tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-181733512024-03-07T06:10:02.941+00:00This Side of SundayJon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comBlogger641125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-26404974128855992032022-07-10T03:46:00.145+01:002023-11-11T21:02:56.426+00:00My Objection to Alliance Canada's 2022 Moratorium on Licensing Transgender Persons for Ministry<p><br />I left Alliance Canada's 2022 General Assembly buzzing with hope for our church family, largely because of the reports from our interim President about churches doing very good work in their communities, and because of a number of new voices, relationships, and promising conversations. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEizUSRPNBggpbAvw9PjlJoP_xUJItxVGBIf-4MOrtC4DhCdhD7m0lpsI5KWk_yol7kpHtU4wzKWV6i0dAto5dIPT-UYT5KqhUiuW8a61_Rn6M6IIHFU_jtN4dRKHDqC-ujOO74mHBFVH2PJPjQvCNV1PHuvjBfpMJAHp-3KKe-ySMNkABorREdLew" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1450" data-original-width="1528" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEizUSRPNBggpbAvw9PjlJoP_xUJItxVGBIf-4MOrtC4DhCdhD7m0lpsI5KWk_yol7kpHtU4wzKWV6i0dAto5dIPT-UYT5KqhUiuW8a61_Rn6M6IIHFU_jtN4dRKHDqC-ujOO74mHBFVH2PJPjQvCNV1PHuvjBfpMJAHp-3KKe-ySMNkABorREdLew=w320-h304" width="320" /></a></div>And yet I also left deeply saddened by our Board's moratorium on licensing transgender persons (seen to the right), which was instituted without anything more than a 3 minute objection. I pray its harm can be mitigated at local levels, but am feeling a heavy burden on the conscience. <p></p><p>Below is my objection to the denomination's moratorium on licensing trans persons for ministry. It's exactly as read from the floor. Despite how some have characterized it, it's not a position statement but is an outline of problems and questions that need consideration. </p><p> </p><blockquote>1. The reference to an “historic and consistent pattern of the denomination” is unclear and thus debatable because both egalitarianism and complementarianism represent a shift from ancient and pre-1960s patriarchal views of the relationship of sex and gender, as is most explicit in the Guideline which says the “old hierarchies” are replaced “with new freedom (Galatians 3:28)”. This is not to suggest that these positions on gender roles decide the transgender question for us, but is to argue that the words “consistent pattern” are debatable and unclear enough to not provide precedent for a moratorium. <br /></blockquote><blockquote>Since this pattern is debatable, it is unbefitting for a report that calls for further study to identify one posture as “unwise”. Such language inadvertently prejudices the discussion in favour of a tradition that has not yet been sufficiently defined or discussed. It is not clear why this should be the posture of a Protestant denomination that does not afford authority to Tradition as a matter of default. This is not to suggest we grant authority to every trend, but is to suggest that if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom then a formal judgment should be postponed until we have sufficiently sought the Lord on it together. <br /></blockquote><blockquote>I am not standing here to take a position on the matter, but to ask the Assembly to consider whether this moratorium puts us in a situation where, if the Ethiopian Eunuch sought to lead a church in the Alliance, he would be turned away. It is still a matter of debate how eunuchs inform this conversation, but please note that Acts 8 does not specify whether he was “born that way,” or had been “made” that way “by others,” or chose it “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” – which are the three kinds of eunuchs Jesus accepts in Matthew 19:11-12. What does it mean when Isaiah 56:4-5 says “eunuchs who keep [the LORD’s] Sabbaths” would be given “a name better than sons and daughters”? Did reading Isaiah lead the Eunuch to ask “What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” Would we? <br /></blockquote><blockquote>2. Lastly, and as briefly as possible, the “moratorium” is inadequately defined on 3 points: <br /></blockquote><blockquote>a) It is unclear whether this applies only to new candidates for licensing or leadership or whether it might be applied to renewals of licensing as well. Rather than prevent retroactive un-licensings, it seems this moratorium could already cause them. <br /></blockquote><blockquote>b) It is unclear how we are defining “transgender persons”. Could it be applied to those who are merely perceived as such, or whose biological designation is “intersex”? <br /></blockquote><blockquote>c) It is unclear when “a decision of Assembly” is expected, this moratorium could be indefinite and effectively binding – thus making it policy de facto.
</blockquote><p> </p><p>Epilogue and explainer (added in 2023): I have yet to hear of any response to this objection, despite twice sending it to the Board for comment. A year before Assembly I was drafted onto the committee the previous President had assembled to decide how to proceed with this issue. To serve on that committee I had to sign a confidentiality agreement. In the end I formally dissented from the decision it made to recommend the above-mentioned moratorium. The Board did not ask to hear about it. At Assembly, once it became clear that the Board was also not bringing the moratorium before the membership, I felt it was my responsibility to ask if I could give what Robert's Rules calls a "minority report". The Rules committee instructed me I had to ask for "Chair's privilege" to give a three minute comment on something not on the agenda. I did so, as per the above. </p>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-12844979777699678112022-06-10T00:33:00.000+01:002023-11-11T21:03:59.322+00:002012 Sermon on Women in Leadership<p>This is the audio of a sermon I preached at Beverly Alliance Church in Edmonton Alberta at a time when they were considering the denomination's move to allow women in leadership. It is edited for brevity and some of the relevant Bible verses are on screen to help listeners follow along conveniently. It is a sermon that belongs in its time and place (and is not necessarily how I'd say things now), but I'm posting it here because I get occasional requests for a representative example of the short version of the 'egalitarian' argument. I hope it is helpful for those in my church family who are still working this question out.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="384" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C8KpD0mPU5I" width="462" youtube-src-id="C8KpD0mPU5I"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-32833327323837997102021-05-28T02:27:00.002+01:002021-05-28T02:29:00.744+01:00Luxury's The Latest and the Greatest: A Tribute to a Neglected Rock Album<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtMX38YMJ79zbIrJX8HfCsgP0XyaOnKZBoBEjfvAy2K6SosreBF_I335wCQaEz_W-PzG1826hqS1mX1tnmeBMuVEvwJXBW7D_Rw2TUvi4EuVenNt-mi9wRmJgtk05nd5h8anqdjQ/s700/luxury+latest.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="700" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtMX38YMJ79zbIrJX8HfCsgP0XyaOnKZBoBEjfvAy2K6SosreBF_I335wCQaEz_W-PzG1826hqS1mX1tnmeBMuVEvwJXBW7D_Rw2TUvi4EuVenNt-mi9wRmJgtk05nd5h8anqdjQ/w188-h188/luxury+latest.jpg" width="188" /></a></div><a href="https://luxury.bandcamp.com/album/the-latest-the-greatest" target="_blank">Luxury's </a><i><a href="https://luxury.bandcamp.com/album/the-latest-the-greatest" target="_blank">The Latest and the Greatest</a> </i>was recorded in 1996 after recovery from a tour-van accident that had seemed likely to claim the lives of some band members (as told in <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y4jIPn96Ig" target="_blank">Parallel Love</a></i>, an excellent documentary about the band). The album has all the beauty and pathos of their other albums, but in concentrated form. In a decade of grunge and punk, they put the energy of drums and
soaring guitars together with clear and pensive vocals for a
sound that was upset and hopeful at once. As such the album 'holds
up', which is to say it resisted being frozen in time either by the banality of timeless
pop or the immediacy of mere reaction. It gets at the universal via the
particular. It is
itself. It is very good. <p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p>When I picked up this album in 1997 I was full of the angst and worry which so frustrated my generation's confidence and conviction. As I sat in my dank basement bedroom with false-wood paneling, alone and
troubled and wishing I could bust out and find myself, when I put on <i>The Latest and the Greatest </i>it felt like <i>the album</i> listened to <i>me</i>. But somehow it channeled that solidarity and helped me pivot to wonder. <br /><p></p><p>10 songs and 44 minutes long, <i>The Latest and the Greatest</i> starts up with a brooding drum-scape that soon gives way to a bombastic burst of drums and guitar and a lyric about "revolution". The title track strikes an immediate nerve. But once the chorus kicks in and the band is singing "we're the greatest, the world should know that by now", we get the sense there might be some satire here. After brilliant instrumental breaks in the second and third minutes of
the song, we hear "life is more than being sexy, and if you learn that,
well you learned that from me." Somehow we're having our desire for revolution stoked, exposed as arrogance, and then channeled into something more patient and mundane. That's song one.</p><p>Song two <i>From the Lion Within</i> seems to carry on the satire. Back then I could just sense that this band had grown up in trailers like I did, because there just was no way they meant it when they sang "Now that you are free, be what you will be, and have the wonderful world of luxury." Beginning the song with a declaration of intent to "move your soul as well as I am able" seemed to me like a mockery of the worship music scene as well. In any case, the song continues the bracing energy of track one. The guitars and bass and drums are layered with complexity, which is part of why the album rewards decades of listening. There's a lot there. (Incidentally, there's a guitar riff at the three minute mark which I always thought U2 ripped off for <i>Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me</i>--but that song came out in 1995, so I don't know who would win that court case if there was one. If based on song quality, Luxury would sweep the jury.)</p><p>The third track <i>Not So Grand</i> mellows out in a hard-plodding guitar riff with melodic vocals over top, but once the chorus hits, the drums and guitar are soaring again and the lyrics are nothing short of arresting. "Am I a lover of being a failure, or just a failure at being a lover?" And then the back-handed slap to society: "No, I have never / Never even changed the world / Though I've been told one thousand times I should want to / But no one has asked me to." If there's better Gen X poetry I haven't heard it. But the song doesn't leave it at that. It also asks "am I too much like Voltaire's Candide?"--which is a remarkable line given the near death trauma the band had just come through. It's a reference to a satirical 18th century novel wherein Candide has been taught by his age to respond to recurring tragedies with the optimist's refrain that "this is the best of all possible worlds", but by the end comes to the more quotidian conclusion that "we must cultivate our garden". </p><p>If that song sits well with the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible, the next one seems to have been prophetic.<i> </i>In <i>Metropolitan</i>, beautiful vocals disguise lyrics that are as pointedly
scathing of consumerist free-market self-actualization as any of the best
punk music of the 70s and 80s. "Love yourself and / Go for the gusto /
America raised me, don't you know?" Back then we kids new the jig was up. What was more singable than "If this is the modern world why do I feel so very out of place?" and
the outro "The future looks so bright ahead / But I wonder / Will
everyone be dead?" </p><p>The follow up in track five, <i>The Glory</i>,<i> </i>is incredible. "These pearls of mine / Unknown to all the swine / These pearls of mine / I can see the greed on everyone's mind / And so I'll wait and hesitate / Carry on a little more time / Just to be wise." Growing up in the Boomer generations' shadow it felt like we'd have to wait a long time for our shot, and when we finally got it it was likely to be exploited. This song struck a chord. As the song laments "the glory" over and over it seems to say: look, be wise how you cast your pearls, but let's not kid ourselves, clutching after them is a fools game. "Be wise."</p><p>To my ears now, <i>Red Mascara</i> seems problematically to project the foolishness of lust onto the "pretty girl with dark red lipstick", but the magic spell of seduction is a potent force and the song does well to call the bluff and hold out for something more than the shallow "I love yous" mentioned in verse three. At the same time, against the prudish backdrop of the Christian music scene at that time, this song also felt a bit like it was celebrating of the electric current of attraction that otherwise felt out of bounds.</p><p><i>King Me </i>is slow and melodic, with clean electric guitar picking over a methodical drum beat. We hear "Isn't life meant to be lived and loved, and / Isn't life meant to be lived and loved, and / Isn't life meant to never grow old?" Somehow it catches the melancholy fear of trouble in the throat and says <i>dammit let's get on with living and loving anyway</i>. We were the Dead Poets Society generation after all. </p><p>It's followed by <i>Hell or Highwater</i>, which feels like a companion song both in the sense of its sound and its lyrics, which channels that desire to live and love into an ode to the promise of abiding friendship. Before many of us had yet read about the socially-constructed nature of identity, we learned it from this song's final line, almost like a prayer: "please don't betray me and let me forget / who I am, who I am, who I am." This stoked a longing in me back then, for which I think I owe Luxury a debt of gratitude.<br /></p><p><i>I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings</i> is an epic which laments helplessness, treasures lost, and the chaotic passage of time, but builds into a climactic burst of energy that gratefully receives caged birdsong as the defiance to hold on to life. Against the backdrop of happy-clappy optimism this echo of Voltaire's Candide is even more explicitly an ode to the determined witness of African Americans, as expressed by novelist Maya Angelou and poet Paul Laurence Dunbar, the source of the title line.</p><p>With the last song <i>The</i> <i>Pearls</i>, we're led by a slow strum and plinking high piano notes to imagine <i>ourselves</i> as pearls who are held from the swine of death's "terrible sea", to taste the fountain of immortality. If it weren't for the songs that went before it it might sound a bit like "I'll Fly Away" escapism, except the pearls that are held fast are the treasures of <i>this </i>life, not some escapist fantasy. The whole thing seems like the denouement to the line from <i>Caged Bird </i>which said "somehow God is good and God is loving". That <i>somehow</i> is perhaps the most devout lyric I've ever sung along to, precisely because it doesn't come up with any explanation, it just goes for it, honestly and achingly, with all the gusto of a late 90s rock band we've hardly heard the likes of since.<br /><br />For all these ten reasons and more, even though it isn't their latest anymore, I suggest that <i>The Latest and the Greatest</i> may not only be <i>Luxury's</i> best, but unironically one of <i>the </i>great rock albums of our time.<br /></p>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-70325376277797572822021-05-04T20:17:00.001+01:002021-05-05T03:02:04.533+01:00Responding to misconstruals of Ambrose University (with comments on systemic racism)<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Last month
some concerning things were published about Ambrose University, first in a blog and
then in <i>The National Post</i>. While it is not my place to speak officially
on behalf of the university, as a faculty member I want to respond to some misconstruals for those who are willing to listen. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/alberta-christian-university-retracts-apology-over-speaker-who-denied-existence-of-systemic-racism" target="_blank">news article</a> was written by Tyler Dawson for <i>The National Post</i> on April 27. Its
headline says <b>“Black Conservative addresses an Alberta Christian University
and a free speech fight breaks out</b>.<b>”</b> The by-line explains, “<b>In
its apology, Ambrose University said the speech by Samuel Sey, a conservative
activist, blogger and Christian who is Black, 'caused severe harm' to some
students.</b>” The <a href="https://slowtowrite.com/my-response-to-ambrose-university/" target="_blank">blog</a> in question is “My Response to Ambrose University”, written
by Mr. Sey himself a few days earlier, on April 23. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Those
headlines set the stage pretty well on their own, but let's be clear: The long
story short is that a guest speaker in a worship event on our campus said that
there is no such thing as systemic racism, and that such a concept is unbiblical.
