Respect Existence or Expect Resistance

27 - Exodus copy

[This Sunday's sermon was probably as close to programmatic statement of my theology and how I hope it can inform the wider Mennonite church.]

I was hoping to do a little historical research this week to try and give some context for preaching on the Exodus event. Sifting through articles I found myself dismissing pieces quickly. Oh this one is published in an Evangelical journal it will likely try to overemphasize the historical reliability of scripture; hmmm this scholar is writing from a university in Israel it will probably be skewed towards an emphasis on Israelite claim to the land; sigh this one is written by an old school liberal scholar who seems tied into unhelpful methods of historical research. Evidently if these articles were not biased than I was.

This is a small, but I think significant, reminder of how we approach the Bible and how we engage our faith. Each one of us occupies a particular space from which we see and think and act out of our experience and commitments. I think the church is still wrestling with this reality. We don’t want to give up a notion of a larger truth but we can find it hard or even inappropriate to speak clearly or definitively in certain situations.

This plays out in different church denominations. Most church’s claim some notion of having the Bible as a source of authority or guidance. All hope they are being faithful in their expression. But some churches in upholding moral purity have little ability to wade into the messy and difficult situations in people’s lives to give support. Other churches proclaim God’s love for all people but they can have a hard naming the devastating realities of sin within or around them. Then there are the endless theological debates that simply reveal further bias whether prioritizing different parts of the Bible or how our experience shaped our understanding.

This reality of being biased is simply another way of saying that we can’t do it all. We can’t stand outside of life from some god-like perspective and have a total picture. So I think part of a church’s responsibility is being aware of its bias, that is, understanding that it cannot be complete or even neutral. It cannot be just biblical or faithful. A church is faithful in its particular way. This responsibility means accepting and owning our gifts and limitations or deciding what to maintain and it wants to work at changing.

So if we have to be biased in some way, that is, be particular we might do well in considering the Exodus story as a central image that can orient and energize us as a church. In some ways this is not much of a stretch considering how prominent the story is throughout the Bible. But even here the story is not self-evident and we must make decisions, we choose the manner in which the story can become meaningful and formative for us. Very early on in considering this story the reader, the one interested in learning and living out of this story, is faced with a least two paths of understanding.

Both interpretations read this story as one of deliverance, liberation, and the defeat of the enemy. However, one reading places the emphasis on the special nature of the people. This reading believes that the particular people and their descendants are privileged by God and that God will always be on their side conquering their enemies. This has been the understanding for many historical forms of Christianity.

In some ways it could be said that Christianity invented this reading when it believed that its form of faith was greater than Judaism and that God would eventually conquer the Jewish people themselves. This understanding surfaced in various forms of Christian supremacy whether in religious or political forms as Christian Europe moved across the globe with the confidence in a God who would either drown or baptize anyone they encountered. On a smaller scale we cannot discount the way this reading informs our own understanding of the superiority when we consciously or usually unconsciously consider our life and faith to have priority over others. While this reading is often justified with other scripture passages it is certainly not the only understanding of the Exodus.

So while the first reading leads to a supremacist or superior attitude by a particular group the second group shifts the focus. In this reading God is still in some ways biased, still shows preference, but it is not towards a particular religious or ethnic group. In this reading, the Exodus story points to the God of the oppressed. The God revealed to Moses is not a national or cultural deity who stands for one country over others but the one who hears the cries of those suffering under unjust abuse and slavery. While the biblical story does broadly trace the movements of a particular people, the writings of the prophets, the event of the Exile, and the message of the Gospels are clear that God is not interested in simply maintaining a people or tradition for their own sake. So what does it mean to allow this second reading of the Exodus shape our faith and life?

This reading affects how we give our attention. The first reading fixes our attention and privileges our faith setting for understanding how God is at work and calling us. The second reading, however, asks that our attention become more vigilant, always wondering how the powers and realities around us are shaping and affecting people’s lives.

James Cone, a prominent black theologian in the US, put this powerfully when he says that to follow Jesus who was Jewish means to be able to recognize the Christ who is Black. What he means is that Jesus was a Jew during a time when the Jewish people were occupied and controlled by a foreign power where there religion and life were often humiliated and abused by those in power. So it is important that we study who Jesus was but Cone goes further and says, “I contend that our interest in Jesus’ past cannot be separated from one’s encounter with his presence in our contemporary existence” (GO, 111).

