Here is the manuscript of the sermon I preached this past Sunday. I had to radically change it in the preaching because I had assumed that all in attendance would have been participating in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, or in the very least know about it and what it meant. However, we had visitors who had not been involved in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and possibly weren't aware of such a thing. So, I rewrote the manuscript as I preached.
However, I feel that what I wrote needs to be heard and read. So hear it is. Love to hear any and all thoughts and reactions.
Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler: Sermon Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Third Sunday after the Epiphany
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Some Further Context
I realized that it might be helpful to know two things to give some further context to the the last two posts, here and here. First, is to understand that I am fairly deeply influenced by Walter Wink and William Stringfellow(specifically his works Imposters of God: Inquiries into Favorite Idols, and An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land) around issues of the Powers, Nation States, and Image and Idolatry. Second is that I am currently reading Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. Of course if you are unfamiliar with most or all of these it is probably no help to you, but I encourage you to give them a read if you haven't.
God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti- Articles- BlackandChristian.com
I came across this God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti- Articles- BlackandChristian.com thanks to Jonathan Stegall The author claims to be familiar with preachers who have not only claimed that 200 years ago Haitians made a pact with the devil when they revolted against the French, but that God is the one that cursed the Haitians, because of this pact. According to the author this theory is a fairly common trope. While I was aware that because of Vodou, that there were those Christians who would speak of the stronghold of Satan in Haiti, I had not before come across that God had cursed the Haitians because of this.
There is then a possibility that this is what Robertson was drawing on. Though if so I still think it significant that he said that the Haitians were cursed by one tragedy after another, but not that God had cursed them. In my interpretation of what Robertson said, the curse was a direct outgrowth of the supposed pact with Satan that did not require a response or action by God to activate. Side note according to this "Satan's Letter to Pat Robertson" Satan does not act this way but deals in wealth, but not poverty or degradation etc. Well that is partially based on an interesting western literary trope, but it seems to me that if we are going to follow the character of Satan as a liar, it is highly likely that Satan may make pacts that he would not keep or at least not keep in ways one may expect. And I say that the demonic (Satan is a demon) deals in death, destruction and oppression, and that these are the flip side of much wealth creation.
The other interesting part of God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti was its questioning the origin of the "pact with Satan" theory. Does it originate among Haitian Christians, or is it something that white missionaries imposed on their Haitian converts, or was it an application by Haitian believers based on white interpretations of Vodou. I also, appreciated along these lines the author's call for discernment of spirits, surrounding this theory.
I think this is important, because I do note racism and traces of imperialism in this theory. Yet, at the same time, I hear echos of very orthodox and, I think, correct analysis of idolatry, that at least in its Biblical origin was neither racial nor a theory from above, but quite explicitly a theory form bellow, and itself a protest of the oppression of the fickle god's of the nations. Worship of god's of fertility, of the earth, etc. is idolatry Biblicaly speaking( though not the only idolatry), as the worship of the creature in place of the creator, and one interpretation of this worship is that it was actually the worship of demons. These sorts of ideas are found in the prophets to whom we look to for much inspiration in terms of a scriptural vision social justice. We should be remembered that in Israel's history the acts of injustice and oppression were associated with the worship of other god's than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Granted this theory of worship of other god's takes on a different flavor when it is used by a colonial power as a tool for subjugation and enslavement. But there is perhaps something true in this that needs to be retrieved and separated out from the racism and oppression, not as a judgment or evaluation of the Haitians (or other oppressed and colonized groups) but to regain a sense of how worship of the created instead of the creator is a demonic activity, one that we engage in when we put our trust in nations, the international order, and economic systems of human origin. Or to put it another way it seems that this theory or doctrine functions do deflect the sin of the colonial and post colonial powers and project that sin upon the poorest and the oppressed. If the theory itself if allowed to be heard in its full biblical witness it actually falls back upon those who perpetuate this theory as it shows that they worship at the altars of the idols of nation, wealth, and mere human economy. There is scriptural warrant to say is these above mention authorities and powers are under the rule of Satan and the demonic, though their true sovereign is Christ. However these powers, the nations, the State at best only partially recognizes their creaturely status and seem to continually refuse to recognize God and Christ as their true sovereign. It is possible then that in the very make up of our global economy and power structures a very ancient and real pact with "Satan". That this system tolerates and creates such great disparity and poverty is perhaps the very sign that it is demonic, and destructive of life and serves death.