This undermined the university’s commitment to its students, so those responsible for the event
apologized for what was said. The
apology was accessible to students on the university website but did not name or defame the speaker publicly. However, this led some to denounce the university in
social media and on radio, spurred mainly by the news article and blog. Here I will comment only on the latter two.<br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Let’s begin
with the blog. Right from the beginning the university is said to have an
“agenda”, which makes it sound as if something insidious is going on. To the
blogger’s credit, however, the third time this word is used it actually <a href="https://ambrose.edu/together-journey-statement-ambrose-university-president" target="_blank">links</a>
to a public statement from the University President that has been on the website
since June 8, 2020. There we see not a hidden agenda but a clear position:
“Ambrose University stands with those who experience the painful effects of
systemic racism and racial injustice.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Whether or
not Mr. Sey knew about the university’s position when he agreed to speak at a
student worship event this February, it is key to this whole situation. Some seem to think the university is ‘cancelling’ him (as that ambiguous expression puts
it), but that is not the case. The issue is that students at a worship event were
told that systemic racism does not even exist, and is contrary to biblical
truth. That puts the university in a position where it either has to stand by
the speaker’s statement or its own.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">One way to
tell whether the university was trying to ‘cancel’ (or publicly censure) the speaker might be
to look at whether the apology publicly named him. It did not. This is
interpreted by Mr. Sey as “cowardly”, but the omission only underlines the fact
that the university is not publicly de-platforming anyone, let alone playing
partisan politics in a culture war. As the university statement clarified two
days later, the apology was intended to address what was said at the event for those
in its immediate orbit, and not to denounce anyone publicly. In my
view the apology was clear enough, but once this was publicly re-framed
and denounced, it is understandable why a removal and explanation were felt
necessary to address the concerns of onlookers. Thus, the university reiterated
its commitment to academic freedom and owned up to its failure to include that reassurance
in the original apology. Please note, however, that a failure to <i>mention it</i>
is not the same as a failure to <i>consider it</i>, and is certainly
not the same as a failure to uphold it altogether. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">The university remains a place for rigorous academic discussion. This includes discussion about the variable manifestations of racism, and the
proportion of their importance. It is true that if we focus entirely on the <i>systemic</i>
it can be a means of shifting responsibility off <i>individuals</i>, thus enabling
the evasion of personal responsibility. But the same goes the other way.
Shifting responsibility off <i>systems</i> and putting it entirely on <i>persons</i>
can be a way of evading responsibility for social dynamics. Once we know about such dynamics, ignoring them becomes an act of will, and a sin of omission is as
much a problem of personal partiality as an intentional sin of commission.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisp40Ta_6QBF-yirpICXZulxkWktUPfg1E_F1imit0ZU4HylXm3i9kCMptoGtWDkQj7ccsTPCzlK0nJr817nBMc6wqpf7Z1E1aoffOiS5miXcvHTsLao_HGtNruhcxrNg_2XBdVA/s884/Screen+Shot+2021-05-04+at+9.31.14+AM.png" style="clear: right; display: block; float: right; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="796" data-original-width="884" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisp40Ta_6QBF-yirpICXZulxkWktUPfg1E_F1imit0ZU4HylXm3i9kCMptoGtWDkQj7ccsTPCzlK0nJr817nBMc6wqpf7Z1E1aoffOiS5miXcvHTsLao_HGtNruhcxrNg_2XBdVA/s200/Screen+Shot+2021-05-04+at+9.31.14+AM.png" width="200" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">I want to
come back to some of the particulars noted so far, but will do so by turning first to <i>The National Post</i>, where we find the reiteration of several talking
points. In the article Tyler Dawson does well to interview both the speaker and
the student council that hosted him. For his part, Mr. Sey claims to have been
attacked, and since in his view he is merely saying “what the Bible says on racism”, he calls
this an attack on the Bible itself. This may be the kind of reading that makes
readers of the Post want to reach for the popcorn, but it’s a pretty serious
charge for a Christian to make. If a student made a claim like that in a paper
they would need to provide evidence to back it up. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The article
then says that the apology was “retracted”, which I think is a fair assumption
to make, since it was my initial impression of the apology’s website-removal as
well. However, the article then quotes from an interview with a student council
member, who explains how the apology’s removal from the website was an attempt
to rectify what Mr. Sey took to be a public denunciation of himself personally.
As noted above, the apology did not attack the speaker but only took
institutional responsibility for something he said, so I think the
apology remains entirely defensible. But I also think it is fair to seek clarification whether the university sought to
censure anyone’s public platform, and whether it upholds academic freedom.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">(Such acts of
censure <i>can be warranted</i> in some cases, of course. Freedom of speech
does not mean everything goes, or that there is no accountability for what we
say. There are consequences if we shout <i>Fire!</i> in a crowded theatre, or
shout <i>There’s no fire!</i> in a burning theatre for that matter. Freedom of speech also does not mean everyone
gets access to every megaphone or platform. In academia there are
multiple requirements and accountabilities in place to oversee and evaluate such things, but there’s
a parallel to this in newspapers and blogs as well. <i>The National Post </i>has editors who decide what goes to print, and bloggers control what gets
posted and approved on their blogs. To be clear, <i>in this case</i> it was not
censure but was an institution taking responsibility for something said to its students from its
pulpit.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">This is where
we can begin to get into some further particulars. The
article goes on to quote from Mr. Sey’s speech-notes, which include the
assertion that the Bible is the “best anti-racist book today,” and that anyone
who says otherwise is “completely and destructively wrong.” Again, if I were
marking an essay that said this, I’d be asking the student to back up the
claim. Otherwise, this is one of any number of logical fallacies (such as begging
the question or the straw man fallacy). Why frame the issue that way? Did someone
suggest that the Bible <i>is not </i>the best anti-racist book today? I’m not
sure the Bible should be evaluated by the criteria of “best” or “better”</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">—</span>or is it being implied that the Bible is the <i>only </i>book to read?</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">—</span>but this is
beside the point since Ambrose continues to uphold the authority of Scripture. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">To be fair, I
can relate to Mr. Sey here. It is easy to slip into rhetoric like that when we
are trying to persuade an audience of the force of our convictions. But, as we
discuss in homiletics classes all the time, we do have to own up to such
temptations, recognize if we have unfairly stacked the deck, and work to speak truth in love. When we teach we should be ready to bring challenging and
even prophetic words, but if we are rhetorically manipulative then we should expect
to be called on it. At that point we can double down, clarify what we mean, or
apologize and correct. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Unfortunately,
the way Mr. Sey presents the issue forces attendees to either see it his way
or be declared unbiblical—even “completely and destructively wrong.” The specifics of this are displayed in the article, where excerpts from Mr.
Sey’s speech include mention of biblical passages found in 2 Timothy and James.
According to him this is where we find “the Biblical definition” of racism. These
verses are well chosen, and there is no arguing against their applicability to
the topic at hand—but the problem is that, as he declares them definitive, he also
imports an exclusively individualistic interpretation and excludes everything
else as unbiblical.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">It should become clear why the university’s apology was warranted. Mr. Sey reiterates for <i>The
National Post</i> that these verses mean there is no such thing as systemic
racism, unless someone in the room can “identify a single racist law” in the
“political system”. I won’t get into the law-naming game here—other than to say
that it is well established that racial bias was embedded in the formation of
the Dominion of Canada and continues to manifest in the cumulative effect of that
history—but suffice it to say we are already quite a few steps removed from the
texts of 2 Timothy and James. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Like I said, there’s no doubt Timothy and James inform a Christian understanding of
racism. But neither of them rules out its systemic aspect. Even if we define
racism as “partiality or bias against someone because of their skin colour,” we
can still speak of how this takes <i>both</i> personally intended <i>and</i> systemically
embedded forms. <span style="color: black; mso-themecolor: text1;">These are not
mutually exclusive. Systemic problems exist alongside (and feed
off) problems of personal animus, and there is biblical warrant for the
analysis of both. Along with James 2 (on sinful partiality) we can add 1
Corinthians 11 (on sinful sociality) and be well on our way to a fuller
biblical treatment of the issue. We talk about this in our theology classes. The Bible is not being ignored or rejected here.</span><span style="color: #c00000;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #c00000; font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">I am happy to give Mr. Sey the benefit of the doubt and
assume he didn’t know about our position statement. In fact, it’s on us as an
institution if nobody briefed him (hence the apology). But it's hard for me to understand how he can so unabashedly suggest that our faculty and staff
are not Christians who take Scripture as seriously as he
does. He jumps to the conclusion that we “didn’t
want [him] to preach Christ”, do not “align [our]selves with the Bible”, and instead
“<i>preach</i> Critical Race Theory”. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">These are unsubstantiated
charges. </span> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">The university continues to uphold its commitments to Christ, to Scripture,
and to the rigours of its academic disciplines—which includes the study of
social theories. Exodus 20:16 says “thou shalt not bear false witness.” I can only
ask onlookers and detractors to keep that in mind going forward.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">(Note: Critical Race Theory is one of many ways of discussing and treating the problem of systemic racism. It is part of the conversation, but that doesn't mean it is legitimate to reduce the conversation to this one relatively misunderstood legal approach and then denounce the notion of systemic racism altogether. Besides, social theories like CRT
are </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">not <i>preached</i>, they are </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;"><i>taught</i> in relevant classes by professors who have studied them carefully. Since CRT has been widely misrepresented in social media of late, I recommend reading <a href="https://sojo.net/articles/why-nathan-cartagena-teaches-critical-race-theory-evangelicals" target="_blank">this interview with Nathan Cartagena</a>, <a href="https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2021/02/critical-race-theory-an-overview-and-appraisal/" target="_blank">this overview by Jeff Liou</a>, or <a href="https://alsoacarpenter.com/2021/04/08/a-relatively-brief-introduction-to-critical-race-theory/" target="_blank">this intro by Brad Mason</a>). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Bringing it
back to Ambrose’s apology, the issue is simple. The host institution differs
with the claims made at its worship event and, out of a commitment to its students, said so. Students who
have had to overcome the social dynamics of racialized disregard even to get to
university in the first place have a right to expect us to uphold our commitment to stand with them against the perpetuation of such things. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">To dismiss this concern has more than an emotional affect; it also
perpetuates ongoing material harm. When that dismissal is reified in worship
and underlined as if it is biblical truth, it encourages racial dynamics to persist
unchecked. Such dynamics can tend to go unnoticed by privileged people like me, but
are very tangible to those whose voices are drowned out by them. Even if incidents
are unintended, racially-infused dismissals pile up and have a
cumulative effect, doing harm not only to the person’s well-being and belonging, but to their material ability to disern vocations as full
participants in the learning community. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-family: Helvetica; mso-themecolor: text1;">But the material effects do not stop there. As a
Christian who believes in the gospel of reconciliation, I believe that the
conditions which privilege whiteness are also not good for white people. The
situation is worse for those students that the apology sought to support, of
course, but it is also not good for me if I unwittingly perpetuate those social
dynamics which hold back our mutual flourishing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The rest of
the article rightly talks about campus vetting processes, and about Mr. Sey’s
correct assertion that we should not be afraid to challenge him because of his
skin colour. The reason for not mentioning any particulars about the speaker has
already been noted above. That said, while <i>fear</i> is not the word for it, I do
think it appropriate for a white man like me to be <i>careful</i> not to speak into
such issues hastily, lest it be from ignorance or privilege. There is a lot that a person like me can learn by listening to people of colour, not only in conversation but, as I have also often found, through thoughtful <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/91659836-jon-coutts?shelf=blm" target="_blank">books</a> and </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://boxd.it/5G5I8" target="_blank">movies</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">.<br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The
National Post</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> article
concludes with the suggestion that our institutional support for people of
colour seems to “ring hollow”, but I pray this does not prove to be the case. Indeed,
that is why I think it is important for us to stand by our apology, and to stand
by our President’s statement last summer on our behalf. Despite the article’s last
sentence, it should be possible to be allies <i>both</i> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">with those who experience and oppose racism in its form as personal animus and
partiality </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><i>and </i>with
those</span> “who
experience the painful effects of systemic racism and racial injustice”. We <i>can</i> be together on this. It is not the university that
said we cannot.</span></p>
<p><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1342208091 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-58126220362442960022020-03-31T03:43:00.002+01:002020-03-31T03:43:49.892+01:00Hail Caesar Essay in Journal of Religion and FilmMy latest piece to be published is an essay that was first delivered as a Plenary address at the <i>Society for the Study of Theology </i>annual conference in 2018. It is titled “<i>Hail, Caesar!</i> A Jesus Film in Search of a Christ Figure," and it appears in <a href="https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol24/iss1/57/" target="_blank">volume 24 of the </a><i><a href="https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol24/iss1/57/" target="_blank">Journal of Religion and Film</a>. </i>It also serves as something of an introduction to <i>Letters and Papers from Prison</i>. Here's the abstract: <br />
