truth to Tell

How to be “emergent” without taking the “postmodern plunge” - or, Why “emergent” is a great idea but isn’t really the “new reformation” everyone thinks it is. Oh boy. I stare at my computer having been placed in a spot that I don’t think I can easily get out of. I’ve gotten myself into a somewhat heated discussion via blog comments and posts with some folks who form the “marrow of emergent divinity.” I’ve opted to just stop critiquing certain aspects of the emergent conversation in comments and slanted posts and simply to state my frustrations outright. Despite the dubious nature of such a task, I’ve decided to give it a shot [minus the whole arrogant, snide comment about emergent being a great idea but not being a new reformation - sorry that was just unfair and silly].

Before I continue, however, I think I need to state for the record that - Contrary to appearances, I am not hostile toward the conversation regarding Christian practice and theology currently known as “emergent” or the “emerging church.” I am a friend of emergent village, have been (however poorly and short-term) an emergent cohort leader [hey, I'm still on the e-mail list], and I have many friends who are very closely engaged in all things emergent. Therefore, if you’re just itching to hear this spry, confrontational young seminary student’s critique of the emerging church “movement” and then respond with some counter-critiques of your own - you’ve simply come to the wrong blog.

I am not attempting to provide a “critique” of emerging Christianity, per se. It seems as though such a task would be nearly impossible given the fact that emerging Christianity is here to stay.. The efforts of other Christian ministers, students and theologians at “disavowing” the emerging church or attempting to thwart its existence are, in my opinion, a waste of time. The emerging church is here (in various forms) and the convergence of personalities which helped to bring about its formation are not simply going to slink away into obscurity (which, by the way, is something I’m quite happy about - Christianity needs more theologians and ministry practitioners with a little courage who aren’t simply saying the same, old stuff).

Nevertheless, I’ve gotten myself into some hot water for questioning some things…

First, I’ve questioned the extent to which the emergent Christian engagement with “postmodernism” is itself a dubious task.

What I mean to say when I critique this aspect of the emerging conversation is that the church must always be very careful and often quite critical of its engagements with any form of philosophy or cultural theory. I say this not because I believe postmodern or any other form of philosophy to be inherently dangerous. Rather, I say this because I believe that the thought developments currently sheltered beneath the “pomo” umbrella are really much too new, untested and contested to be uncritically applied much less integrated into Christian theological thought to the extent which it appears they have already been.

In other words, I mean to say that - in the same way that Christianity in the late 18th through early 20th centuries became enslaved to “modernist” assumptions - I fear that Christianity (especially the emerging/ent variety) may become enslaved to “postmodernist” assumptions just as quickly (and yes, I do believe there are some) without judging whether those assumptions are good for the church (and yes, I do believe that there are some cultural realities that are inherently “bad” for the church). In other words, I think “discernment” is still a useful word even in today’s world.

Second, and this may be what has gotten me into the most trouble, I’ve asked questions that I think may have been construed as a personal attack. For example, in a recent post, I wrote that

I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often the emergent conversation works so hard to make “postmodern-conversant” people that it forgets that the goal of the church is to make Christian people who follow God’s spirit through the whims and follies of every changing scene, whether it be modernity, postmodernity, or whatever else comes our way.”

While I understand why this might have caused some offense I, nevertheless, stand by what I said. The reason for my stubbornness can be conveyed in an even more recent comment I made in response to another commenter on this blog. I wrote that

Another frustration that I have is that “emergent” [whether emergents like it or not] carries a sort of “this is the “NEW” way of Christian living and you other folks better catch the wave or you’ll be left out of the kingdom” [attitude]. I see this when emergent voices make fun of traditional [conservative, liberal and everything in-between] Anglican, Reformed, Evangelical, or Roman Catholic Christians who simply do not buy the theory that all Church that isn’t emergent is always “Cartesian” or somehow compromised. At the root of this sort of “wink and nod” reaction to the wider Christian community is [I think] a lack of faith in God’s spirit to work through imperfect social, [cultural and ecclesial] circumstances to enliven hearts to live out the many implications of belief in Christ.