There is then a possibility that this is what Robertson was drawing on. Though if so I still think it significant that he said that the Haitians were cursed by one tragedy after another, but not that God had cursed them. In my interpretation of what Robertson said, the curse was a direct outgrowth of the supposed pact with Satan that did not require a response or action by God to activate. Side note according to this "Satan's Letter to Pat Robertson" Satan does not act this way but deals in wealth, but not poverty or degradation etc. Well that is partially based on an interesting western literary trope, but it seems to me that if we are going to follow the character of Satan as a liar, it is highly likely that Satan may make pacts that he would not keep or at least not keep in ways one may expect. And I say that the demonic (Satan is a demon) deals in death, destruction and oppression, and that these are the flip side of much wealth creation.
The other interesting part of God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti was its questioning the origin of the "pact with Satan" theory. Does it originate among Haitian Christians, or is it something that white missionaries imposed on their Haitian converts, or was it an application by Haitian believers based on white interpretations of Vodou. I also, appreciated along these lines the author's call for discernment of spirits, surrounding this theory.
I think this is important, because I do note racism and traces of imperialism in this theory. Yet, at the same time, I hear echos of very orthodox and, I think, correct analysis of idolatry, that at least in its Biblical origin was neither racial nor a theory from above, but quite explicitly a theory form bellow, and itself a protest of the oppression of the fickle god's of the nations. Worship of god's of fertility, of the earth, etc. is idolatry Biblicaly speaking( though not the only idolatry), as the worship of the creature in place of the creator, and one interpretation of this worship is that it was actually the worship of demons. These sorts of ideas are found in the prophets to whom we look to for much inspiration in terms of a scriptural vision social justice. We should be remembered that in Israel's history the acts of injustice and oppression were associated with the worship of other god's than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Granted this theory of worship of other god's takes on a different flavor when it is used by a colonial power as a tool for subjugation and enslavement. But there is perhaps something true in this that needs to be retrieved and separated out from the racism and oppression, not as a judgment or evaluation of the Haitians (or other oppressed and colonized groups) but to regain a sense of how worship of the created instead of the creator is a demonic activity, one that we engage in when we put our trust in nations, the international order, and economic systems of human origin. Or to put it another way it seems that this theory or doctrine functions do deflect the sin of the colonial and post colonial powers and project that sin upon the poorest and the oppressed. If the theory itself if allowed to be heard in its full biblical witness it actually falls back upon those who perpetuate this theory as it shows that they worship at the altars of the idols of nation, wealth, and mere human economy. There is scriptural warrant to say is these above mention authorities and powers are under the rule of Satan and the demonic, though their true sovereign is Christ. However these powers, the nations, the State at best only partially recognizes their creaturely status and seem to continually refuse to recognize God and Christ as their true sovereign. It is possible then that in the very make up of our global economy and power structures a very ancient and real pact with "Satan". That this system tolerates and creates such great disparity and poverty is perhaps the very sign that it is demonic, and destructive of life and serves death.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Earth Quake in Haiti and Our Responses: Or what is truly troubling about Robertson's remarks
I admit that I am having difficulty getting my mind around the devastation in Haiti after the earthquake. And my heart and prayers go out to the Haitian people and all effected and all who will be helping in the recovery. I am heartened by the responses from the global community, from relief organizations, and the overall good will that seems to be going out the the people of Haiti. And yet I have questions: not so much about the earth quake, itself but about the the poverty that was already in Haiti.
A 7.0 quake is going to be devastating anywhere, but it does seem that a quake of this magnitude, would be less devastating say in California, where there is money for infrastructure, technology and building design to withstand to some degree quakes etc. This is not the largest earthquake to have happened around the world in the last several years (most in poorer countries). Some have been larger and less destructive, some just as destructive. It's an interesting bit of research to follow the links from the Wikepedia article on the Richter scale to various Magnitude 7.0 and larger earthquakes in recent years. I know enough to recognize that the location of an epicenter effects how much devastation and death toll an earthquake leaves. Yet it does seem as well that the ability to have a decent infrastructure that can with stand and coordinate around a disaster also has something to do with it, that is in the end it has to do with wealth or poverty. So it seems to me that in the end there is in the midst of all of this a mater of injustice, one that goes beyond this particular moment, one that reaches back into the past and stretches into the future. The injustice woven into this situation is then at least in part responsible for the extent of the devastation we are seeing. The global economy our economy is bound up in this injustice, our response is not just compassion but also because in fact this is our collective responsibility.