key themes in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTyPSzCz8AKtyH5Wdq0xP1-qh850Ja-YHlQDvMNrCS73sZWWIbdTGTJqJHOlVpVPy-15WnpXWFnW420OuHsuCSXkRZQAtoKU12Zw6yeLO0iFKLu04ji0u1GFpJ6p93OG9vPG523g/s1600/DP_300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTyPSzCz8AKtyH5Wdq0xP1-qh850Ja-YHlQDvMNrCS73sZWWIbdTGTJqJHOlVpVPy-15WnpXWFnW420OuHsuCSXkRZQAtoKU12Zw6yeLO0iFKLu04ji0u1GFpJ6p93OG9vPG523g/s1600/DP_300.jpg" /></a>For over a century the moving
picture has been a medium ripe for propagation or exploration of the
story of Christ. Since the first wave hit screens in the late 1890s and
early 1900s, the list of so-called “Jesus films” has come to number in
the dozens. Given that Joel and Ethan Coen’s 2016 <em>Hail, Caesar!</em>
sets itself up as a reprisal of such films, the question is how to
interpret it. To explore this, interpretation of the film is framed by
consideration of the Coen brothers' attention to religious themes, is
set against the backdrop of the second wave of American Jesus films in
the 1950s and 60s with which they appear to be interacting, and is
informed by central themes from Deitrich Bonhoeffer's <em>Letters and Papers from Prison</em>. Given the perennially beguiling nature of Bonhoeffer's posthumously published <em>Letters</em>—especially
as it relates to their cultural-theological diagnoses of the modern
"world come of age"—this article aims not only to open up a particular
way of viewing the Coen brother's film, but also to open up a way of
understanding Bonhoeffer's own intriguing suggestions. Given the lack of
actual "Jesus scenes" in the Coen's alleged "Tale of the Christ," it
will be seen how Bonhoeffer's observations about "secular methodism",
"religionless Christianity", and "arcane discipline" offer a way of
noticing how the miniature Jesus film within the Coen film actually
manages to pervade the whole of it. In the process, <em>Hail, Caesar! </em>is
seen to offer a challenge to the typical Christian use of media, even
as it offers up three characters for consideration as possible
Christ-figures.<br />
</blockquote>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-39650262107287691262019-06-03T15:16:00.000+01:002019-06-03T20:30:31.401+01:00Kuyper on Gender: Case Closed?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-0LMIvXuoaoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lectures+on+calvinism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIrpz7vM3iAhVq8eAKHWC_DM4Q6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=lectures%20on%20calvinism&f=false" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-0LMIvXuoaoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lectures+on+calvinism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIrpz7vM3iAhVq8eAKHWC_DM4Q6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=lectures%20on%20calvinism&f=false" border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="323" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUVQ5qjdwSvrFfX0PaeDK_iX6Z36YHic1OH9AXeN_8_PwP5J12v22WIVtUZIukHgrjhyphenhyphen65-unzpwFSWfvFTS7x3La5738ciUEY_DQZKfRuaMT4kznVH-Hn6yRti0SJVWvUk3YK_Q/s200/41VHOHC-xXL.jpg" width="128" /></a> <span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>"Modernism, which denies and absolishes every difference, cannot rest
until it has made woman man and man woman, and putting every distinction on a
common level, kills life by placing it under the ban of uniformity" </b><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">- Kuyper, <i>Lectures on Calvinism</i>, 26</span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
This quote appeared <a href="https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1133764701295403010" target="_blank">on twitter</a> last week, just after I had run across it
during a deep dive into the works of Abraham Kuyper for an unrelated project,
and on both occasions it struck me as a misreading of the trajectory of
modernity. To be fair, from where Kuyper stood (namely, behind a Princeton
lecture podium in 1898) it would have been difficult to see past the
then-modern-spectre of socialism. Prediction will often look foolish from the
vantage of hindsight. But there's more going on here than that: after all it is in part <i>due to
the influence of Kuyper himself</i> that modern american culture has taken such
a decidedly different, individually liberated, course.<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Here on the other
side of three or four waves of feminism we know that the stated goal was precisely
not to abolish difference but to multiply it, transgressing the constrictive
uniformity of binary gender constructs in order to open up a future in which
difference could flourish. </b>So here's the question I began asking myself as
I read him last week: If Kuyper were alive to see this, would he reverse his
position?<br />
<br />
It is not an easy question to answer. As Mary Stewart van Leeuwen rightly
points out in "Abraham Kuyper and the Cult of True Womanhood", Kuyper
was not just resistant to the spectre of totalizing uniformity but also to
"individualistic atomism". He opposed <i>both</i> stifling sameness <i>and</i>
the splintering diversification wherein each becomes an
identity-unto-themselves. He might have argued that the latter inevitably collapses
back into the former—"if every one is a gender then no one is a
gender" the argument might run—even if that’s not what
"modernism" <i>thinks</i> it is doing with gender. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_dRoDHNwlfjy3CEnhm8cxljYHQ2PbrwHHGzfuQEkOEf5yqOvmxkKQT2G3p3rHNE7XdJPvzlI3UID4s59HcAGUtuUFVL-4miiji9mV53inWc2xb7OLX9sinobXn2HM48-_Knu3AQ/s1600/kuyper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="309" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_dRoDHNwlfjy3CEnhm8cxljYHQ2PbrwHHGzfuQEkOEf5yqOvmxkKQT2G3p3rHNE7XdJPvzlI3UID4s59HcAGUtuUFVL-4miiji9mV53inWc2xb7OLX9sinobXn2HM48-_Knu3AQ/s200/kuyper.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Abraham Kuyper</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
On the other hand, Kuyper followed the quote at the top of the page by
saying he was "opposed to all hierarchy", stating that his brand of
Calvinism "condemns not merely all open slavery and systems of caste, but
also covert slavery of woman and of the poor" (27). When the industrial
revolution changed the relationship between workplaces and homes, Kuyper sought
to reserve the domestic sphere for women in order to <i>resist </i>injustice,
not to deepen it. <b>Whether or not we agree with his domestication of women, we
have to acknowledge that Kuyper thought it was the way to properly honour and protect
the liberty of women in the new economy. His goal was to avoid the old
patriarchy, and in this it was important not to fall for the lure of communism.
The preservation of the home was a form of resistance to the covert enslavement
of such egalitarianism.</b><br />
<br />
But the question stuck with me as I read his work: If Kuyper was alive today
would he necessarily be a so-called <a href="https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tinker-tailor-complementarian-egalitarian/" target="_blank">complementarian</a>? Does he belong with <a href="https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/why-is-the-gospel-coalition-complementarian-questioning-carson-keller-and-piper/" target="_blank">the company he keeps</a> in the gender roles debate today? It's not a question of hypothetical
speculation or cultural tribalism, it is about working with the grain of Kuyper’s
thought, investigating its internal tensions, and asking whether it must <i>necessarily</i>
unravel it in one direction or another. (As a broadly Calvin-ist theologian I
want to try to work with Kuyper, not because I am beholden to either of them, but because I
want our theology to be <i>coherent</i>). So it is a matter of asking whether Kuyper’s
view of gender roles are open to contextual re-appropriation or whether
one would have to leave his core principles behind in order to say something different.<br />
<br />
One way to look at this question is to compare Kuyper's view of gender with
his view of race, and to see whether the former is implicated in the latter,
and thus open to critical re-thinking. I won't belabour this point but it is at
least relevant to note that in his 1898 lectures on Calvinism Kuyper sang from
the song-sheet of his culture by supposing that "the coloured races on the
coast and in the interior of Africa" inhabited "a far lower form of
existence" which required a degree of European influence (32). <br />
<br />
Broadly in line with the
natural sciences and economic interests of that period, Kuyper was not alone in
reading this racial theory into scripture’s Noahic blessing: "the children
of Shem and of Japheth have been the sole bearers of the development of the
race", with "no impulse for any higher life" coming "from
the third group" (namely, Ham, 35). Kuyper would not sit neatly within today’s label
of white supremacist: A few paragraphs later he argues for the mixing of races
for the sake of human development "taken as a whole" (36). But the
narrative which makes sense of this is one of historical progression which has
the Euro-American project at its head.<br />
<br />
The point is not to make easy slam-dunk against Kuyper. Nor is there an easy
way out in saying he was a product of his time on this, but otherwise
sound on everything else. The point is to enquire whether his commentary on race
exhibits his readiness to let culturally-formed "natural
observations" cloud the judgment of his biblical interpretation and his understanding
of the so-called created order. If his judgment is so clouded it would not
necessarily make the entirety of his theology un-usable, but it would give us a
moment's pause before we assumed that his views of gender were not similarly
implicated.<br />
<br />
A further step, then, is to examine Kuyper’s <i>reasoning </i>and to ask what is fundamental to his theology of gender and
what belongs<i> </i>to his contextual concerns. If there is any tension in his
theology then we would look for an inner logic
that, in some other context, might unravel in another way. In other words, despite
the moral judgments he made in his time, is there a trajectory to those
judgments which could later have unforeseen ramifications?<br />
<br />
This is not an unfair imposition upon Kuyper’s
own moral reasoning: he uses it himself in his account of race
and slavery. In the very same lecture quoted already, Kuyper says:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
“Early stage Christianity did not abolish slavery,
but undermined it by a moral judgment.” Similarly, he explains: “Calvinism
allowed the provisional continuance of the conditions of hierarchy and
aristocracy as traditions belonging to the Middle Ages" while
at the same time. "inwardly” it “modified the structure of society ... by a more serious
interpretation of life.” As a result, "a holier democratic idea has
developed itself, and has continually gained ground. This result has been
brought about by nothing so much as by fellowship in suffering" (27-28). </div>
<br />
<b>Later Kuyper observed "that this turn in the history of the world could
not have been brought about except by the implanting of another principle in
the human heart; that only by Calvinism the psalm of liberty found its way from
the troubled conscience to the lips"</b> (40).<br />
<br />
Could the same moral trajectory be applied with regard to gender roles and
restrictions? Never mind that Kuyper argued against some of the gender
equalities that modern complementarians now take for granted (like the right to
vote): the questions is whether, on the issue of gender roles, Kuyper knowingly
and theologically locked himself in and threw away the key.<br />
<br />
There is little doubt that Kuyper had no problem arguing
for <i>both</i> equality <i>and</i> the delineation of roles; for <i>both</i> universal
liberty <i>and</i> variegated responsibilities. Equality does not mean sameness,
and for Kuyper this is observably normal (and biblically defensible) not only in the workplace but in all
spheres of life. To occupy different roles is a sociological occurence that has been <i>aggravated</i> by the
sinfulness of the world, but it is not <i>itself </i>a direct
consequence of the fall (122-23).<br />
<br />
I doubt many would differ with him on this general point. Who does not balk
at the flat uniformity which Kuyper resisted? Equality does not mean sameness
for us either. The issue for egalitarians is not the delineation of roles and
responsibilities <i>per se</i>; the issue is how they get handed out. How
securely should social roles be tied to sex and gender?<br />
<br />
For Kuyper, the vehicle and the goal of liberation from oppressive hierarchies
was a return to the freedom of domestic life. It was sin that led to kingdoms and empires,
it was our created good to arrange ourselves in neighbourhoods of cooperatively functional
families. In his lecture on "Calvinism and Politics" Kuyper says that
the "combining [of] many families in a higher unity … would have <i>internally
</i>been bound up in the Kingship of God,” which is to say that the free interchange
of smaller social units would have been God’s way of ruling "harmoniously in the hearts of all.”<i> </i>As it grew, humanity
"would <i>externally </i>have incorporated itself in a patriarchal
hierarchy (92)." Why? For reasons of both nature and revelation, says
Kuyper: "Paternal authority roots itself in the very life-blood and is
proclaimed in the fifth Commandment" (96).<br />
<br />
To the modern ear this may sound <i>definitively</i> repressive to women, but it has
not always <i>necessarily </i>been so. In ancient hunter-gatherer and agrarian
contexts, with high child mortality rates and without modern means of birth
control, it was to some degree <i>natural </i>that women and men would funnel
into particular roles and responsibilities, but it was not <i>strictly necessary
</i>that this be abstracted, codified, and absolutized into gendered power
structures. That this <i>did </i>happen does not mean it <i>always had to
happen</i>. With the books of Genesis and Exodus in hand, perhaps one could
reconsider the social arrangements under other circumstances. Indeed, when just such circumstances arose from the modern enlightenment and the industrial revolution,
like the culturally-conditioned complementarians after him, Kuyper was not afraid
to improvise.<br />
<br />
This is where things take their turn. Kuyper felt that the command to "honour thy father and mother" should be abstracted and delineated according to public and private spheres. With modern pressures in
front of him and the Bible in hand, Kuyper ordered the men to public life
(state and workplace) and the women to domestic life (home and family), each to
the flourishing and honouring of the other. This did not make women the
so-called heads of the home. Since husbands provided the point of contact with
public affairs they were the ostensible leaders of the domestic realm, even if that
meant empowering their wives to give shape to domestic affairs.<br />
<br />
For further reading on this see<i> </i>Mary Stewart van Leeuwen's aforementioned essay, wherein she traces
Kuyper's gendered division of Genesis 1’s co-called cultural mandate:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8byWP8aelxFynfGFnLEc6NKQ-fMl2XZMG-pS1qx8NP8yjyQsOr7nQn-6Sqn9-JM9ij0JapPEoGinONl2YlhYOdwsTn42aIvepQVJYrU3ifaD7y2qxNQi8wAYBaVRJJ7lO-MOXHQ/s1600/van+leeuwen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8byWP8aelxFynfGFnLEc6NKQ-fMl2XZMG-pS1qx8NP8yjyQsOr7nQn-6Sqn9-JM9ij0JapPEoGinONl2YlhYOdwsTn42aIvepQVJYrU3ifaD7y2qxNQi8wAYBaVRJJ7lO-MOXHQ/s200/van+leeuwen.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mary Stewart van Leeuwen</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Women, he says in effect, are made to be
fruitful and multiply, while men are made to subdue the earth. And ideally
these tasks should not overlap. I think we may give Kuyper the benefit of the
doubt and assume that, like many of his contemporaries, he was convinced that
women's status was being elevated by the doctrine of two spheres. Moreover, one
cannot expect him (or anyone else) to have predicted all the consequences of
such a dichotomy ... [including] the consequences of effectively reducing <i>parenting
</i>to <i>mothering</i>.... But what if one gets some of those first
principles wrong? What if one carves up the creational spheres in a mistaken
way, for example by designating race or gender as a separate sphere that must
be <i>kept </i>separate according to principles that are less biblical than
they are reflective of a particular, culturally-specific ideology? Then it is
clear that great mischief can be done.... </div>
<div style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 36.0pt;">
<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QrRHmwEACAAJ&dq=on+kuyper+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi48qL-vs3iAhVQ-YUKHYEqBIEQ6AEILzAB" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QrRHmwEACAAJ&dq=on+kuyper+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi48qL-vs3iAhVQ-YUKHYEqBIEQ6AEILzAB" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="280" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeL25hlqeqfvpaDXbBCKIlPOtnwcHNUb0I_YlSZeuCThFJf45tBSvH08-ymOIo7xfxfquvRCPsvFBDe9uAsEhssMVn_vkGm6WjwMgN4feBmlN99sxzv14S5qco-Ml-Yqwy7Km-iw/s200/on+kuyper.jpg" width="140" /></a>There is, however, another possible—and more
flexible—reading of Kuyper's position. South African church historian P.J.