All it takes is a cursory look at some of the more popular “emergent” blogs and internet articles or a good listen-in on some conversations to realize that - while many emergents do in fact have a genuine desire to remain open, conversational, relational, Christian people. - what sometimes ends up happening among emerging Christians is that they [like their "traditional" counterparts] tend hunker down and play the “let’s criticize the ignorant fundies” game or they say things like “those poor, poor, parochial people - with their romanticized view of church and obsolete, non-generative ecclesiology.” There are quite a few concrete examples of such treatment - I won’t name them here simply because some of them come from friends who I respect and I refuse to drag anyone’s name through the mud. I point to all of this to say that one of my main issues in these past few posts and comments has not been an attack on emergent as such but an attack on the arrogance and “gotcha-ness” that seems to flow from this sort of “I’ve read books you couldn’t possibly understand so just trust me on this” mentality.

Sure there are, among the various denominations in the west (and also outside them), emergent Christians who are interested in being faithful to their tradition while also integrating “emerging” models of ministry. But what about those for whom “postmodern, emergent, etc.” are not yet helpful or hopeful ways of embodying the way of Christ in the 21st century? What about those who want to experience relational, experiential orthopractical Christian faith who feel alienated by the arrogance [either intentional or otherwise] that so often comes from the ranks of the emerging camp?

Please don’t misunderstand me - I really, genuinely do have hope that emerging Christianity can be a place for genuine discipleship and Christian practice but I really think it’s time that emerging Christians deal with the fact that just because someone disagrees with the historical narrative (such as it is) presented by “postmodernism” doesn’t mean that they are intellectually inept. Nor does it mean that such a person is hostile to “emergent” Christianity or that they somehow don’t get that Postmodernity is a fact. It is possible to “get it” [so to speak] without needing to tear down the obviously genuine ministry that emergent seeks to embody.

And really, I get it. I know the deal. I really do (and I think plenty of other people as well) realize that we exist in a period that marks a shift away from “modernity.” But “postmodernism” [by which I mean the philosophical milieu created by the work of theorists such as Derrida, Foucalt, Jean Baudrillard, and others] is by no means the only way of thinking about this shift that has occurred and is still happening. Philosophers and lingustic theorists are by no means in agreement regarding the merits of postmodernism and there are many in the philosophical & theological communities who critique modernism without taking the postmodernist plunge into weird, unintelligible linguistic-esque nonsense (hey, let me have my fun!). But I didn’t write this post to get into a philosophical debate…I at least agree that those sorts of conversations are best when had face-to-face rather than through the computer screen.

Post-modernity is a fact but I simply don’t buy “postmodernism.” I’ve read Derrida and Baudrillard and even a bit of Zizek and I think it’s nonsense (but I’m open to further engagement). But I am also a friend of emergent. I am an example of how one can be emergent without taking the postmodern plunge. One of the great merits of the emerging conversation is its embrace of a sort of plurality of belief(s) that seeks not to exclude those with varying viewpoints but to include as many voices as possible in order to enrich the conversation and I still hope that there’s a place at the table for me - theological disagreements and all. And I also hope that as emergents come to the point where they (we?) are called upon to explain themselves, that they (we) will do more than deflect, make fun, or dismiss those who, but for some philosophical differences, might someday find some affinity and friendship with us. After all, isn’t friendship what this whole emergent thing is about in the first place?

I got the idea for this from my buddy Tripp - who got the idea from this fellow who is now in my blogroll. I’m not skipping my promised posts just taking a study break. The first new post in the promised three should be coming on Thursday or Friday evening. But for now, here’s my Life Canon (for today).