This leads me to Pat Robertson's remarks on Haiti, and the uproar over his remarks. Frankly I am a bit puzzled by what people seem to be focusing on: Robertson's claim that Haiti is cursed. I am puzzled not because I think Robertson's remarks are simply fine, or even true as he conceives them, (I find just about everything he says in the clips provided by the AP video bellow deeply troubling) but because I think most people are misinterpreting Robertson. (I recomend watching the video before continuing, especially if you haven't actually heard or read his remarks.)
First about the remarks that seem to have everyone in a tither: that Haiti is cursed. For the moment lets set aside the racial, economic, and patriarchal power dynamic, I'll get to that in a moment, but I think we need to hear what Robertson is actually saying as well as what he is not saying. He is not saying that Haiti is under God's judgment (at least not in this clip). He says that the Haitians seeking their freedom from the French 200 years ago made a pact with the devil. A strange claim perhaps (and possibly a reference to the Vodou ceremony performed by Vodou priest Dutty Boukman in 1791)It should be clear though from this that the actor in this from Robertson's perspective is not God but Satan, the devil. He then goes on to say that since then the Haitian people have been "cursed by one thing after the other.." Note they are not cursed by God. God does not appear until the end when he hopes for a great turning to God (freedom from the curse) for the Haitian people. I may not agree with the theology here but it isn't about God's judgment, rather he is naming a demonic and satanic stronghold, a curse, held over the nation of Haiti. One may think this is dangerous nonsense but please correctly identify the theology. This is not a twisted uber-Calvinism with God as sovereign over everything using suffering and natural disasters to judge people and/or bring them to God's self. For Robertson Satan, and the demonic, is very active in these things. Also, if I understand the theology out of which this statement is made, a curse is not something God does, but is only the work of Satan and demons. Rather, God is in the habit from this perspective of breaking curses not cursing people. However the only way to break a curse is for one to come under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ. So Robertson was not saying that this was God's judgment on the Haitian people for what their ancestors did under the French, but that the curse that the Haitians laid upon themselves through this pact with the devil continues to have its impact and is the explanation for the over all tragedy of the Haitian people of which this earthquake is the most recent and obvious example. I don't defend this theological perspective and it may not in the end be much better, but people listen to what he is actually saying.
And in listening to what he is actually saying I find his capitalist and patriarchal mindset more troubling than this theory of Haiti being cursed, though the two may be linked. Pat Robertson articulates a hopefulness that from this destruction Haiti can be rebuilt as a more prosperous nation, as though somehow starting from scratch, having to rebuild most everything, would suddenly create a viable economy in Haiti. Bill Horan of Operation Blessing (which Robertson founded) deflects the optimism, probably actually knowing better, and having some sense of the complexities in the the very least, and possibly also knowing Haiti's problems are not just Haiti's. Robertson is aware of the poverty but treats it as if it isn't related at all to the Global economy and the politics of that economy and the injustices inherent in our current system. This is where the curse idea elides with his captivity to our current economic system: the idea of the curse and pact with the devil explains Haitian problems without needing to look at the political and economic realities outside of Haiti that give some account for Haiti's poverty. Yet, it seems to me if Robertson was not captivated by the idol of our current international economic and political system, his theory would lead him to reflect on the ways in which this demonic and satanic curse is bound up with the political and economic realities of colonialism and post-colonial global economy (not to mention that Haiti has been occupied by the US). It seems to me that if Robertson would let his theory do its actual theological work, it could undermine his trust in the present economic system, where resorts that exist for those of the wealthier nations somehow equals economic prosperity. From a Biblical perspective if the Haitians made a pact with the devil (and I am not saying they did), why would they have done so except in recognition of the fact that Satan has control over the nations and powers and wealth of the world (cf. Jesus' temptation after his Baptism, Matt 4:8-10 and Luke 4:5-9). And yet, Robertson seems not to recognize the ways in which he may have his own pact with the devil as since here appears pretty aligned with the world system (which is Satan's to give to Jesus if Jesus will only worship Satan, and since he seems to have relegated Satan to the realm of curses that somehow has effect on economy and politics etc. but only that of the poorest nations, and not the wealthy. This pact has perhaps created a certain blindness. We perhaps focus on the ideas of cursing because they seem outlandish, and perhaps because we too still put a great deal of hope in our nations, our ability to create a just economy and the ability of the global economic order to do the right thing. Perhaps we have all made a pact with the devil.
