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.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
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.
Check it out. The latest post on American agro-business in India is particularly enlightening.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
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?
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?
Monday, March 22, 2010
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".
"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".
Saturday, March 20, 2010
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.
That sums up what I've been trying to say, to write, to express.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)