• Stanley Hauerwas - Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America
• Pearl Jam - Live at the Gorge (seven disk set) which I got for $19.99
  
• James Baldwin - The Fire Next Time
• Wendell Berry - Citizenship Papers
• Vigilantes of Love - Audible Sigh
• Buddy Miller - Poison Love
• Will D. Campbell - Brother to a Dragonfly
  
• Ludwig Wittgenstein - Culture and Value
  
• Timothy B. Tyson - Blood Done Sign My Name
• Paul S. Fiddes - Tracks and Traces: Baptist Identity in Church and Theology

I’m right in the middle of final exams and things are pretty hectic and stressful. Nevertheless, my studies always get me thinking so feast your eyes on the topics of these three upcoming posts here at truth to tell (titles are tentative):

1. How to be “emergent” without taking the “postmodern plunge” - or, Why “emergent” is a great idea but isn’t really the “new reformation” everyone thinks it is.
2. A review of Frank Viola and George Barna’s book, Pagan Christianity that compares aspects of their thinking to protestant liberalism a-la Adolf von Harnack’s book, What is Christianity
3. A post on the possibility of the recovery of Pietism as a paradigm for Church renewal and ecumenical cooperation among the churches.

I know what you’re thinking - quite ambitious! And if you’re thinking this, you’re right. But, recall what the purpose of this blog is: to facilitate faithful conversation. So ready, set, dialog.

Grace & peace,

A.T.

In this fairly recent article (I suppose it’s already obsolete as far as internet life goes), Jana Riess asks the big question “what do publishers means by ‘emergent’. Regarding the “branding of emergent,” she expresses her fears that the publishing world (something I know almost next to nothing about) will co-opt what is good in emergent in favor of the same old self-help crud that usually brings people to the “religion section” at Barnes and Noble.

Emergent folks deserve more than becoming the book equivalent of a glossy infomercial. I’m not the only one who’s uncomfortable: I can, in an utterly un-postmodern appeal to an Authority Figure, quote Brian McLaren on the subject: “It’s not about the church meeting your needs; it’s about joining the mission of God’s people to meet the world’s needs.”

What gets me about this article is that she highlights something I’ve been struggling with but she doesn’t really talk about the issue. She points to the “literati” who tend to scoff at emergent (they’re in abundance in seminaries throughout the US - heck, I’ve done some of it myself) by noting that there really is nothing new about what they’re saying from a theological perspective (and I’d say even from a Philosophical perspective - but that’s a whole other can of beans). But I think this point needs to be bourne out further.

I think, given the “critical” nature of my recent post, I need to make sure people know that I’m not one of those who wants emergent to go away. I think it’s a great idea, even though I often get a bit frustrated with some aspects of the conversation (I guess some would say that’s my inner protestant liberal -or- fundamentalist -or- modernist -or- aren’t they all the same anyway? coming out to haunt my blog). But I do think it needs to be said that there really is NOTHING NEW about what emergent Christians are saying. The author of the article points out that some “emergent” ideas can be found even in patristic literature (Origen was sooo emergent - Anselm, not so much). I’d be willing to say that there’s a stream of “emergent” thought running through all good theology - if by “emergent” one means a propensity toward conversation versus overt declarations of once-for-all truth and an ability to admit the limits of human reason.

But, as I’ve said in comments elsewhere, by the scale with which some folks measure degrees of “emergence” the protestant reformers were emergent (for the record, I REALLY don’t understand the disdain with which some emergent folks regard the reformers - emergent could NEVER {like the caps lock there?} have happened if it weren’t for the reformation; can you imagine what emergent “indulgences” would have looked like? Emergents (most of whom are - or used to be - for the most part evangelicals) owe their existence down the line to the reformation and I think it’s high time someone did a post-modern, emergent engagement with them).

While I’m not always in agreement with emergent voices out there (mostly because I still want to hold a small spot for universal, even objective truth of some kind - more to come on this), I do not want what is good in the conversation to be overtaken by the consumeristic impulse to buy-and-sell crap in a box and call it a book. And this is where the author of the article mentioned above and I are right on track with one another. She writes,

There is something special going on here, which is why the growing co-optation of the label Emergent for the same-old-same-old Christian books is so annoying. Here’s hoping that publishers (and authors) can restrain themselves before the label becomes meaningless.

So be careful - little eyes and ears - what you read and hear as “emergent” because if the publishing world has its way, it might just be pop-psychology or neo-fundamentalism.