A 7.0 quake is going to be devastating anywhere, but it does seem that a quake of this magnitude, would be less devastating say in California, where there is money for infrastructure, technology and building design to withstand to some degree quakes etc. This is not the largest earthquake to have happened around the world in the last several years (most in poorer countries). Some have been larger and less destructive, some just as destructive. It's an interesting bit of research to follow the links from the Wikepedia article on the Richter scale to various Magnitude 7.0 and larger earthquakes in recent years. I know enough to recognize that the location of an epicenter effects how much devastation and death toll an earthquake leaves. Yet it does seem as well that the ability to have a decent infrastructure that can with stand and coordinate around a disaster also has something to do with it, that is in the end it has to do with wealth or poverty. So it seems to me that in the end there is in the midst of all of this a mater of injustice, one that goes beyond this particular moment, one that reaches back into the past and stretches into the future. The injustice woven into this situation is then at least in part responsible for the extent of the devastation we are seeing. The global economy our economy is bound up in this injustice, our response is not just compassion but also because in fact this is our collective responsibility.
This leads me to Pat Robertson's remarks on Haiti, and the uproar over his remarks. Frankly I am a bit puzzled by what people seem to be focusing on: Robertson's claim that Haiti is cursed. I am puzzled not because I think Robertson's remarks are simply fine, or even true as he conceives them, (I find just about everything he says in the clips provided by the AP video bellow deeply troubling) but because I think most people are misinterpreting Robertson. (I recomend watching the video before continuing, especially if you haven't actually heard or read his remarks.)
First about the remarks that seem to have everyone in a tither: that Haiti is cursed. For the moment lets set aside the racial, economic, and patriarchal power dynamic, I'll get to that in a moment, but I think we need to hear what Robertson is actually saying as well as what he is not saying. He is not saying that Haiti is under God's judgment (at least not in this clip). He says that the Haitians seeking their freedom from the French 200 years ago made a pact with the devil. A strange claim perhaps (and possibly a reference to the Vodou ceremony performed by Vodou priest Dutty Boukman in 1791)It should be clear though from this that the actor in this from Robertson's perspective is not God but Satan, the devil. He then goes on to say that since then the Haitian people have been "cursed by one thing after the other.." Note they are not cursed by God. God does not appear until the end when he hopes for a great turning to God (freedom from the curse) for the Haitian people. I may not agree with the theology here but it isn't about God's judgment, rather he is naming a demonic and satanic stronghold, a curse, held over the nation of Haiti. One may think this is dangerous nonsense but please correctly identify the theology. This is not a twisted uber-Calvinism with God as sovereign over everything using suffering and natural disasters to judge people and/or bring them to God's self. For Robertson Satan, and the demonic, is very active in these things. Also, if I understand the theology out of which this statement is made, a curse is not something God does, but is only the work of Satan and demons. Rather, God is in the habit from this perspective of breaking curses not cursing people. However the only way to break a curse is for one to come under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ. So Robertson was not saying that this was God's judgment on the Haitian people for what their ancestors did under the French, but that the curse that the Haitians laid upon themselves through this pact with the devil continues to have its impact and is the explanation for the over all tragedy of the Haitian people of which this earthquake is the most recent and obvious example. I don't defend this theological perspective and it may not in the end be much better, but people listen to what he is actually saying.