Through this reading of the past Christ is best understood today as the one who is still incarnate, made flesh, the one who is present in the midst of those communities that suffer abuse and humiliation. Cone does not claim that Christ will always be black or is only black but in his context it remains an important and decisive statement of faith. The point is that our faithfulness remains vigilant, attentive to suffering, abuse, harassment, and humiliation because this is where Christ is found and known. Put differently Simone Weil has said that justice is fugitive, it moves where it is needed outside of any one group’s control.

Returning to the Exodus story we can see that it is also a test in attentiveness. After all what is most important in these chapters? Is it Moses and the Burning Bush, is it  the encounter with Pharaoh and the Ten Plagues, is the dramatic parting of the Red Sea (children’s time)? These are crucial elements but in some ways I was distracted by them and it wasn’t until I read an article by biblical scholar Phyllis Trible that I was reminded of the role of women.

The Exodus story begins and ends with women. The beginning recounts the birth of Moses. Pharaoh feels threatened by the increasing Hebrew slaves and commands that newborn males be killed. In an illegal action Hebrew women refuse Pharaoh’s command and keep these children alive. Then after Moses is born and set out into the river an Egyptian woman, the daughter of Pharaoh, finds him, knows that he is a Hebrew baby and still keeps him safe. She does this in cooperation with Hebrew women and so Moses lives. So before the great acts of Moses we find a group of mostly nameless women both Hebrew and Egyptian display a faith committed to the vulnerable and threatened among them.

Then at the end of the Exodus story is a song. The bulk of the song begins with a preface saying Moses and the Israelites sang praise to the LORD. Moses has of course been highlighted throughout the text. But after the song we find a curious addition which reads,

Then the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand; and all the women went out after her with tambourines and with dancing.  And Miriam led them in worship saying:

‘Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;
horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.’

Scholars have speculated why this phrase was included, especially since it repeats the first line of the earlier song. One thing clear from the text is that Miriam is in the active, leadership role here. And she is not simply leading the women. When it refers to Miriam leading them the form is in masculine plural which can mean men or men and women. Moses sings but Miriam the prophet leads them in song.

Throughout the Exodus event it is stated that the people are freed so that they might worship God and here after the people have passed through the Red Sea there is a sort of vindication of the women who began this story; an acknowledgement of how God is revealed with the vulnerable and threatened along with those who stand with them.

This finally brings me to the image I chose for this morning. I love this image. It is attributed to a group called graffiti harimi, which means simply, graffiti women. This is a group of women who have chosen graffiti as a public statement against the ongoing sexual harassment and abuse many women experience in Egypt. I chose this particular image for two reasons. First, the image reminded me of the older works of art depicting the crossing of the Red Sea in which soldiers and horses were depicted as tossed about by waves.

That older image of the Red Sea can be unnerving an ominous according to the first reading of Exodus which tends to view God has fighting for national or racial interests. But this morning’s image demands a reading in which the power of liberation, the image of hope comes directly from those suffering abuse. The Arabic beside the image reads simply no harassment. The image is not an abuse of power but the overthrow of abusive power. Another image I considered using was a piece of graffiti in which the face of a famous female Egyptian singer was depicted with the lines of one of her songs underneath which read, Give me my freedom, set loose my chains. Or to rephrase biblically, Pharaoh, let my people go.

The second reason I chose this image is because it comes out of Egypt. In as much as we do not read the Bible as a history book we cannot forget that real lives and bodies were and are involved in these struggles. There are still women in Egypt struggling for freedom.

To circle back to where I began, we cannot be neutral in these things. We cannot claim some pure notion of being ‘biblical’ or ‘faithful’. We will have to choose which texts and which interpretations will shape and inform us. Does the Exodus privilege our people and tradition or does it point to the God who comes alongside those harassed and abused?

Reading Exodus as revealing the God of the Oppressed changes our life and faith. Last week in Adult Education we considered the relationship between Christianity and Indigenous spirituality. The first reading of Exodus privileges how God is with us and will secure our faith in relationship to other religious expressions. The important thing is to protect and preserve our faithfulness. The second reading calls our attention to the situation and experience of the indigenous community allowing us to wonder how we might learn of ways in which liberation is happening in that community and how we might also work and witness to these things.