Strauss has shown that although Kuyper supported the informal <i>Apartheid
</i>of his era, he saw it as a time-bound measure, aimed at the upliftment and
development of native South Africans, and thus probably would not have
supported the theory of closed and permanent <i>Apartheid </i>defended by his
Calvinistic descendants. So too, it is possible that Kuyper, in his defence of
women's entry into certain quasi-domestic public institutions (education,
social work, nursing) may have expressed residual ambivalence about the
absolute character of the gendered public-private dichotomy....<b> Thus, it is possible ... that Kuyper's
Calvinistic descendants have read him to be less flexible on the gendering of
the public-private dichotomy than he actually would have been, had he survived
for several more decades"</b> (see <i>On Kuyper</i>, 441-42). </div>
<br />
So one hand it appears fairly obvious that Kuyper thought his particular ordering of
gender roles was the way it should be. But on the other hand—especially against
the backdrop of his concern for progress, liberty, and diversification—we
might detect a trajectory on gender roles which went the same way as the trajectory
against slavery. <b>Correcting for the blindspots of nineteenth century science
and culture (to borrow Kuyper’s words): might a “holier democratic idea” arise from within the “fellowship
of suffering”?</b><br />
<br />
Those who argue that Kuyper was not logically pinned to the white
supremacy of later generations are probably right to point out that he did not intend
the isolation of races into separate and distinct spheres but argued for their
mixing and multiplication. But that does not mean his views on race were not in
need of some modification in order to make the most of what might have been
otherwise commendable theology. Nor is it wise to resist a similar theological
re-visitation of his approach to gender roles. <b>Especially if the various spheres
of life are to be respected for their freedom and internal integrity (like
Kuyper argued in his 1880 "Sphere Sovereignty" speech), then families,
workplaces, and churches should be afforded the space to reconsider how, under
the lordship of Christ, they are to be ordered and upheld in each time and
place.</b><br />
<br />
In this endeavour, if Kuyper is taken back to the authority of Scripture
under which he rightly placed himself, then those Scriptures must be read and
re-read over against <i>his</i> culturally-conditioned interpretations as well
as our own. <b>Interestingly, on a close reading one finds not only that Kuyper's stance on gender roles is
amenable to re-visitation on its own terms, but also that it might bend even further
in our time toward the over-arching command to mutually "submit to one
another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21).</b> Kuyper would almost
certainly resist a modern form of secular egalitarianism which collapses
equality into a homogeneous blob of sameness, but I’m unconvinced that a twenty-first century Kuyper would continue to insist<i> </i>on the sustenance of ancient household
codes at the expense of “holier democratic” arrangements in the church and home.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ThB4uCYp4" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="429" data-original-width="280" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZcU9uzIf_J_7r1NzbpQ-_47mhiJ8mTTARRZ5ByH5JUJel6KP7XgeMVafHBwlGJbq15P77xm9QRfL6AvlqsRFzvAtOm7Hq915dpDLvLj0yi41NIMZLJMbpTh8dq8sfx6zFCD-0vA/s200/Screenshot_2019-06-03+Wind+Plays+Harp+-+YouTube.png" width="130" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ThB4uCYp4" target="_blank">click to hear an Aeolian harp</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In fact when Kuyper came to the last of his lectures, on "Calvinism and the
Future", against his objectors he asserted that "the quickening of
life comes not from men: it is the prerogative of God, and it is due to His
sovereign will alone, whether or not the tide of religious life rise high in
one century, and run to a low ebb in the next.” Likening the church’s life to a
harp that gets played by the wind, Kuyper was certainly not advocating for uncritical
cultural accommodation, but nor was he suggesting that traditional
powers-that-be should carry on playing their own tune. “Let Calvinism be
nothing but such an Aeolian harp,” he said, “absolutely powerless, as it is,
without the quickening spirit of God.” Rather, “we feel it our God-given duty
to keep our harp, its strings tuned aright, ready in the window of God's Holy
Sion, awaiting the breath of the Spirit" (199).Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-79857473237014565542019-05-02T18:01:00.000+01:002019-05-03T14:47:59.464+01:00Barth on Gender: A Thought Experiment<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A few years ago I posted <a href="https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/karl-barth-on-gender-roles-in-the-church/#comments" target="_blank">some reflections about Karl Barth on Gender Roles</a> wherein I reflected on a <a href="http://www.womenpriests.org/the-status-of-woman-in-the-thought-of-karl-barth/" target="_blank">Paul Fiddes essay</a> and an episode from Barth's Safenwil pastorate in order to dig deeper into the nuances of Barth's <i>apparently </i>traditional position on the delineation of gender roles.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I've since had occasion to revisit the relevant passage of Barth's <i>Church Dogmatics</i> (namely volume III/4, <span class="ILfuVd">§</span>53.1) and have come to the maintain the view expressed there, which is to say that <i>on the whole </i>Barth displays "an openness to women in leadership" and <i>mutual</i> submission even though it "is articulated within<i> </i>an account that places women in an <i>intrinsic </i>place of submission."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What's interesting is that the mutual submission approach seems more consistent with other moves in Barth's theology, not only elsewhere but also within the section on "Man and Woman". The section would arguably make more sense and be more fruitful if the inconsistencies were ironed out.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This month at <a href="https://www.theologysociety.org.uk/" target="_blank">SST</a> in Warwick I was glad to run into someone who is doing doctoral research on precisely this, and who seems to be untying the knots of that Barthian dilemma in a critically constructive direction. It will be fascinating to see how this works out, not only as it pertains to women in leadership but also to broader questions of masculinity and femininity. These questions are more prescient and pressing in our day than Barth could have fully anticipated in his.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On that note, I was interested to come across an excursus later in that same volume (III/4, <span class="ILfuVd">§</span>56.2) wherein Barth discusses the social customs and self-understandings of "youth", observes how quickly they fossilize almost into mini-idealogies, and then makes a ponderous comparision to the dynamics of masculinity and femininity. Here is how it begins:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Youth which proclaims itself as such ... already contains within itself
the seeds of death and moves on rapidly to speedy old age. "For we are
young, how grand it is!" But not in itself! Youth is like masculinity or
femininity. If we want such things in and for themselves, we shall be
neither young nor masculine nor feminine.</span></span></span> </blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The point is that if you focus on an abstract ideal at the expense of your personal and social particulars, you end up with neither the ideal nor the actuality. This got me wondering what it would look like to take him up on the parallel and to altar the rest of the paragraph to apply instead to gender. In what follows you'll see the result of that thought experiment.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First, here are four quick explanations of what I've done: </span></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Given that Barth used masculine pronouns for all humanity, simply for the sake of readability I have carried out the thought experiment by replacing <i>youth words</i> with <i>masculinity words</i>. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Where the issue of age or maturity still needs to be retained for it to make sense, I have used words pertaining to boyhood or adulthood. In one place I have a question mark because I was not sure whether I should have left the reference to age.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At one point where there is clearly an idealogical social norm in view, I have used the colloquialism "man's man" to convey the implication. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All replaced words are surrounded by square brackets, and I've inserted paragraph breaks for the sake of reading on screen. </span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Without further ado, then, here is the altered excerpt, picking up with the last sentences above.</span> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Youth is like masculinity or femininity. If we want such things in and for themselves, we shall be neither young nor masculine nor feminine. <br /><br />We can be [masculine] only when we are moved by something which in itself has nothing at all to do with our [gender] or [sex], and in relation to which we are summoned even as young men to advance.
<br /><br />We can be [masculine] only in specific demonstration of our preparedness, attention, zeal and obedience, only in [masculine] objectivity, and not by chasing the phantom of what is supposed to be [masculine] objectivity.
<br /><br />[Masculinity] is the capacity and will to devote oneself to an object without considering or intending that the matter of this devotion should be specifically [masculine], but rather in suppression of any such consideration or intention and with the serious aim of rivaling the objectivity of those who are older [?].
<br /><br />He who wants to be a ["man's man"] is not [a man]; he is merely [man]ish. He who is a [boy] does not want to be a [man]; he takes his play, his study, his first attempts at accomplishment, his first wrestlings with his environment, in bitter earnest, as though he were already [a man].
<br /><br />In so doing he is genuinely [boy]like. This is what it means to accept the command of the particular hour in true loyalty to its specific determination, to be free in its distinctive limitation (CD III/4, p. 609).</span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If what Barth says here was allowed to ripple through his account of gender roles, I wonder if it would take the trajectory even further away from patriarchal orderings. It also wonder how compatable this is with <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Gender_Trouble.html?id=2S0xAAAAQBAJ" target="_blank">what Judith Butler argued</a> forty years later. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But I am going to leave it at that without further comment, not because I'm simply accepting it at face value as an articulation of Barth's view of gender, but because it's just a thought experiment to mull over. The possibilities probably speak for themselves. Let me know if you run across this and have any thoughts or clarifications.</span></span></span>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-7388895656699485632019-04-11T17:48:00.002+01:002019-04-21T11:54:08.887+01:00Personal NewsAfter five wonderful years with colleagues and students teaching at Trinity College Bristol as its Tutor in Ethics, in August I will be taking up the position of Assistant Professor in Christian Theology at <a href="https://ambrose.edu/" target="_blank">Ambrose University in Calgary, Alberta</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.designcore.ca/images/projects/institutional/ambrose_university_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="800" height="215" src="https://www.designcore.ca/images/projects/institutional/ambrose_university_01.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There I will be centred in Ambrose's School of Ministry, which is where my wife and I prepared for ministry twenty years ago (back when it was Canadian Bible College in Regina, Saskatchewan). It is a place and role close to my heart and convictions.<br />
<br />
Besides moving, this summer I'm also anticipating the release of my new book, the <a href="https://scmpress.hymnsam.co.uk/books/9780334057789/scm-studyguide-church-leadership" target="_blank"><i>SCM Studyguide to Church Leadership</i></a>, which should be out soon.Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-66819231436195630882018-10-14T10:56:00.001+01:002018-10-15T10:19:04.974+01:00Forty Three (and Forty Two)There is not much blogging going on here anymore but I do still update my movie ratings and such. The past couple years I have forgotten to update my running list of 'films that stuck with me', 'albums I've lived by', and 'favourite fiction'. Having turned 43 last month, I had some catching up to do from where I had left those lists off at 41. So here are the films, albums, and novels that most impacted me in 2017 and 2018.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Albums I've Lived By</h2>
2018: "Love and Hate" - Michael Kiwanuka<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aMZ4QL0orw0" width="560"></iframe> <br />
<br />
2017: "A Deeper Understanding" - The War on Drugs<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XdowyvdK8Qk" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
Films That Stuck With Me</h2>
2018: "Annihilation"<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/89OP78l9oF0" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
2017: "Silence"<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=18173351" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=18173351" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A0KUWzfugg4" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<h2>
</h2>
<h2>
Favourite Fiction</h2>
2018:<br />
"The Children of Men" - P.D. James<br />
"Irma Voth" - Miriam Toews <br />
<br />
2017:<br />
"The Invisible Man" - Ralph Ellison<br />
"Disgrace" - J.M. Coetzee<br />
<h3>
</h3>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-77228452773486991992017-06-16T09:34:00.000+01:002017-06-16T11:14:51.198+01:00What became of preaching? (asks a preacher 50 years ago)A couple of months ago I was preparing a one-day preaching course at a local cathedral and went back to some classics on the topic of homiletics, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones' <i>Preaching and Preachers </i>(the copy I'm citing is the 1971 edition from Hodder & Stoughton). It was fascinating to look back almost 50 years and see a British theologian asking something that could just as easily be asked in parts of England today:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Why then this decline in the place and power of preaching; and why this questioning of the necessity for any preaching at all?</b> (11)</blockquote>
Even more interesting are the answers Lloyd-Jones offered. There are several factors, he said, but the first goes back to an 'antithesis' represented by Stanley Baldwin, Britian's Prime Minister in the 1920s and 30s. At that time, says Lloyd-Jones, Baldwin had to contend with great orators for power (think Churchill), and because he did not have the so-called 'gift of gab' found the need to carve out another niche. So he put into the public ethos that it was less essential to be a great speaker, and more important to be a 'simple, honest, ordinary Englishman.' In fact, he went so far as to suggest that 'if a man is a great speaker he is a man whom you cannot trust, and is not quite honest' (11).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41SuVuL1q0L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="221" height="200" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41SuVuL1q0L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="127" /></a>In Lloyd-Jones' observation that represented something of a shift in the zeitgeist: namely the 'distrust of the orator'. It took hold in churches as well, and went on to find support in the general sense that we are 'more cultured and educated people' than we once were, and thus do not depend on the 'great orators' as we once did (12). Here Lloyd-Jones points to the phenomena of radio, television, and libraries, but had yet to even get a sniff of the internet!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>So it was that 'sermons were replaced by ethical addresses and homilies, and moral uplift and socio-political talk'</b> <b>which more or less restored people to that which they already thought </b>(13).<br />
<br />
This was not all Prime Minister Baldwin's doing, of course. Another factor in this social-shift came down to the great orators themselves, and it sprang from their descent into what Lloyd-Jones called 'pulpiteering' (13). The skill of oratory can hold such power that it can be used to 'dominate the people,' and after a while the people become sensitive to being 'handled' and emotionally cajoled by rhetorical 'showmanship' (13). So it is that in reaction they become suspicious of direct address; especially the sermon.<br />
<br />
Lloyd-Jones went on to discuss radio and print media further, wading into territory that has exploded beyond anything he could have imagined in the 1970s. Not irrelevant, however, is his comment on the proliferate 'publication of sermons' (which we now see in the form of youtube channels and podcasts), which he said had unfortunately turned preachers into 'essayists'. In his view this drifted the preaching event away from 'what a sermon should be,' turning it into an 'address' full of 'literary effusions' (15).<br />