Cheers,

A.T.

I have recently been quite skeptical of emergent engagements with “postmodernism.” In particular, I’ve been critical of what I perceive to be the almost wholesale appropriation of many postmodern epistemological developments. Heck, I’ve even come close to denying that “postmodernism” is really an historical phenomenon rather than something that literary theorists and architects made up.

In some ways, I’m still saying these things and I think that there are just a few issues on which emergents need to just slow down and take a breather. Most notably, the emergent obsession with epistemology has come to the forefront in a series of blog posts by an early emergent writer. Just for the record, I’m not a “heresy hunter” despite comments on friends’ blogs that might indicate otherwise. Most importantly, I’m not even here to bash “emergent” as I do believe that those involved in the conversation are asking some important questions and that - at the very least (and this is probably the most important thing emergents do, in my opinion) - the emergent conversation is freeing churches of all sorts to explore new ways of worshiping God.

At any rate, I’ve had quite a difficult time expressing my discontent with some aspects of the emergent movement with clarity and without sounding like a heresy hunter - that is, until I began reading Peter Liethart’s book, Solomon Among the Postmoderns. For those who aren’t familiar with Leithart, I can only say, “Shame on you!” He’s an important, learned and quite nuanced voice in the contemporary theological fray with expertise in theology, philosophy and literature. In many ways, he’s the renaissance man of the contemporary theological scene. So, without further ado, I’d like to share a few portions from the introduction of his book that say what I’ve been trying to say. Keep in mind the he’s not talking explicitly about “emergent” but I think his comments about “pro-post-modern Christians” apply quite directly to the emergent obsession with “postmodern” epistemological issues. Given the fact that much of what “pro-post-modern Christians” say about postmodernity is not really theologically or ecclesiologically interesting, he offers the following bit of wisdom:

“I’ve wanted to discover those more interesting things that postmodernists are trying to say, and as I pursued those more interesting things I increasingly found that eschatology is far more central to postmodernism, and to the Christian response to postmodernism, than epistemology.

“I hoped to show…that postmodernity is, in the sense that sociologists generally use the term, simply a fact. Whether we want to call it postmodernity or something else…we need some term to describe the remarkable set of cultural and political changes that marked the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century: the collapse of the bi-polar political world of the cold war; the globalization of trade, finance and business; the establishment of an American cultural and, increasingly, political empire; the renewed vigor of fundamentalist Islam in world politics, the belated discovery of the dominance of Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere, and the dissolution of denominational boundaries among post-Reformation churches; the rapid spread of new information and communication technologies; the rise of advertising, entertainment, and popular culture as the sacred culture of the United States; new trends in immigration and urbanization; the related shifts in how theorists talk about knowledge and language, the self, and power (Leithart, 12).”

What is so interesting to me here is that, while many emergents seem to focus quite a bit of attention on the philosophical aspects of postmodernity, there is rarely any substantive focus on the world events and actual cultural changes to which postmodern philosophy is but a response. In particular, the use of deconstructionism as a lens through which to interpret the Gospel indicates to me that some emergents simply do not understand the actual nature of the changing culture in which we live. Sure, there are some thinkers out there who talk about places of irreducable certainty and universal signifiers (and universal signified, etc); and there are those who say that there is no such place of irreducable certainty. Sure “cartesian” thought (whatever that’s supposed to mean - and I’m not sure people who throw such terminology around really understand it themselves) might be influential in contemporary Christianity (or at least in white, middle-class, American Christianity - i.e. the smallest Christian group in the world), and sure there’s a need for “new theological thought.”

My thought, however, is - “So what else is new?” The church has always and in every age and every moment had to wrestle with changing and challenging cultural realities. We who live in the post-modern world are not special in this regard. Whether postmodernity is a shift of monumental, Reformation-like proportions is not a judgment that I think anyone in the emergent conversation (or any other conversation for that matter) is qualified to make - mostly because the best judgment regarding the scope and proportion of historical movements usually occurs through the lens of - ahem - HISTORY! To attach such monstrous importance to the current age seems to me to be akin to Lewis’ “chronological snobbery” by which we always think that our era, our time is more important than others that have come before.