And in listening to what he is actually saying I find his capitalist and patriarchal mindset more troubling than this theory of Haiti being cursed, though the two may be linked. Pat Robertson articulates a hopefulness that from this destruction Haiti can be rebuilt as a more prosperous nation, as though somehow starting from scratch, having to rebuild most everything, would suddenly create a viable economy in Haiti. Bill Horan of Operation Blessing (which Robertson founded) deflects the optimism, probably actually knowing better, and having some sense of the complexities in the the very least, and possibly also knowing Haiti's problems are not just Haiti's. Robertson is aware of the poverty but treats it as if it isn't related at all to the Global economy and the politics of that economy and the injustices inherent in our current system. This is where the curse idea elides with his captivity to our current economic system: the idea of the curse and pact with the devil explains Haitian problems without needing to look at the political and economic realities outside of Haiti that give some account for Haiti's poverty. Yet, it seems to me if Robertson was not captivated by the idol of our current international economic and political system, his theory would lead him to reflect on the ways in which this demonic and satanic curse is bound up with the political and economic realities of colonialism and post-colonial global economy (not to mention that Haiti has been occupied by the US). It seems to me that if Robertson would let his theory do its actual theological work, it could undermine his trust in the present economic system, where resorts that exist for those of the wealthier nations somehow equals economic prosperity. From a Biblical perspective if the Haitians made a pact with the devil (and I am not saying they did), why would they have done so except in recognition of the fact that Satan has control over the nations and powers and wealth of the world (cf. Jesus' temptation after his Baptism, Matt 4:8-10 and Luke 4:5-9). And yet, Robertson seems not to recognize the ways in which he may have his own pact with the devil as since here appears pretty aligned with the world system (which is Satan's to give to Jesus if Jesus will only worship Satan, and since he seems to have relegated Satan to the realm of curses that somehow has effect on economy and politics etc. but only that of the poorest nations, and not the wealthy. This pact has perhaps created a certain blindness. We perhaps focus on the ideas of cursing because they seem outlandish, and perhaps because we too still put a great deal of hope in our nations, our ability to create a just economy and the ability of the global economic order to do the right thing. Perhaps we have all made a pact with the devil.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Small Cruelties
Today riding the train I had two encounters with homeless men. Initially as I switched lines, I avoided getting on the same train as a man in overalls and open winter coat who had a stench about him. Others were not so lucky and by the first stop people were coming from that car one in front of the one I got on, some coming through the emergency doors that lead between the trains, others using the main doors. As the train came to knew stations more people left the car in front of the one I was on and came to this one.
while this was happening a second homeless man came through the car asking for money. He did it quietly but insistently not waiting for people to notice but asking each person on the train. Most even when answering or giving him money would not look at him. I watched him and he saw that I was watching. Then he came to the seats in front of where I was sitting and asked a woman and she told him that he was not allowed to ask the costumers of the CTA on the Train for money, that it was illegal. (to be clear she was not white and was of the same minority group as the homeless person, I mention this only because some may think such a comment might only come from a white person.) He for a moment stared back at her, and then laughed, and said in a gravely almost unintelligible voice "The CTA." and he began to stomp, I looked him in the eye, and nodded. Violence flashed through his eyes and seemed to ripple through is body as he stared back at me I briefly dropped eye contact and then looked back and smiled, the violence left him and he looked back into my eyes, and then sheilded his face. I dropped my eyes again and then looked at him again, and the same gesture. this happened one more time and then unsure what exactly was going on and unsure even what I thought I was doing I looked away, partially sensing that if I insisted on looking at him in the eyes again that the violence I had seen would return (this may have been simple fear, with little or no warrant), but he seemed to deflate, did not ask me for money and simply sat down in the seat in front of me. Only asking one other person for money after that. So conflicted, what was I to do, what was the appropriate response, what change in the system would right this. Most people didn't really see him, I attempted to see him and yet, could not tell you what he needed, and no one treated him as a human being like they, even I in struggling with this fell short, for I could not meet him where he was, wasn't really desiring to either.
A stop or two after the man sat down. some more people scampered in clearly from the preceding train. And as the doors close the conductor says over the loud speaker "Ya, I know why you are leaving that car. I understand..", and he laughed, and all of us in the car laughed. As I was laughing, and as the conductor made some further comment about the stench that must be on that other car, I thought how cruel.