<br />
Thus the sermon was less a congregation's act of coming under the guidance of the Word in their place and time, and more the congregation's participation in a large-scale public address that could just as well be for anyone.<br />
<br />
In the book Lloyd-Jones goes on to complain about a number of other things, such as the formality of the worship service, the 'increase in the element of entertainment in public worship,' the elevation of 'song leader' to 'a new kind of official in the church,' and the elevation of testimony and therapy above the preached Word (16-17) -- all of which would make a fascinating comparative study with the as-yet unwritten <i>After Virtue </i>by Alasdair MacIntyre. Lloyd-Jones concludes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>To make this list complete I must add tape-recording--as I see it, the peculiar and special abomination at this present time</b> (18).</blockquote>
Perhaps Lloyd-Jones starts to sound like a bit of a geezer at this point, but it is worth asking ourselves what the homiletic event <i>was </i>in his day, which perhaps it should not lose. His answer to this comes later in the book. It follows a quote from Epictetus, who famously walked out of a room where someone had been speaking and said: 'The philosopher put his finger upon my faults. I must not behave that way again.' Reflecting on this, Lloyd-Jones observes how the sermon had wrongly become 'stimulating' rather than convicting -- and 'that is not what preaching is meant to be' (56).<br />
<br />
But he goes on to say more, and if we shrugged him off as a mere Luddite, perhaps this cuts closer to the bone:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Preaching is that which deals with the total person, the hearer becomes involved and knows that he [or she] has been dealt with and addressed by God through this preacher. Something has taken place in him and in his experience, and it is going to affect the whole of his [or her] life</b> (56). </blockquote>
If one allows for the implication that a 'total person' means a person who is part of a local community who is sharing not only in the hearing of the sermon but also the living that it touches, then one sees why the distributed tape-recording could be such an 'abomination' to old-time preachers like Martyn Lloyd-Jones.<br />
<br />
As the book goes on it becomes clear that this is not simply a nostalgic attempt to re-elevate the preacher to a pedestalled place of honour and authority in the church. The definition of a preacher is for Lloyd-Jones one of witness for someone else; an ambassadorship. The preacher is someone who sits under that same Word along with the congregation, who is charged with the task of giving it speech for the people with whom he lives (61).<br />
<br />
For more of my own thoughts on preaching, see <a href="https://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/preacher-as-pastor-shepherding-the-community-in-the-word/" target="_blank">Preacher as Pastor: Shepherding the Community in the Word</a>.Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-54359601972665141512017-03-08T23:12:00.000+00:002017-03-08T23:23:48.511+00:00How Good Writing Raises Empathy, not SnobberyGeorge Saunders wrote a fascinating piece in Saturday's <i>Guardian </i>explaining "what writers really do when they write." You can read the whole article <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/04/what-writers-really-do-when-they-write" target="_blank">here</a>. I just want to isolate a couple paragraphs because they do such a good job of explaining why a preference for so-called "good literature" can come from empathetic rather than elitist motivations. In the process of explaining his editing process, Saunders manages to show how the refining and revising of a sentence can really be an act of compassion and an expression of trust in the reader. Here are paragraphs 3 and 4 of Saunders' piece (which I've bleeped for wider sharing). See what you think (emphasis added).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Revising by the method described is a form of increasing the ambient intelligence of a piece of writing. This, in turn, communicates a sense of respect for your reader. As text is revised, it becomes more specific and embodied in the particular. It becomes more sane. It becomes less hyperbolic, sentimental, and misleading. It loses its ability to create a propagandistic fog. Falsehoods get squeezed out of it, lazy assertions stand up, naked and blushing, and rush out of the room. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Is any of this relevant to our current political moment? </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Hoo, boy. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">When I write, “Bob was an a******,” and then, feeling this perhaps somewhat lacking in specificity, revise it to read, “Bob snapped impatiently at the barista,” then ask myself, seeking yet more specificity, why Bob might have done that, and revise to, “Bob snapped impatiently at the young barista, who reminded him of his dead wife,” and then pause and add, “who he missed so much, especially now, at Christmas,” – I didn’t make that series of changes because I wanted the story to be more compassionate. I did it because I wanted it to be less lame. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>But it is more compassionate. </b>Bob has gone from “pure a******” to “grieving widower, so overcome with grief that he has behaved ungraciously to a young person, to whom, normally, he would have been nice”.<b> Bob has changed. He started out a cartoon, on which we could heap scorn, but now he is closer to “me, on a different day”. </b> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">How was this done? Via pursuit of specificity. I turned my attention to Bob and, under the pressure of trying not to suck, my prose moved in the direction of specificity, and in the process my gaze became more loving toward him (ie, more gentle, nuanced, complex), and you, dear reader, witnessing my gaze become more loving, might have found your own gaze becoming slightly more loving, and together (the two of us, assisted by that imaginary grouch) reminded ourselves that it is possible for one’s gaze to become more loving. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Or we could just stick with “Bob was an a******,” and post it, and wait for the “likes”, and for the pro-Bob forces to rally, and the anti-barista trolls to anonymously weigh in – but, meanwhile, there’s poor Bob, grieving and misunderstood, and there’s our poor abused barista, feeling crappy and not exactly knowing why, incrementally more convinced that the world is irrationally cruel. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">What does an artist do, mostly? She tweaks that which she’s already done. There are those moments when we sit before a blank page, but mostly we’re adjusting that which is already there. The writer revises, the painter touches up, the director edits, the musician overdubs. I write, “Jane came into the room and sat down on the blue couch,” read that, wince, cross out “came into the room” and “down” and “blue” (Why does she have to come into the room? Can someone sit UP on a couch? Why do we care if it’s blue?) and the sentence becomes “Jane sat on the couch – ” and suddenly, it’s better (Hemingwayesque, even!), although … why is it meaningful for Jane to sit on a couch? Do we really need that? And soon we have arrived, simply, at “Jane”, which at least doesn’t suck, and has the virtue of brevity. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">But why did I make those changes? On what basis? </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">On the basis that, if it’s better this new way for me, over here, now, it will be better for you, later, over there, when you read it. When I pull on this rope here, you lurch forward over there.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">This is a hopeful notion, because it implies that our minds are built on common architecture – that whatever is present in me might also be present in you. “I” might be a 19th-century Russian count, “you” a part-time Walmart clerk in 2017, in Boise, Idaho, but when you start crying at the end of my (Tolstoy’s) story “Master and Man”, you have proved that we have something in common, communicable across language and miles and time, and despite the fact that one of us is dead. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">Another reason you’re crying: you’ve just realised that Tolstoy thought well of you – he believed that his own notions about life here on earth would be discernible to you, and would move you. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Tolstoy imagined you generously, you rose to the occasion.</b> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">We often think that the empathetic function in fiction is accomplished via the writer’s relation to his characters, but it’s also accomplished via the writer’s relation to his reader. You make a rarefied place (rarefied in language, in form; perfected in many inarticulable beauties – the way two scenes abut; a certain formal device that self-escalates; the perfect place at which a chapter cuts off); and then welcome the reader in. She can’t believe that you believe in her that much; that you are so confident that the subtle nuances of the place will speak to her; she is flattered. And they do speak to her. This mode of revision, then, is ultimately about imagining that your reader is as humane, bright, witty, experienced and well intentioned as you, and that, to communicate intimately with her, you have to maintain the state, through revision, of generously imagining her. You revise your reader up, in your imagination, with every pass. You keep saying to yourself: “No, she’s smarter than that. Don’t dishonour her with that lazy prose or that easy notion.” </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">And in revising your reader up, you revise yourself up too.</span></blockquote>
<br />
This is of course not to deny that literary-snobbishness is an actual thing, but it does help to bust through the caricatures and show some of what might be at stake in the finer points of literary appreciation.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0a318372bd6d856a9335b1e25f119ff3a436102a/765_172_3655_2193/master/3655.jpg?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=866a89cef8dce4135f9fde219c4ba1bf" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0a318372bd6d856a9335b1e25f119ff3a436102a/765_172_3655_2193/master/3655.jpg?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=866a89cef8dce4135f9fde219c4ba1bf" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">George Saunders, author of <i>Lincoln in the Bardo</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-66382690422217322072016-12-30T20:45:00.002+00:002016-12-30T21:10:13.502+00:00For me the Novel, Film, and Album of the YearIn my early 30s I compiled lists of the novels, films, and albums which to that point had either become all-time favourites or left an indelible impression. Though now a less avid blogger, I've still been adding one more each year. So here they are for 2016, the year I turned 41.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NOVEL #41:</b><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.quillandquire.com/review/the-orenda/" target="_blank">Joseph Boyden - <i>The Orenda</i></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61StBp34MLL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61StBp34MLL.jpg" width="208" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
The book dates back to 2013 but my interest in its themes (aboriginal history and the missionary complicity in western conquest) goes back further than that. I'm very grateful to my sister-in-law Amy for recommending it. The story is gripping, the sense of place and time is strong, and the way it weaves in and out of the perspectives of its three main characters is beautiful.<br />
<br />
Runners-up:<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Bunny_Munro" target="_blank">Nick Cave, <i>The Death of Bunny Munr</i>o</a> (2009)<br />
<a href="http://www.cormacmccarthy.com/works/the-sunset-limited/" target="_blank">Cormac McCarthy,<i> The Sunset Limited</i></a> (2006)<br />
<a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/a-review-of-your-fathers-where-are-they.html" target="_blank">Dave Eggers,<i> You're Fathers, Where are They?</i></a><i> </i>(2014)<br />
<a href="http://stephenking.com/library/novel/shining_the.html" target="_blank">Stephen King,<i> The Shining</i></a> (1977)<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>FILM #41:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/" style="font-size: x-large;" target="_blank">Terrence Malick - <i>The Tree of Life</i></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41zQYgC9n0L._AC_UL320_SR222,320_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41zQYgC9n0L._AC_UL320_SR222,320_.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
This isn't exactly new -- <a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/tree-of-life.html" target="_blank">here</a>'s what I wrote about it the first time 'round -- but on second viewing this year I fell in love with it.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Runners-up:<br />
<span style="text-align: start;"><a href="http://drafthousefilms.com/film/the-overnighters" target="_blank">The Overnighters</a> (2014)</span><br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158876/" style="text-align: start;" target="_blank">Other People</a><br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4574334/?ref_=nv_sr_1" style="text-align: start;" target="_blank">Stranger Things</a><br />
<span style="text-align: start;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172049/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" target="_blank">Demolition</a> (2015)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>ALBUM #41:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://dawestheband.com/music/playlists/4807/all-your-favorite-bands" target="_blank">Dawes - <i>All Your Favorite Bands</i></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ypYpy1dzL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ypYpy1dzL.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In this spot I could and probably should have put <i><a href="http://dawestheband.com/music/playlists/4814/we-re-all-gonna-die" target="_blank">We're All Gonna Die</a></i>, since it was actually released in 2016. Truth be told, since I listened to all five Dawes albums non-stop this year, top billing could also have gone to <i><a href="http://dawestheband.com/music/playlists/4808/stories-don-t-end" target="_blank">Stories Don't End</a> </i>or <a href="http://dawestheband.com/music/playlists/4810/north-hills" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">North Hills</a>. But, for me and for this year, this one is most representative. Every song is perfect.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Runners-up:<i> </i><br />
<a href="https://play.spotify.com/album/3HWQXn3dGZPSnIhVkvHIOz" target="_blank">The Tragically Hip, </a><i><a href="https://play.spotify.com/album/3HWQXn3dGZPSnIhVkvHIOz" target="_blank">Phantom Power</a> </i>(1998)<br />
<a href="https://play.spotify.com/album/1PgfRdl3lPyACfUGH4pquG" target="_blank">Bon Iver, <i>22, A Million</i></a><br />
<a href="http://www.leonardcohen.com/music/you-want-it-darker" target="_blank">Leonard Cohen, <i>You Want it Darker</i></a><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZqsyBiYZFQ2zWQNnDpo7mud9SNB4W5wc" target="_blank">The War on Drugs, </a><i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZqsyBiYZFQ2zWQNnDpo7mud9SNB4W5wc" target="_blank">Lost in the Dream</a> </i>(2014)<br />
<a href="http://www.amoonshapedpool.com/" target="_blank">Radiohead, <i>A Moon Shaped Pool</i></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I used to keep a list of favourite non-fiction as well but my reading in that department is pretty eccentric and chronologically erratic. For what it's worth, the non-fiction that got to me the strongest this year included <a href="http://fortresspress.com/product/creation-and-fall-dietrich-bonhoeffer-works-volume-3-0" target="_blank">Bonhoeffer's <i>Creation and Fall</i></a>, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Theology-without-Words-Theology-in-the-Deaf-Community/Morris/p/book/9780754662273" target="_blank">Wayne Morris's <i>Theology Without Words</i></a>, <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ask-the-beasts-darwin-and-the-god-of-love-9781472903747/" target="_blank">Elizabeth Johnson's <i>Ask the Beasts</i></a>, and <a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/kierkegaard-single-life.html" target="_blank">Stephen Backhouse's <i>Kierkegaard: A Single Life</i></a>.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Needless to say, I recommend all of these highly.<br />
<br />
Click the tabs in the blog-banner above for my full lists. </div>
</div>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-72193638706403759342016-11-23T10:21:00.000+00:002016-11-23T10:46:09.517+00:00Readings in Race and The Christian Imagination<i>These days there's so much talk about ethnicity, culture, nationalism, race, and the church that I am increasingly drawn back to what I've learned from Willie James Jennings and J. Kameron Carter in this regard. Recalling that I had at one time shared excerpts and reflections from each of their works on this blog, I thought I would collect links to them in one place for future reference. Perhaps this may also serve as a primer for those who might be interested to look into these matters further.</i><br />