Leithart does think our time is important, and maybe I disagree with him. Where I think I agree is the point at which he cites the actions of Saint Benedict, one of originators of monasticism. He writes that, “At times the Christian agenda may be to wait and do nothing, which, come to think of it, was a large part of Benedict’s ‘agenda’.”

I say, “Amen” - in the sense of “let it be so.” I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often the emergent conversation works so hard to make “postmodern-conversant” people that it forgets that the goal of the church is to make Christian people who follow God’s spirit through the whims and follies of every changing scene, whether it be modernity, postmodernity, or whatever else comes our way. May the church today - in all its forms - have the faith to live through this blip on the cultural radar. May we simply do what the church has always been called to do - worship God, make disciples, care for the oppressed, and move beyond selfishness toward unity with God.

“And now we begin to see what it is that the New Testament is always talking about. It talks about Christians ‘being born again’; it talks about them ‘putting on Christ’; about Christ ‘being formed in us’; about our coming to ‘have the mind of Christ’.

“Put right out of your head the idea that these are only fancy ways of saying that Christians are to read what Christ said and try to carry it out - as a man may read what Plato or Marx said and try to carry it out. They mean something much more than that. They mean that a real Person, Christ, here and now, in that very room where you are saying your prayers, is doing things to you. It is not a question of a good man who died two thousand years ago. It is a living Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He was when He created the world, really coming and interfering with your very self; killing the old natural self in you and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares His power, joy, knowledge and eternity….”

~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

So I’m finally getting around to finishing/reviewing the first installment of Don Everts’ One Guy’s Head series entitled All The Ideas Living In My Head.

In my initial review, over a month ago, I wrote about Everts’ heuristic strategy of “conceptual hospitality” regarding the ideas which show up in the living room that is his head. I think this is probably the way that many people think and determine what works for them, although Everts believes that “what works for them” might not necessarily be “right, good, true, etc.” In other words, just as much as fruitful thinking should involve conceptual hospitality, it does not necessarily mean conceptual relativism. Not all ideas are created equal. Everts believes, as do (i think) many others, that there are simply some ideas that tell horrible stories. Either they’re uninteresting, silly, incoherent, or (gasp) just flat wrong. This is where Everts’ sees himself as breaking with the “postmodern” camp. I’m not sure, however, that most people who identify themselves as “postmodern” really believe that all ideas are equally valid. As much as I’m beginning to think that the whole “postmodern thing” is not as important as emergents would like to think (I’ll address this in my next post), I’m not willing to say that people who buy into postmodernism are all just conceptual relativists. I’m not saying that Everts’ is making this move, but I’ve certainly seen it done plenty of times and it really frustrates me. All this is to say that I think this sort of “conceptual hospitality” matches with the experience of most people (no matter how calculating or cluttered their thinking may sometimes be) when (if?) they do the hard work of discerning which ideas “fit” and which ones do not.

Which brings me to my next point. In my initial review of this book, I wrote about whether the idea of “fitting” is one that people like these days. Here’s what I said:

Especially among those with some affinity to the emergent/ing movement/conversation/ whatever, the idea of “fitting” is at once alluring and deplorable. We want to find a way to resolve all this tension we feel in our heads - tension between experience and tradition, between heart and head, between being home and being on a journey - but we are reluctant to “subscribe” to either the “modernist” or “postmodernist” camp. So just from my initial impressions, I think that Everts’ book (and the whole series) will be remarkably helpful (at least it seems to be so far) for those who, while they find great affinity with the aims of the emerging conversation other alternative forms of being Christian, are not sure what they think about deconstruction, post-modernity, critical theory, narrative theology, post-liberalism, anabaptism, or any other theory or ism that could be said to occupy the space of emergent/ing.