I thought it was cruel and yet even before realizing it I had entered this small cruelty. This cruelty was simply in the air, and in each and everyone on that train. It was in us and what we breathed and we all inhaled it and it touched something in us and we all laughed as one. I was shaken, this was evil and injustice. in small almost unnoticeable granular form, yet there, almost unnoticeable, and if noticed easily explained away. And yet there we all admitted that the one on the other car was less than us, less than human, he was not our neighbor. Even I who moments before was trying to through even a small gesture trying to find a way to be neighbor to one man, in a split moment took part in the dehumanizing of another person.
what is needed, it seems to me if we are to address, truly address injustice is more than railing about institutions, and structures, and seeking laws, no we must also be willing to see the small cruelties in ourselves, those most of us rarely notice or rarely are willing to look at especially as we try to be "good people." Good people averted their eyes, good people today laughed and dehumanized another person, I a good person took part in all of this. Even worse I who proclaim the Gospel each Sunday, I baptized in to Christ, an servant of Jesus Christ, without realizing it laughed with everyone. We are too optimistic about our ability to change the world until we recognize that evil and injstice are in these small unnoticeable cruelties in the air and that lurke in side us.
while this was happening a second homeless man came through the car asking for money. He did it quietly but insistently not waiting for people to notice but asking each person on the train. Most even when answering or giving him money would not look at him. I watched him and he saw that I was watching. Then he came to the seats in front of where I was sitting and asked a woman and she told him that he was not allowed to ask the costumers of the CTA on the Train for money, that it was illegal. (to be clear she was not white and was of the same minority group as the homeless person, I mention this only because some may think such a comment might only come from a white person.) He for a moment stared back at her, and then laughed, and said in a gravely almost unintelligible voice "The CTA." and he began to stomp, I looked him in the eye, and nodded. Violence flashed through his eyes and seemed to ripple through is body as he stared back at me I briefly dropped eye contact and then looked back and smiled, the violence left him and he looked back into my eyes, and then sheilded his face. I dropped my eyes again and then looked at him again, and the same gesture. this happened one more time and then unsure what exactly was going on and unsure even what I thought I was doing I looked away, partially sensing that if I insisted on looking at him in the eyes again that the violence I had seen would return (this may have been simple fear, with little or no warrant), but he seemed to deflate, did not ask me for money and simply sat down in the seat in front of me. Only asking one other person for money after that. So conflicted, what was I to do, what was the appropriate response, what change in the system would right this. Most people didn't really see him, I attempted to see him and yet, could not tell you what he needed, and no one treated him as a human being like they, even I in struggling with this fell short, for I could not meet him where he was, wasn't really desiring to either.
A stop or two after the man sat down. some more people scampered in clearly from the preceding train. And as the doors close the conductor says over the loud speaker "Ya, I know why you are leaving that car. I understand..", and he laughed, and all of us in the car laughed. As I was laughing, and as the conductor made some further comment about the stench that must be on that other car, I thought how cruel.
I thought it was cruel and yet even before realizing it I had entered this small cruelty. This cruelty was simply in the air, and in each and everyone on that train. It was in us and what we breathed and we all inhaled it and it touched something in us and we all laughed as one. I was shaken, this was evil and injustice. in small almost unnoticeable granular form, yet there, almost unnoticeable, and if noticed easily explained away. And yet there we all admitted that the one on the other car was less than us, less than human, he was not our neighbor. Even I who moments before was trying to through even a small gesture trying to find a way to be neighbor to one man, in a split moment took part in the dehumanizing of another person.
what is needed, it seems to me if we are to address, truly address injustice is more than railing about institutions, and structures, and seeking laws, no we must also be willing to see the small cruelties in ourselves, those most of us rarely notice or rarely are willing to look at especially as we try to be "good people." Good people averted their eyes, good people today laughed and dehumanized another person, I a good person took part in all of this. Even worse I who proclaim the Gospel each Sunday, I baptized in to Christ, an servant of Jesus Christ, without realizing it laughed with everyone. We are too optimistic about our ability to change the world until we recognize that evil and injstice are in these small unnoticeable cruelties in the air and that lurke in side us.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Seeking a Hermeneutic of Time, History, and the Self, Part 3
In the "Thoughts on Time, History and the Self" part 1 and part 2, back in November, I was exploring my own relationship to time, and past events, both of those in my own life time and those that preceded my lifetime. I was also attempting to tease out the ways we currently have a tendency to see changes over time as alienating us and separating us from what and those who have gone before, thus prioritizing change over continuity. Yet Stegal's post on the commemoration of the fall of the Berlin wall and Germany's chancellor, Merkel, participating in France's Armistice Day celebration indicated to me that this focus on change they hides the continuities bound up with the change. This is in part revealed By there being an Armistice Day Celebration that is in itself newsworthy, and that we could interpret Merkel's actions as significant.