<br />
Reflections on or related to Willie Jennings' The Christian Imagination:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.com/2011/01/willie-james-jennings-christian.html">Willie Jennings' Social Imagination</a><br /><br />"This book attempts to narrate exactly what is missing, what thwarts the deepest reality of the Christian social imagination. Indeed, I argue here that Christianity in the Western world lives and moves within a diseased social imagination.... Christianity, wherever it went in the modern colonies, inverted its sense of hospitality. It claimed to be the host, the owner of the spaces it entered, and demanded native people enter its cultural logics, its ways of being in the world, and its conceptualities. [These] are ways of being in the world that resist the realities of submission, desire, and transformation. A Christianity born of such realities but historically formed to resist them has yielded a form of religious life that thwarts its deepest instincts of intimacy... [and fails] to witness to a God who surprises us by love of difference and draws us to new capacities to imagine their reconciliation. Instead, the intimacy that marks Christian history is a painful one, one in which the joining often meant oppression, violence, and death, if not of bodies then most certainly of ways of life, forms of language, and visions of the world. What happened to the original trajectory of intimacy?"<br /></li>
<div>
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51D28K32E2L._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51D28K32E2L._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="126" /></a></div>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.com/2011/03/multi-cultural-society-and-christian.html">Multi-culture and the Christian Imagination</a></li>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.com/2011/03/leadership-and-christian-imagination.html">Leadership and the Christian Imagination: Always the Host and never the Hosted?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-about-franklin-graham-and.html">Questions about Franklin Graham and the Christian Social Imagination</a></li>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.com/2011/02/solzhenitsyns-nobel-speech-fragmented.html">Solzhenitsyn's Speech and our Fragmented Stories</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/the-resurrection-and-pastoral-ministry/" target="_blank">The Resurrection of Pastoral Ministry</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/willie-jennings-christian-imagination/" target="_blank">Church in World: Willie Jennings and the Christian Social Imagination</a> </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Readings in J. Kameron Carter's "Race: A Theological Account"<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/readings-in-race-theological-account.html">Prelude</a><br /><br />"The ancient Gnostics thus ended up with a nonmaterial Christ ... lacking interhuman and interlinguistic Jewish flesh, flesh that was not embedded in the history of Israel.... [Here] I tell the story of how the loss of a Jewish-inflected account ... of Christian identity cleared the way for whiteness to function as a replacement doctrine of creation. Hence, the world was re-created from the colonial conquests from the late fifteenth century forward in the image of white dominance, where 'white' signifies not merely pigmentation but a regime of political and economic power for arranging the world."</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/readings-in-race-part-one-drama-of-race.html">Cornel West</a> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wXkdukq5L._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wXkdukq5L._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="139" /></a></div>
</li>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/06/readings-in-race-drama-of-race-foucault.html">Michel Foucault</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/07/readings-in-race-kant-and-drama-of-race.html">Immanuel Kant</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/11/readings-in-race-albert-j-raboteau-and.html" target="_blank">Albert Raboteau</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/11/readings-in-race-james-cone-and.html" target="_blank">James Cone</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-charles-long-and.html" target="_blank">Charles Long</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-theological-account.html" target="_blank">Interlude</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-theological-reading-of.html" target="_blank">Briton Hammon</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-theological-reading-of_29.html" target="_blank">Frederick Douglass</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-theological-reading-of_30.html" target="_blank">Jarena Lee</a> </li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<li><a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.ca/2013/12/readings-in-race-theological-account_31.html?spref=fb" target="_blank">Postlude</a></li>
<ul><ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-22234576604894685572016-11-21T20:38:00.001+00:002016-11-21T20:43:12.070+00:00Bonhoeffer on Truth-SpeakingToday I found this bit of Bonhoeffer both personally challenging and theologically illuminating. It calls for truth-speaking with attention to the particulars of the relationship rather than out of some kind of principled idealism that ends up being an evasive moral superiority.
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Where 'the truth is told' without regard for the person to whom it is said, there it has only the appearance of truth but not its essence.<br />
<br />
The cynic is the one who, claiming to 'tell the truth' in all places and at all times and to every person in the same way, only puts on a display a dead idolatrous image of the truth. By putting a halo on his own head for being a zealot for the truth who can take no account of human weaknesses, he destroys the living truth between persons.<br />
<br />
He violates shame, desecrates the mystery, breaks trust, betrays the community in which he lives, and smiles arrogantly over the havoc he has wrought and over the human weakness that 'can't bear the truth.'"<br />
<br />
- <i>Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works</i> (English) 16: 683.</blockquote>
In context Bonhoeffer seems to be suggesting that our approach to (or avoidance of) confrontation needs to be enfolded in a theology and actual practice of Christ-confession.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.fortresspress.com/sites/default/files/product-main/0800683161h.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.fortresspress.com/sites/default/files/product-main/0800683161h.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-75273396259482643722016-08-22T16:25:00.003+01:002019-05-09T14:11:10.023+01:00Kierkegaard: A Single Life<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://d2qxx3fqcmq0dz.cloudfront.net/media/catalog/product/cache/7/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9780310520887.jpg_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://d2qxx3fqcmq0dz.cloudfront.net/media/catalog/product/cache/7/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/7/9780310520887.jpg_4.jpg" width="161" /></a></div>
A few months ago I realized I did not know Kierkegaard well enough. I'd read <i>Fear and Trembling </i>and <i>Works of Love </i>but I kept on picking up other volumes in used bookstores only to regrettably never quite get to them. All along there's been this nagging desire to go back and explore this nineteenth century thinker some more. Kierkegaard always seems to say something you haven't quite thought of that way before.<br />
<br />
This brand new biography of Søren Kierkegaard by Stephen Backhouse hit the spot. It came to our door on Friday and I devoured it by Sunday night. It is immensely informative, insightful, and readable.<br />
<br />
Rather than duplicate the denser intellectual biographies that already exist (on one hand), or offer up the life's story without reference to it's work (on the other), Backhouse gives us Kierkegaard in two parts: a telling of his story and an overview of his works. The first reads like a gripping novel, the second opens up inviting windows into texts both famous and unknown.<br />
<br />
The 211-page 'life of Kierkegaard' which makes up the bulk of the book is nothing short of riveting. (And for those who wish to just do some beach reading, it could be happily left at that). The research that stands behind it is impeccable. Not only does Backhouse have a command of Kierkegaard's thought and of his historical context, he has also scoured the journals of Søren and his peers in order to give us a view of his life from inside-out and outside-in. This is sewn together not like a patchwork quilt or a dry historical treatise but almost like a psychological thriller. (Okay, 'thriller' might be too strong a word, but the drama of Søren's inner and public life is pretty intense).<br />
<br />
Kierkegaard seems to have been hounded by controversy. Just when it lets up he chases it again. One simultaneously admires his resolve and cringes at the pain he puts himself (and others) through. Backhouse gives a sympathetic account that does not cover up Soren's faults and quirks, but puts them in perspective and (thanks to his journals) reveals in them an intent that is better than many might have guessed. It would be easy to write Kierkegaard off as a controversialist, but through this insightful biography we see him as somewhat restrained given the burning of his conviction, the sincerity of his confession, and the sharpness of his vision.<br />
<br />
Even though Backhouse highlights the work Kierkegaard was doing as it occurs in his life, I was thankful for the 54 page overview of his publications which rounds out the book. The pithy summaries have focused my understanding of books I <i>have</i> read, and given me a concise encapsulation of books which (let's face it) I probably never will.<br />
<br />
More than that, Backhouse has put some books on my radar which need to go high on the reading list not just because they seem interesting, but because the thoughts expressed in them seem as important and challenging as ever. A few choice quotes (all Backhouse's words) will make this plain:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The Romantics rightly accuse modernity of trapping people in a slavery of social customs, materialism, and shallow religiosity. Yet the Romantics also condemn people to a slavish devotion to their own subjective passions and immature whims. Irony, urges Kierkegaard, is a necessary moment on the way to exposing a lie.... Significantly, at the end of his life Søren would employ Socratic irony by claiming not to a Christian, thus exposing the Christianity of Christendom as no Christianity at all.' - on <i>Concept of Irony</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The first-hand disciples faced the same challenge as did the second-hand disciples. The incarnation was as offensive to reason one second after it happened as it is thousands of years later.' - on <i>Philosophical Fragments</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'In an age overtaken by reflection, talking about doing something important replaces actually doing it. The crowd likes the appearance of decisiveness more than it tolerates the reality of it... Levelling is the process of abstraction, whereby decisive choices are stripped of their power by being morphed into "ideas" or "worldviews," and persons are subsumed into groups... One of the public's most potent weapons in the war to defend itself against individuals taking their existence seriously is an endless stream of celebrity gossip, manufactured ideological conflict, and opinion presented as facts no one owns but everyone has.' - on <i>The Present Age</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'In Kierkegaard's view, "discourses" denotes open-ended discussion whereas a "sermon" suggests the speaker is speaking "with authority." The book's four parts ... reflect Søren's deepening mistrust of Christendom's self-satisfaction.' - on <i>Christian Discourses</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Christianity has forgotten this ['Come to me' from Matthew 11:28] is a hard saying, because the citizens of Christendom have forgotten to live in the present with Jesus ever before them.' - on <i>Practice in Christianity</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The reformation betrays itself when it simply allows one form of anaemic cultural Christianity to replace another. Instead, authentic Christianity is ever new, reforming itself with every generation and every individual.' - on <i>For Self-Examination</i><i><br /></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'The present age thinks the more people rally together about something the truer it is or becomes.' - on <i>The Book on Adler</i></blockquote>
What comes to life in this book is not just the person of Søren Kierkegaard but the ethos of nineteenth century Copenhagen and its churches as well—an ethos not far off from our own. Read against the vividly painted backdrop of his context, one cannot help but feel Kierkegaard's work coming into clearer focus and still having lots to say.Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-71816066870741758142016-07-29T21:42:00.000+01:002016-07-29T21:59:27.757+01:00A Conversation Waiting to Happen<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41UIyV6EqLL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41UIyV6EqLL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="160" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">first written in 2008</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The following excerpt comes from Oliver O'Donovan's <i>A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy</i>. It puts quite perfectly what has been my conviction about the similarly problematic gender roles debates in my home denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada (about which you can read more <a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/updated-ongoing-history-of-women-in.html" target="_blank">here</a>). There's a vision of the church offered here which is as vital as the content of the controversy itself:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">"On the one hand, obeying one's conscience is, apparently by definition, something it is always right to do. On the other hand, a mistaken conscience is, again by definition, a conscience that instructs you to do the wrong thing. So doing what a mistaken conscience tells you is to do right and wrong at the same time. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">There is a lesson to be learned from the deft way Aquinas, confronting this paradox of 'perplexity,' thrusts it aside. 'One can withdraw from the error,' he tells us [<i>ST </i>II-1.19 ad3]. Commentators have expressed bewilderment at this, for it is, of course, not an answer to the question, but an evasion. It does not tell us what to do when our conscience is mistaken; it tells us not to have a mistaken conscience... </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">[Aquinas] means that there is something that the framing of the question has left out of account; the alternative is wrongly posed. It beguiles us into imagining a helpless innocent pathetically trapped between the devil of dutiful wrongdoing and the deep blue sea of guild-ridden right-doing. Moral reality is simply not like that. The perplexed actor always has a further recourse: she or he can reconsider....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Just as Thomas cuts the Gordian knot with the proposal, 'one can withdraw from the error,' so we [as churches] may suggest, 'one can address the disagreement.' </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Communion should not be broken, but that does not mean disagreement should be ignored. There are ways of addressing serious disagreements that affirm and renew communion by proven willingness and determination to resolve them. And the very attempt to reach a resolution transforms our experience of the disagreement. <b>Disagreements ... are openings for those who share a common faith to explore and resolve important tensions within the context of communion.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">This kind of proposal is, of course, easy to mishear. It can be taken to mean that parties to disagreements must be less than wholly convinced of their position, ready to make room for possible accommodation. When really serious issues are at stake ... urging the search for resolution can seem like an invitation to capitulate, to concede essential points before beginning. <b>It can seem as though Scripture is deemed to be inconclusive and ambiguous, so that either side is free to concede the possible right of the other's interpretation.</b> It can seem as though what is needed is an indefinite irresolution about everything important, in which there is no need for, and no possibility of, a decisive closure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">But all of that is a trick of the light. None of this is implied in the search for an agreement. <b>The only thing I concede in committing myself to such a process is that if I could discuss the matter through with an opponent sincerely committed to the church's authorities, Scripture chief among them, the Holy Spirit would open up perspectives that are not immediately apparent, and that patient and scrupulous pursuit of these could lead at least to giving the problem a different shape---a shape I presume will be compatible with some of the views my opponent now holds, even if I cannot yet see how.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I do not have to think I may be mistaken about the cardinal points of which I am convinced. The only thing I have to think---and this, surely, is not difficult on such a subject!---is that there are things still to be learned by one who is determined to be taught by Scripture how to read the age in which we live.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Every approach to resolving disagreements may turn out to fail. In the end God may have so hardened our hearts that we can see no way through our difficulties and simply find ourselves apart God may in his judgment scatter a church that lacked the common will to search for its unity in the truth of the gospel. And then there may come a point at which this situation has to be given some kind of institutional expression. Nothing can exclude a priori the worst possibility that certain persons or groups, or even whole churches, may be declared to have left the communion of Jesus Christ. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">But it must be a declaration, a formal statement of what has obviously come to pass. It cannot be an act to produce a result. The problem with the notion of separation is its expressive, self-purifying character. It will not wait for God to purify his own church in his own time."</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