The more I think about the way I think (and the way I think most people I know think), the more I realize that I don’t fit into a camp (and I think this is a very, very good thing).  Just because I’m uncomfortable with some of the realities that exist as a result of the enlightenment doesn’t mean that I buy into everything “postmodern.”  And just because I don’t buy into everything “postmodern” doesn’t mean I’m a “just the facts” modernist.  In the end, however, I do believe in Truth and I do believe it can be found.  I believe in the authority of Scripture but I don’t think I need a theory of inerrancy or infallibility to hold such a belief.  These are all things that Everts addresses in this book and I think it presents a masterful (if not sometimes a bit disorganized) way of understanding the ways that we think and discern the goodness, truthfulness, importance, etc. of ideas that show up in our heads.  I recommend this book and - if this one is any indication - the whole series to anyone who doesn’t feel the need to “fit” somewhere.

So my blogging has - as it always does - slowed up a bit again. Lydia and I have been in the process of getting the house straight (something that we haven’t done since we moved in) and making some big decisions about our life together. On top of that put the demands of grad school and jobs in many different cities that are quite far from one another and the various random stresses that come up in life and you’ve got a serious recipe for no substantive blogging.

So with all that said, I’m writing this post to inform friends and random readers who might be interested that I have made a couple of decisions regarding both my education and my vocational direction

1. First, I have decided to leave Duke and return to Campbell Divinity School to finish my master’s degree (see below for the reasons for these decisions).
2. In addition to coming back to Campbell, I’ve decided to pursue certification to teach in North Carolina public schools (I’ll earn K-6th grade first and then maybe pursue a “specialized license” to teach social studies in high school).
3. Because of these two changes, at the end of July Lydia and I will be moving to Raleigh, North Carolina to be closer to where we will be working (Lydia, at the State Dept. of Mental Health and Fuquay-Varina Presbyterian Church and I, at Whole Foods) as well as closer to the majority of our friends.

So why so many changes, you may ask (Or you may not - but guess what, I’m going to tell you why anyway)?

1. On March the 29th, Lydia and will have been married only three months but already we’ve noticed that we don’t see each other all that often - except on our rare days off and at the end of the day. We realize that when we graduate from Divinity School it doesn’t get easier to spend time with one another and that life has the potential to just get busier. We have the opportunity - at Campbell - to go to school together (and for much lower cost) and, thus, to go through the journey that is divinity school together. So the first reason that I’ve decided to come back to Campbell is so that Lydia and I can nurture our relationship with one another more intentionally with the full knowledge that simply being in school together doesn’t make that easier. But we also know that we miss each other terribly most of the time and Campbell provides us the opportunity to be with each other more regularly and to complete the seminary journey together with a minimum of future indebtedness.
2. I realized, after much personal anguish, that some people really do need the experience of being in a large, prestigious university graduate school. Some people really do want to learn from folks who are the “big names” in their field. I’ve realized that I’m just not one of those people. If studying at the “big school” with the “big names” means not seeing my wife, our families and our friends, living under unnecessary stress and pressure, and being in debt for the rest of my natural life, then I’m fine with the small, no-less-capable school with brilliant young faculty members. I know from experience (I spent my first year of seminary there) that the faculty at Campbell - though possibly less “well known” - are no less credible, capable, engaging and dynamic than anyone I’ve studied with at Duke. In some ways, my coming back to Campbell is an acknowledgment of my belief that a big school with a big name and big important celebrity faculty members simply isn’t for everyone. This may come as surprise to my fellow-students at Duke but that’s just how it is. I have no animosity towards any student, faculty or staff member at Duke - it’s just that it’s not working for me.
3. I’ve been reading and listening to folks in the public education community and I feel that my vocation to teach doesn’t necessitate that I earn a doctoral degree and occupy a chaired professorship of a university or seminary (although I’m still open to such possibilities - and I know how nearly impossible such a dream might be). I want to teach. I want to help form people of all sorts into individuals who will serve the Good. I believe that there is a crisis in public education that can only be amended if there are good, morally upright, dedicated and passionate people who are willing to work in what may be the most noble profession in our nation - teaching children in public schools. In other words, I read Parker Palmer and he really messed me up. Seriously though, I hope to continue to serve the church in some way - although my constant questions regarding the necessity of the pastoral office for the full-functioning of the church (thanks to Frank Viola) make me wonder what that might look like. At any rate, I’ve been drawn by various books and conversations with people who really know what teaching is like in North Carolina to explore this vocation and I’m quite excited about this new venture. It will provide a solid income, health benefits, and above all the opportunity to participate in the infinitely rewarding and challenging work of forming young people into the sort of people who we can trust to take responsibility for our futures in this place that - for better or worse - we currently live.