I had begun a part three for this reflection and I began it with this statement: "One possible purpose of history as collective memory is to provide a sense of the world beyond ones own individual experience of the world and the events of your life time and experience." I then attempted to use the contrast between Stegal's and my different experiences and interpretations of both 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, to tease out how the above might be so. The exploring the meaning of the above statement was leading me into the hermeneutics of history and the self. And a concern I think I have that we should not interpret our lives only by what we ourselves experience or by what is of the moment, the most current. It seems that our sense of alienation with the past, and focus on the future and the significance of our moment and our experiences is a narrowing and limiting hermeneutic.
I see a tendency (this may be a general human tendency but it is certainly one in American Culture) towards overemphasis on our moment in time, one akin to the emphasizing of such moments as the Reformation, or the Great Schism or the acceptance of Orthodox Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine. They are not to be deemed unimportant but lifting our time and other supposed hinge periods out of the flux is to render them static as if what comes before and comes after is less significant that these moments we chose to view as isolated moments hyper-significant moments out of which we then make egocentric sense of the flux of history. I want to explore the reality of the flux of time as that which neither prioritizes discontinuity or continuity. The meaning of history, the passage of time etc., is not necessarily found in locating the major moments of discontinuity nor is it necessarily found in the tracing of absolute continuities. The passage of time, or the flow of history is the passage from one moment into another doesn't seem to allow for emphasizing the reality of discontinuity and over that of continuity from one moment into another. I am seeing that one moment or time has no more meaning at any point in time than any other. The meaning of history is in some form of understanding of the relationship between change and continuity, that allows both to be equally significant. And yet to do so seems to indicate that history is not self-referential but references something beyond itself. However, to make this discernment and to keep this balance one needs to be telling a particular story. The story one wants to tell and the trajectory of the story, its end, will tell us how to interpret the flux and thus how and when to give meaning to continuity or discontinuity.
It is perhaps significant that I was reading a book on the thought of Ricoeur, and his hermeneutic philosophy and theology.
I had begun a part three for this reflection and I began it with this statement: "One possible purpose of history as collective memory is to provide a sense of the world beyond ones own individual experience of the world and the events of your life time and experience." I then attempted to use the contrast between Stegal's and my different experiences and interpretations of both 9/11 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, to tease out how the above might be so. The exploring the meaning of the above statement was leading me into the hermeneutics of history and the self. And a concern I think I have that we should not interpret our lives only by what we ourselves experience or by what is of the moment, the most current. It seems that our sense of alienation with the past, and focus on the future and the significance of our moment and our experiences is a narrowing and limiting hermeneutic.
I see a tendency (this may be a general human tendency but it is certainly one in American Culture) towards overemphasis on our moment in time, one akin to the emphasizing of such moments as the Reformation, or the Great Schism or the acceptance of Orthodox Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine. They are not to be deemed unimportant but lifting our time and other supposed hinge periods out of the flux is to render them static as if what comes before and comes after is less significant that these moments we chose to view as isolated moments hyper-significant moments out of which we then make egocentric sense of the flux of history. I want to explore the reality of the flux of time as that which neither prioritizes discontinuity or continuity. The meaning of history, the passage of time etc., is not necessarily found in locating the major moments of discontinuity nor is it necessarily found in the tracing of absolute continuities. The passage of time, or the flow of history is the passage from one moment into another doesn't seem to allow for emphasizing the reality of discontinuity and over that of continuity from one moment into another. I am seeing that one moment or time has no more meaning at any point in time than any other. The meaning of history is in some form of understanding of the relationship between change and continuity, that allows both to be equally significant. And yet to do so seems to indicate that history is not self-referential but references something beyond itself. However, to make this discernment and to keep this balance one needs to be telling a particular story. The story one wants to tell and the trajectory of the story, its end, will tell us how to interpret the flux and thus how and when to give meaning to continuity or discontinuity.
It is perhaps significant that I was reading a book on the thought of Ricoeur, and his hermeneutic philosophy and theology.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Completed St. Nicholas Icon
Here is the completed icon of St. Nicholas at last. It was completed by the feast day, Dec. 6th, and it was used in Reconciler's worship that day.
Friday, January 01, 2010
The Contradictions of Our Being and Our Longings: A sort of Heideggarian theologico-anthropological reflection.