- Oliver O'Donovan, <i>A Conversation Waiting to Begin </i>(London: <br />
SCM Press, 2009), 31-33, emphasis and paragraph spacing mine.</div>
<br />Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-40166776519876176302016-05-09T16:42:00.000+01:002016-05-09T16:50:38.551+01:00The Tourist (according to Cavanaugh)This term a few of us got together to read William T. Cavanaugh's magnificent 2008 book, <i><a href="http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/4561/being-consumed.aspx" target="_blank">Being Consumed</a>: Economics and Christian Desire</i> -- which I highly recommend. In it there's this excerpt from chapter 3, 'The Global and the Local', which I can't get out of my mind:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/5jhk5j4h54.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/5jhk5j4h54.png" height="214" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">'The tourist stands detached from all particular times and places and surveys them all from above, as it were. The tourist craves what is different and authentic, but when particular locations make themselves available to the tourist, authenticity and difference are lost. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Particularities, especially from the past, are invented for the tourist, but the tourist cannot participate in them. The tourist can go anywhere, but is always nowhere. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">The tourist is a type of consumer, a consumer of places. Consumerism is marked by desire with no <i>telos</i> other than consumption itself. Particularities are interchangeable. Above all, the consumer consumes; rather than being drawn ecstatically into a larger drama, the consumer empties things into the self. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Both the tourist and the consumer try to transcend their own limits by adopting a universal stance detached from and consuming particularities. But when they do so, the self becomes a kind of empty shell, itself dependent on the constant novelty of the particular for its being, yet itself simultaneously destroying the particularity of the many, and thus negating its own being' (74-75).</span><br />
<br />
This is interesting to me on many levels--think church, society, globalism, identity--but the hardest to put my finger on is the personal. Maybe I'm supposed to be learning not to be a tourist. Not easy.Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-36363194633843030342016-04-01T11:27:00.002+01:002016-04-09T12:31:25.539+01:00A Review of Ian Paul's 'Evangelical Leadership' (a Grove Booklet)It used to be that alongside books and articles one of the ways one would get one's ideas into print would be by publishing <a href="http://www.britishpamphlets.org.uk/" target="_blank">pamphlets</a>. Today, with the pervasiveness of blogs on one hand and a pejorative association with tracts on the other, one might think the pamphlet tradition difficult to revive. But if there is any merit to the complaints that academic writing is too inaccessible and popular writing is too careless, we might still see some value in the publication of shorter, thoughtful treatments of important topics by accomplished theologians and practitioners.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwAmGKVbqgNzKaDNZO8uAdGMUQsKPGe5HoESQNUorm-Tps32l6CEws_Kr6NVuWNpRlBNM9247Fy1QvtpBeiOOQLv3VdPjw6m_jJ1vXL7MF0BLxyMQyQSa6uEyh2VBIdtlVMLSwew/s1600/08yqmixs.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwAmGKVbqgNzKaDNZO8uAdGMUQsKPGe5HoESQNUorm-Tps32l6CEws_Kr6NVuWNpRlBNM9247Fy1QvtpBeiOOQLv3VdPjw6m_jJ1vXL7MF0BLxyMQyQSa6uEyh2VBIdtlVMLSwew/s200/08yqmixs.jpeg" width="200" /></a>In Britain, <a href="https://grovebooks.co.uk/" target="_blank">Grove Booklets</a> seem like an attempt to offer just that. Describing themselves as 'fast moving explorations of Christian life and ministry,' they are arranged in ten series ranging from biblical studies to ethics to youth ministry. Two that I picked up in my search for shorter pre-reading assignments recently included <a href="https://grovebooks.co.uk/search?q=A+Spirituality+of+Peacemaking" target="_blank">A Spirituality of Peacemaking</a> and <a href="https://grovebooks.co.uk/search?q=Leadership+Resilience+in+Conflict" target="_blank">Leadership Resilience in Conflict</a>. But the one I am reviewing today is <a href="http://www.psephizo.com/" target="_blank">Ian Paul</a>'s forthcoming next addition to the series, entitled <i><b>Evangelical Leadership: Challenges and Opportunities</b></i>.<br />
<br />
This 28-page booklet (<a href="https://grovebooks.co.uk/products/l-23-evangelical-leadership-challenges-and-opportunities" target="_blank">available here for £3.95</a>) is divided into five short chapters, each of which ends with 'Questions for Reflection' that are intentionally personal, communal, and programmatic. The first chapter, 'Being a Leader', is the one I find most curious, but the remaining chapters show the relevance of the booklet for the church (of Britain) of today.<br />
<br />
In chapter 1, 'Being a Leader', Ian Paul makes the simple (but very important) observation 'that "leadership" is not a very biblical word' - at least not as it is so often used today (3). What we ought to recall is that, if anything, the biblical witness borrows many models of leadership in order to encourage and enable a unique group dynamic of 'mutuality' in which authority is 'refracted' rather than concentrated in one place (4-5). <b>If we think we can avoid this concentration by simply rejecting authoritarian models of church we are deluded; if we think we can give no one the responsibilities and empowerments of leadership we are not helping ourselves either.</b> So it is helpful in this chapter that Ian Paul clarifies the 'language of leadership' and points to a 'spirituality of leadership' which fits. I would personally like to have read more about this.<br />
<br />
In chapter 2, 'Being Evangelical', we get the observation that evangelicals 'have been good at being a small, persecuted minority' or 'a dominant majority' but 'are not very good at is being a significant but not dominant voice' in the church (8). Today evangelicalism tends not to be separate and distinct but 'diverse' and 'diffuse' - which makes it difficult to pin down (9). Even David Bebbington's classic fourfold outline (conversionism, activism, biblicism, crucicentrism) describes an overall phenomenon, not a precise theological definition (11). But that might be a good thing, suggests Ian Paul. What is needed is a vital discussion, not a set of fixed pillars. <b>In that vein, one of the best parts of this chapter is a chart (by Jon Kuhrt) which</b> <b>ranges the tendencies of 'liberal' and 'conservative' evangelicals and challenges them to get past 'tribal theology' to a more appreciative 'dialectical' approach to one another </b>(10-11).<br />
<br />
In chapter 3, 'Being Missional', we get treatment of today's most common Christian buzzword (which, like it or not, is better than 'incarnational'). Here Ian Paul does well to point out that just because this term is trending does not mean that mission was previously off the church's radar (15). <b>What we have in evangelical history is not a back and forth between 'mission' and 'maintenance' (wherein the former is loving and the latter is selfish) but an ebb and flow between legitimate emphases and approaches to mission and ministry</b> (20). Churches at once want to 'reach out' and be a place worth 'gathering into': Each has an integrity of its own and an importance to the other. Thus it is helpful that this chapter searches out the tensions between social justice and proclamation, ministry and mission, by considering three models which Ian Paul considers complementary rather than competitive (18-20).<br />
<br />
In chapter 4, 'Being Biblical', Ian Paul takes what once might have been a safe assumption about evangelicals and poses 'three major challenges to our engagement with Scripture' which have arisen in recent decades (23). Here we see how 'progressives' highlight the importance of ongoing interpretation, 'institutional' Anglicans emphasize the relative stability of tradition and reason as 'lenses' for doing so, and 'anti-authoritarian hyper-democratics' evoke high participation in the faith that God still speaks today - each of them offering worthy correctives of the other (23-24). Ian Paul rightly argues that they should listen to and then complement one another going forward. This will help them steer clear of their own foibles and gain from their mutual continuities, thus centering the Bible properly in evangelical churches today.<br />
<br />
In that spirit, in chapter 5, 'Being Engaged', the evangelical leader of today is encouraged not to see 'discontinuity' with other church-types as a reason to 'disconnect', but quite the opposite. <b>If evangelicalism has anything going for it, then its leaders should seek 'fullest engagement with their churches, with theological thinking, and with wider society'</b> (25).<br />
<br />
This is an important call for the church in Britain (and elsewhere) today. Where it has the potential to fragment further we ought to see an opportunity to come together and carry on in the ever-reforming grace of God. For this reason I think this booklet is a commendable resource. In particular I think it would make an excellent small group study for a leadership team on retreat or in the course of its regular meetings.<br />
<br />
<br />Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-38465430395763848272016-01-01T12:38:00.001+00:002016-01-01T16:57:49.339+00:00Top 5 Films Seen and Fiction Read in 2015Several of these don't actually belong to 2015 but this is when I saw them or read them so that's why they're here. Click links for trailers (but don't watch in full because trailers spoil it sometimes!).<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InuzW58ydyU" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InuzW58ydyU" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InuzW58ydyU" border="0" src="http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/e4/87/516e619d4c109f5c3181db73a40c/two-days-one-night-french-poster.jpg" height="200" width="146" /></a><b>Films:</b><br />
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InuzW58ydyU" target="_blank">Two Days, One Night</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGM5rq_vX4U" target="_blank">Calvary</a> </li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_50-lKvqF4" target="_blank">The Overnighters</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8361stZ8n0w" target="_blank">Foxcatcher</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJfLoE6hanc" target="_blank">Birdman</a></li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.idoc.co/files/6391bb4d5fc4049a71-0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.idoc.co/files/6391bb4d5fc4049a71-0.jpg" height="200" width="154" /></a><b>Fiction:</b><br />
<ol>
<li>Cormac McCarthy, <i>The Crossing</i></li>
<li>Marilynne Robinson, <i>Home</i></li>
<li>Dave Eggers, <i>Your Fathers, Where Are They? And The Prophets, Do They Live Forever? </i>(see my review <a href="http://thissideofsunday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/a-review-of-your-fathers-where-are-they.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li>
<li>Jonathan Franzen, <i>Freedom</i></li>
<li>Andy Weir, <i>The Martian</i></li>
</ol>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ePnVkfl-L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ePnVkfl-L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a><b>Non-fiction:</b><br />
<br />
Here I was reading from all over the centuries so it would be even more of a stretch to venture a top five for 2015. However, the <b>best recent-vintage books </b>I read were <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/christ-power-and-mammon-9780567146915/" target="_blank">Scott Prather's <i>Christ, Power and Mammon</i></a>, Robert Song's <i>Covenant and Calling</i>, and Amos Yong's <i>The Bible, Disability and the Church. </i>The <b>best old books</b> I read were Alasdair MacIntyre's <i>After Virtue </i>and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's <i>Ethics</i>.<i> </i>And the <b>most disappointing books</b> I read this year were Scot McKnight's <i>Fellowship of Differents </i>and Tim Suttle's <i>Shrink. </i>The <b>worst book</b> was <i>Heaven is for Real </i>but it was actually better than I expected.</div>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-50310273962592285442015-11-02T10:54:00.004+00:002015-11-02T14:43:15.902+00:00Bonhoeffer on Freedom and Responsibility<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/67/21/53/672153e8016b26a57530844923353af5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/67/21/53/672153e8016b26a57530844923353af5.jpg" width="191" /></a>Ever since reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's <i>Ethics</i> I've been thinking long and hard about his view of moral responsibility as something owed ultimately and daily to the command of Christ in complex, messy situations rather than to abstract principles or timeless duties. <br />
<br />
In Bonhoeffer's <i>Letters and Papers from Prison </i>we find a succinct and compelling expression of this in a paper-fragment titled 'Who Stands His Ground?' The following excerpt quotes roughly half of that paper:<br />
<br />
'The great masquerade of evil has wrought havoc with all our ethical preconceptions. This appearance of evil in the guise of light, beneficence and historical necessity is utterly bewildering to anyone nurtured in our traditional ethical systems. But for the Christian who frames his life on the Bible it simply confirms the radical evilness of evil.<br />
<br />
[Before continuing, Bonhoeffer considers and finds wanting the 'ethical systems' of 'rationalism', 'moral fanaticism', reliance on one's 'conscience', and 'duty'.]<br />
<br />
What then of the man of <i>freedom</i>? He is the man <b>who aspires to stand his ground in the world, who values the necessary deed more highly than a clear conscience or the duties of his calling</b>, who is ready to sacrifice a barren principle for a fruitful compromise or a barren mediocrity for a fruitful radicalism. What then of him? He must beware lest his freedom should become his own undoing. For in choosing the lesser of two evils he may fail to see that the greater evil he seeks to avoid may prove the lesser. Here we have the raw material of tragedy.<br />
<br />
<b>Some seek refuge from the rough-and-tumble of public life in the sanctuary of their own private virtue.</b> Such men however are compelled to seal their lips and shut their eyes to the injustice around them. <b>Only at the cost of self-deception can they keep themselves pure from the defilements incurred by responsible action.</b> For all that they achieve, that which they leave undone will still torment their peace of mind. They will either go to pieces in face of disquiet, or develop into the most hypocritical of all Pharisees.<br />
<br />
Who stands his ground? Only the man whose ultimate criterion is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom or his virtue, but <b>who is ready to sacrifice all these things when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and exclusive allegiance to God.</b> The responsible man seeks to make his whole life a response to the question and call of God.'<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
- quoted from pages 135-7 of the 1960 Fontana publication</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
(bold print added, masculine language refers to all persons)</div>
<br />
I'm sure there are plenty of others who are far ahead of me in their thinking on this, but I offer it here because--to quote Sheriff Ed Tom Bell from <i>No Country for Old Men--</i>'it has left quite an impression on me'. In fact, one might quote that character even further in responding to Bonhoeffer:<br />
<br />