So these are the things that are happening in my life right now and they’re pretty significant in some ways and pretty ordinary and not surprising in others. Whatever they are, I’m always excited to see where this journey of life will lead. I ask your prayers and your advice if you care to give them. And I’ll leave you with two quotes that currently fuel my vocational imagination.

“Teaching, like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse. As I teach I project the condition of my soul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together. The entanglements I experience in the classroom are often no more or less than the convolutions of my inner life. Viewed from this angle, teaching holds a mirror to the soul. If I am willing to look in that mirror and not run from what I see, I have a chance to gain self-knowledge–and knowing myself is as crucial to good teaching as knowing my students and my subject.”
~Parker Palmer

“A life in teaching is a stitched-together affair, a crazy quilt of odd pieces and scrounged materials, equal parts invention and imposition. To make a life in teaching is largely to find your own way, to follow this or that thread, to work until your fingers ache, your mind feels as if it will unravel, and your eyes give out, and to make mistakes and then rework large pieces.”
~ William Ayers

It is understandable that we should have reacted to the attacks of September 11, 2001, by curtailment of civil rights, by defiance of laws, and by resort to overwhelming force, for those actions are the ready products of fear and hasty thought. But they cannot protect us against the destruction of our own land by ourselves. They cannot protect us against the selfishness, wastefulness, and greed that we have legitimized here as economic virtues, and have taught to the world. They cannot protect us against our government’s long-standing disdain for any form of self-sufficiency or thrift, or against the consequent dependence, which for the present at least is inescapable, on foreign supplies such as oil from the Middle East.

And they cannot protect us from what may prove to be the greatest danger of all: the estrangement of our people from one another and from our land. Increasingly Americans - including, notoriously their politicians - are not from anywhere. And so they have this “homeland,” which their government now seeks to make secure on their behalf, no home place that they are strongly moved to know or love or use well or protect.

~ Citizenship Papers, p. 6

I just ran across an intriguing interview over at Democracy Now! Slajov Zizek told Amy Goodman that he believes the upcoming presidential election would best serve the US and the world if Americans were banned from voting and the rest of the world decided the election for us. Quite an intriguing proposition. Is Zizek crazy? Is this just the voice of a flame fanning provocateur? What do you think? To me, it seems like - in many ways - when Americans vote we are deciding the fate of other nations (and this is something we don’t even think twice about) all the time. I’m certain that if Americans were asked to allow our own political, economic, social, religious, etc. fate to be decided for us from abroad we would all be pretty squeamish.  Now I do understand that no nation is free from entanglements.  I’m just asking if we believe that it’s okay for one nation’s election to decide the political fate of another nation.  I ask this because (in some ways) it seems that this is what Americans are often doing when we vote because our government is tangled up in the affairs of other nations - so much so that our vote (assuming our vote really matters in the long run) has the potential to change the shape of many other nations around the world.

Heck, I’d even bet that our vote (once again, assuming that our elections are fair and our vote actually counts) changes more in other countries than it does in our own. Now THAT’S an idea that should give us pause. Another question might be, For an American Christian would such a state (the rest of the world voting for us) really matter all that much? Where is our first allegiance anyway? With the state or with the Church throughout the world and it’s local expressions in our homes and neighborhoods? Just questions, that’s all.  I’m no political theorist so don’t jump down my throat if I’ve got that part wrong. I’m just wondering aloud if maybe Zizek has a point. Read the interview. Think about it. Let me know what you think.