although I feel friendship itself is far more revolutionary.

Yet this returns me to the topic of Prophecy. What is prophecy? For the Church, who sacred scriptures are almost 1/3 prophetic and whose Messiah was executed partially on the charge of being a false prophet the foggy abiguities of what a prophet is shines through. More so because of the twin conservative-liberal re-defining prophets either as seers or activists respectfully. I believe that this type of binary opposition should be de-constructed.

In my last post I discussed become a textual community. By this I meant the Church honouring the text as authoritative above any actual interpretive reading of the text. Such a practice would both be out of humility and a beautiful ecumenical spirit. I believe friendship is an important part of coming together in, as John Milbank would say, harmonious difference.

And as Christians come together in harmonious difference I think a discussion on the nature of Prophecy, in relation to the old testament, the new testament and the present context is quintessential. To fall into the old binary of seer/activist would not be productive and we need to pray and dialogue together, as ecclesial textual communities, in order to understand prophecy in more depth so that we may live in greater heights.