'I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."'Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-26357428403194717172015-10-03T11:15:00.002+01:002015-10-03T11:32:20.495+01:00Theological Symposium at Trinity College on 15 October<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Trinitycollegebristol.jpg/240px-Trinitycollegebristol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Trinitycollegebristol.jpg/240px-Trinitycollegebristol.jpg" width="200" /></a>I'll soon be part of a theological symposium hosted by Trinity College Bristol, in partnership with Bristol Baptist College, exploring:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>A Christian Response to the Refugee Crisis</b></span><br />
<br />
The event is from 2 – 4 pm on Thursday, 15 October 2015, in the chapel at Trinity College. The plan is to hear and discuss three papers, including:<br />
<br />
Rev Dr <a href="http://www.trinitycollegebristol.ac.uk/kingdom-learning/faculty-and-staff/teaching-faculty/dr-knut-heim/" target="_blank">Knut Heim</a>, ‘Attitudes Toward Foreigners in the Bible’<br />
<br />
Rev Dr <a href="http://www.bristol-baptist.ac.uk/helen-paynter/" target="_blank">Helen Paynter</a>, ‘Reflections on Jubilee in the Light of the Refugee Crisis’<br />
<br />
Rev Dr <a href="http://www.trinitycollegebristol.ac.uk/kingdom-learning/faculty-and-staff/teaching-faculty/revd-dr-jon-coutts/" target="_blank">Jon Coutts</a>, ‘Who is my Neighbour? Questions of Proximity, Awareness and Responsibility’<br />
<br />
This is a free public event, with coffee/tea provided afterward. For more information see <a href="http://www.trinitycollegebristol.ac.uk/kingdom-living/upcoming-events/15-october-a-christian-response-to-the-refugee-crisis/" target="_blank">the college website</a>.Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-18025601094186416082015-09-26T20:35:00.003+01:002015-09-26T20:46:56.759+01:00FortysIn my early thirties I compiled lists of the albums, books and movies which had to that point been favourites or left an impression. One for every year. I've been adding to it each birthday since.<br />
<br />
This being my fortieth I guess it is a bit of a milestone. It was a good year for reading, especially.<br />
<br />
Here they are then: the film, album, novel and book that left the greatest impression on me this year. Only one of them actually came out recently, but they were all new for me.<br />
<br />
Together with the prior entries (in the tabs above) they round out a sort of life-top-40.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
NOVEL #40:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The Crossing - Cormac McCarthy</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cormacmccarthy.com/works/the-crossing/" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://eatprayread.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/the-crossing-cormac-mccarthy.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
(runners up: Marilynne Robinson, <i>Gilead </i>&<i> Home</i>)<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
FILM #40: </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Calvary - John Michael McDonagh</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234003/"></a><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234003/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/lookingcloser/files/2014/10/Calvary_movieposter.jpg" height="288" width="216" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(runner up: <i>Two Days, One Night</i>)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
ALBUM #40:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Helplessness Blues - Fleet Foxes</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mR8Z-gmK1g&list=RD6mR8Z-gmK1g#t=6" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/FleetFoxesHelplessness_Blues2011.jpg" width="197" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(runners up:<i> </i>Dawes, <i>All Your Favorite Bands </i>&<i> </i>Sufjan Stevens, <i>Carrie and Lowell</i>)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
BOOK #40:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Ethics - Dietrich Bonhoeffer</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Ethics.html?id=XLqkvQB5oO4C&redir_esc=y" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41sV3haNk3L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" height="320" width="210" /></a></div>
<br />
(runner up: Pope Francis, <i>Laudato Si</i>)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I highly recommend all of these. Especially those novels: wow. Click the pictures for links. </div>
</div>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-18265047380566398082015-09-17T12:05:00.002+01:002015-09-17T12:22:48.944+01:00An Open Question to City Council (about Chalk)Hello,<br />
<br />
We live on a street with a cul-de-sac in ___. We are getting complaints (twice, but they say others agree with them) about our kids writing on the street with chalk. The second complaint said kids shouldn't be out on the street "unsupervised". But this literally three doors down, in a cul de sac, in front of the kids' friends' houses.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuG2enMUAZMwJglZIAtskUlH_QBqAjwXg3gY53uBvJBBjH3jwLZIrHQI-wb6vncbUVv_5ds177acIQNx9DvKnNaP4U3h3iUHZBzNAJhfLeHMHX9ApVePOKGJ_ANKqlXrX3Bh8fzA/s1600/hopscotch_2558225b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuG2enMUAZMwJglZIAtskUlH_QBqAjwXg3gY53uBvJBBjH3jwLZIrHQI-wb6vncbUVv_5ds177acIQNx9DvKnNaP4U3h3iUHZBzNAJhfLeHMHX9ApVePOKGJ_ANKqlXrX3Bh8fzA/s320/hopscotch_2558225b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Our children generally scoot or bike or play tag, stay off others' property, and only use a soft ball which wouldn't hurt anything even if it made contact.<br />
<br />
Can someone contact me, please, to discuss the proper by-laws and unwritten rules about kids playing in neighbourhoods? Do children have rights as well as responsibilities? Rights to play on their block without harassment, as long as private property and noise levels are respected? (Neither of these are a problem, our kids are in by 7:30).<br />
<br />
I would particularly be interested to know: if children are not to be on the street or cul de sac, can we demand that the side walks not be cluttered up with cars?<br />
<br />
Thank you for any help you can give me. Wanting to be peaceable, but also to know what's right from what's people being grumpy and unreasonable.<br />
<br />
Jon Coutts<br />
<br />
<i>(Update: I'm informed that my letter has been forwarded to Highways and Traffic. And, for what it's worth, we are complying with neighbour requests</i><i>).</i>Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-63064899550242126202015-09-07T08:52:00.000+01:002015-09-07T08:52:20.261+01:00Sufjan in Bristol<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsEe792xWF12SHHH0F3sqnkkXRTROu3z90HLYKxHIdnUCd1hb10hAJMZQi47_hs0OmJQPuEatB3wP-6g5ye_dZkVZMvfLBf-cPM-sBUEhJDwXfaNCJp1iWU6CVq75KMSxK9zxT-w/s1600/sufjan.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsEe792xWF12SHHH0F3sqnkkXRTROu3z90HLYKxHIdnUCd1hb10hAJMZQi47_hs0OmJQPuEatB3wP-6g5ye_dZkVZMvfLBf-cPM-sBUEhJDwXfaNCJp1iWU6CVq75KMSxK9zxT-w/s400/sufjan.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sufjan Stevens, "Should Have Known Better" (Photo Chris
Davies)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This is a shot from the Sufjan Stevens concert in Bristol, England, last night. It was
aesthetically gorgeous and emotionally devastating all at once. Sufjan
didn't say a word until very late in the show, but I've never seen
anyone give so much of themselves to an audience. In Colston Hall, the
clapping waited an extra beat until we were sure each song was over:
there was just so much attention to detail and quiet moments of beauty,
no one wanted to ruin anything. We were spellbound. Someone on twitter
described it as if they'd been down to the river to pray. Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18173351.post-63210550315123967642015-08-22T10:41:00.001+01:002015-08-22T13:15:44.064+01:00A Review of 'Your Fathers, Where Are They?' by Dave EggersLike I said on twitter, I would like to congratulate Dave Eggers not only for writing a brilliant novel but for giving it a title too long to be meaningfully tweetable. <i>Your Fathers, Where Are They? And The Prophets, Do They Live Forever? </i>is, as the blurbs on the front cover say, 'prescient and moving', 'angry and astute'.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d63g3bBXL._AC_UL320_SR208,320_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51d63g3bBXL._AC_UL320_SR208,320_.jpg" /></a>I picked this book up at the library literally as a transition book. I closed the last page of Marilynne Robinson's <i>Home </i>and looked at the next book on my nightstand, Cormac McCarthy's <i>Blood Meridian</i>, and just wasn't ready to move from the one to the other. I wanted a quick, less emotionally involving, read. That's when Eggers' bright green cover caught my eye, and the indications inside that it was mostly dialogue sealed the deal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Turns out this book is <i>entirely </i>dialogue. There is not one word about setting or action or even emotion. Not even a 'he said' or a 'she retorted'. This is a remarkable feat when one considers the fact that it nonetheless, by the end, actually does give the reader a profound impression of the setting and the emotion involved, and that not one sentence feels forced or strained. For this reason alone it is a remarkable piece of fiction.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the thing that hits home about this book is its social commentary, which is conveyed, again, without ever stepping out of character to straightforwardly say anything. One detects from the first few pages (and the ostentatious title) that the book might prompt some questions, but it is only as the conversations unfold that the opportunity for reflection slowly snowballs. By the end it is bigger than you'd realized. You're thinking back through the story and finding all kinds of perception and nuance you may not have overthought at the time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is almost a shame to take that and then just straight-up summarize and analyze it. So here's a spoiler alert if you're compelled to go pick the book up and have the experience yourself: It will take you a bit of effort to go get the book, and maybe an afternoon or a few days to go read it, but maybe you want to go do that before you come back and read what I want to pull out of it next.<br />
<br />
<i>Your Fathers, Where Are They? And The Prophets, Do They Live Forever? </i>is a frank look into the mind and experience of one of those mystifying social outcasts who make the news for doing something either inexplicably daft or downright evil. The school shooters. The people shouting on the street outside of the drugstore. The misfits who, well, just never fit. The people you can ignore until they refuse to be ignored anymore. This novel takes you inside.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's so good about the way Dave Eggers does this is that it is all so modestly driven by the main character's agenda that you sometimes almost forget he is doing something horrible. You see what he's doing and you understand. On its own this would be nothing new in modern fiction. We're used to being asked to simply empathize with a criminal, even sometimes to take the side of the 'bad guy'. This novel is smarter than that. It manages empathy without for a second offering an excuse. The character is at the same time objectionable and understandable, but the most arresting thing about the narrative is that it is all so normal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are no really big words. Apart from being so candid and frank, it is all just normal conversation. The only thing artificial about it is the way that the character is <i>making </i>these irksome conversations happen. It is almost like his number one goal is just to get people to be honest. It reminds me of Marilyn Manson's comment (in <i>Bowling for Columbine</i>) where he said that if he had had the chance to talk to those school shooters, he would have just listened to them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Eggers gives us a likely view into such a person's manner of thinking. There are no excuses. Part of you wants to label the guy 'normal', another part of you still wants to says 'nuts'. But by the end of the book at least you know him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But there are other characters worth thinking about too. The astronaut, the lady on the beach, the cop, the congressman, the school teacher, the mom, the social-outcast friend with the knife who got shot in the head. Eggers has a purpose for each of these, which I only really picked up on in retrospect. Each of them in their own way has experienced what the main character has experienced, but has responded in different ways. Some more admirably, some just as objectionably, even if more acceptably (socially-speaking).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The one page in the book which I think comes closest to straightforward social commentary is right near the end, and it comes from the one I'd consider the 'hero' of the book, the congressman. He is the one who makes the most earnest attempt to understand, or at least appear to understand, the main character's angst. He calls him 'son', and in a way is the father he needed all along. He gets it. He was in Vietnam, lost limbs, saw things that scarred him for life and, with all of that as his motivation to do better, entered politics.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One review of the book pointed out that sometimes the conversations lack veracity because one of the dialogue partners is trying to appease the other. This may be so, but I think it adds to rather than subtracts from the realism and nuance of the story. (And in the case of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/books/review/dave-eggerss-your-fathers-where-are-they-and-the-prophets-do-they-live-forever.html" target="_blank">New York Times objection</a> about the congressman's views on war veterans, it begs to be pointed out that the congressman himself disproves the statements the reviewer finds problematic). Surely the views expressed are caricatures, but that's the point. That's why it is realistic: Because like it or not that's how the angst-riddled social-outcast is perceiving these things. At the very least the book calls for more attentive explanations.<br />
<br />
In the case of the excerpt I'm going to pull out below, however, it doesn't really matter whether the congressman actually believes what he's saying. The comments have an insight to them I'll be carrying with me for a while.<br />
<br />
Our main character has just confessed to him: 'For some reason the hospital woman makes me madder than the cops who shot him. I mean, why is that? Two years later I still don't understand it.' And the congressman replies:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
---Killing feels more natural in some way. Killing is some kind of connection. It's a convoluted connection, but it is one.... But what happened at the hospital is something else. It's not human. It's not primal. So we don't understand it. It's a more recent mutation. The things we all have, love and hate and passion, and the need to eat and yell and screw, these are things every human has. But there's this new mutation, this ability to stand between a human being and some small measure of justice and blame it on some regulation. To say that the form was filled out incorrectly.<br />
---Yeah, yeah, what is that? That's the doom of us all.<br />
---This is a new thing, son, and it's a frightening thing. It's something I saw every day in the VA. And if you think it's bad in some hospital, Christ, you wouldn't last a minute in Washington. </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rather than edit that last bit of 'language', I'll take it as more of faithless lamentation. Obviously we ought to respond to this social 'mutation' more like the congressman than the criminal, but it doesn't hurt to say we understand. Even to admit that not everyone can pull it together like the congressman does. Although he lashes out in unfortunate ways, all our main character is asking for is a vision. Something better to be a part of. It is foolish to let that be an excuse for his actions, but it is a pretty accurate encapsulation of the question the disturbed individual might be trying to ask. The question is too big to answer, perhaps, but the point is to hear it, not to answer it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's intriguing is that the title for Eggers novel is actually a 'word of the Lord' through the biblical prophet Zechariah, who was led to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the Lord. Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever?" (Zech 1:2-5 ESV)</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Putting down Eggers' novel it feels like the congressman was the father the main character never had. In fact I can't help but feel like the book is a call to fathers and mothers and sons to 'return' and to 'hear' and to 'pay attention' once again.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
If you are inclined to go read this book I encourage you to do so. I hope I haven't spoiled it. As is usually the case, it must be said that the book is better (and almost shorter!) than the review. The discussion we could have would probably also be better than any one interpretation alone, so if you've read it and want to talk about it, do drop me a comment.<br />
<br />
One last thing merits an accolade: This novel has the most em-dashes of any book I've ever read. Nice work Dave Eggers.</div>
Jon Couttshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01728055140831842717noreply@blogger.com0