I have been confronted with contradictions lately: My own, of the varieties of Christianities demanding I recognize them as true (even if some may not use "truth" to describe their position, and "justice", "prophetic", "inclusion", and "welcome" are the preferred symbols that pretend to not be about "Truth" but are still claims to Truth). I feel the contradictions arise in an attempt to be full. Full of whatever is considered to be good. The contradictions also arise as the Good is defined by what is only present at hand. The contradictions arise then out of simply seeking to be, and yet believing that simply by acting according to our being there (or here) we can transcend whatever we believe to be false, evil or unjust (depending on the linguistic conventions we are comfortable with, though any of those linguistic conventions fails if they attempt to stand alone apart from the other.) But how can a being here (or there) and a being that is towards death, ever be full? How can any of my actions be truly and fully good, true, just, perfect?
It seems to me that my mortality, while simply part of being a creature (That is created and contingent) is also bound up in other limitations. As a being towards death I am always incomplete, partial. I am always already dependent on others: people, systems, institutions, technology. None of which are full of goodness.
I wonder if much progressive Christian emphasis on achieving a just world, while commendable seeks to in fact distract us from a longing we in our own effort and being can never achieve. I have long felt that conservative Christian emphasis on personal morality and narrow theological positions also so distracts us. We want to deny our being towards death and that there is only one escape from such a being: The Crucified Human Divine one who beat down death by death. He became Dasein that being towards death may lead to life, and fullness. But this way does not lead through our own efforts to be good, true, just, or correct.
I am always already Dasein, being there, a being towards death, incomplete and never full, grasping but never achieving, in its fullness, the Good. Only in accepting the coming of the Good, True and Just into the world of Dasein, can I ever hope to be full of the Good, I long for and long to be. But this means that now I am always already in contradiction, in two worlds, I am a being there and a being to come. I am a being towards death, a project whose completion is beyond my control, and yet in my hands, present to hand. I, in the face of the divine human one, must lay aside my seeking to be full, that I may be filled.
If our seeking and acting to be in the truth, to do the good, and the just, do we not hide from ourselves our own failures to be good, true and just? Yet at the same time these actions can lead us to lay aside pretensions of being fully these things, and embrace ourselves as beings who are contradictions, that is as projects, towards death. This laying aside or pretension and embrace of our being towards death, should also send us to the one who is full of all we long for and seek and who in being towards death passed through death to fullness of life. This one is the only true, good, just one, our only hope to be freed from our own contradictions that we hide from ourselves in our attempts to make the world, good, true and just.
It seems to me that my mortality, while simply part of being a creature (That is created and contingent) is also bound up in other limitations. As a being towards death I am always incomplete, partial. I am always already dependent on others: people, systems, institutions, technology. None of which are full of goodness.
I wonder if much progressive Christian emphasis on achieving a just world, while commendable seeks to in fact distract us from a longing we in our own effort and being can never achieve. I have long felt that conservative Christian emphasis on personal morality and narrow theological positions also so distracts us. We want to deny our being towards death and that there is only one escape from such a being: The Crucified Human Divine one who beat down death by death. He became Dasein that being towards death may lead to life, and fullness. But this way does not lead through our own efforts to be good, true, just, or correct.
I am always already Dasein, being there, a being towards death, incomplete and never full, grasping but never achieving, in its fullness, the Good. Only in accepting the coming of the Good, True and Just into the world of Dasein, can I ever hope to be full of the Good, I long for and long to be. But this means that now I am always already in contradiction, in two worlds, I am a being there and a being to come. I am a being towards death, a project whose completion is beyond my control, and yet in my hands, present to hand. I, in the face of the divine human one, must lay aside my seeking to be full, that I may be filled.
If our seeking and acting to be in the truth, to do the good, and the just, do we not hide from ourselves our own failures to be good, true and just? Yet at the same time these actions can lead us to lay aside pretensions of being fully these things, and embrace ourselves as beings who are contradictions, that is as projects, towards death. This laying aside or pretension and embrace of our being towards death, should also send us to the one who is full of all we long for and seek and who in being towards death passed through death to fullness of life. This one is the only true, good, just one, our only hope to be freed from our own contradictions that we hide from ourselves in our attempts to make the world, good, true and just.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)