There are many more examples how these two choices, these two readings, can play out. For those of us in relatively secure lifestyles we need to guard against a self-focused martyr complex. I still hear comments saying that in our society that white men face the most prejudice or that Christianity is under attack.  Most of the time these comments refer to the discomfort we feel in not getting our way all the time, not having the only or dominant voice. We need to get over that. That sort of thinking assumes the first reading in which we believe God’s most important agenda is to keep us in a superior position.

The second reading shifts attentiveness to those among us who struggle with the limitations of disabilities, who have lived with chronic illnesses, who have endured grinding poverty, who have had to deal with ongoing prejudice or exclusion. This reading is meant to offer hope and another vision of how to know and encounter Christ.

May we have eyes to see and ears to hear people like the Hebrew and Egyptian women then and now standing up as and alongside the vulnerable, believing there is a presence and power who will resist with them, that a way can be opened, that dry land can appear in the midst of the water’s chaos, even as abusive powers like a national army or exploitive culture close in. And may we as a church learn to be attentive to, even follow such groups for we may just find that we have been following Christ.

Amen.

Do not worry about what you will say: Images of soul and power

In summer the preaching schedule becomes a little more freewheeling. Not tied to any lectionary or planned series we typically get to choose something we are simply interested in. This Sunday I wanted to reflect on the ‘soul'; that something necessarily tied to the body but that also creates difference or excess in bodily experience or relations. So I was with a topic in search of a text as the preachers say. I finally landed on Matthew 10:39,

Those who find their soul will lose it, and those who lose their soul for my sake will find it.

A significant portion of the sermon went to unpacking the chapter leading up to that statement. Matthew 10 offers the first clear commissioning of the disciples by Jesus. What gets little attention in the notion of commissioning or of the disciples’ ‘mission’ is how the whole section gets initially framed.

Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness.

This is the commission, to go out in authority over that which torments (unclean spirits) and destroys (sickness and disease). The rest of the chapter is basically an unpacking of how this will get you into a lot of trouble. There is trouble because this is a question of authority, this is NOT about individual acts of charity or miracles. This is a mission to engage the powers that torment and destroy. This commission takes very seriously the social nature of torment and destruction; it is to stand with those who are cast out and against those who create stability through the expelling. Those with personal or professional experience working in areas of disability, mental health, race or gender violence, and poverty know all too well the powers that need to marginalize in order to stabilize their control.

What I was not prepared for was how clearly this commissioning would parallel some of the events happening here in Winnipeg as well as Ferguson, Missouri. Here are a couple of excerpts from the sermon,

We are often praised for individual acts of charity but when we begin to name and stand against the powers that inflict the body and the spirits that torment souls we are likely to get some pushback. Jesus encourages the people not to be worried about what they will say when you are confronted. There is a good chance there will be no reasoning in these situations anyway. When we are confronted with the reality that our attitudes or behaviours are directly connected to expressions that are demeaning or hurtful of others we tend to become defensive, we suddenly become unable to hear for ourselves what we could see clearly in others. Jesus, it seems, knows this. Don’t worry about defending yourself. So long as you are addressing the things that deteriorate the body and soul then no defense is necessary you need only stand by and hold out the reality you are trying to draw attention to.

It is hard to acknowledge the powers at work in these debilitating and tormenting spirits. Our prime minister Stephen Harper denies that there are social powers at work in the pervasive violence against indigenous women in Canada. He sees them as isolated crimes. There is a group camped out on the lawn in front of the legislative building in downtown Winnipeg. They are calling on the government to acknowledge and investigate the powers that are tormenting this community. I went down to the camp last week to offer a small gift and word of support and encouragement. I spoke briefly with a woman who was helping to organize this call. At one point she said, humbly, that she trusted that at the right time the right words and the right teaching would be given.

Jesus said,

do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit . . . speaking through you.

These are not lawyers, politicians, and professionals (to be sure there are those within this movement as well). These are people trying to claim authority over the tormenting spirits that plague them. They are speaking from that place in that moment.

This led me to the further thought that NOT worrying about what to say was also a way of resisting the temptation and tendency to be recuperated back into the discourse of the powers, to play into their rules and set of values.

And again,

In the U.S. the ongoing conflict in Ferguson Missouri lays bare the hypocrisy of American culture and how it treats people of colour. The rapper J. Cole released a song in honour of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson and in tribute to the ongoing struggle of black people in America against racism.

A line from the song,

“I’m just letting you know / their ain’t no gun they can make that can kill my soul.”

Jesus said,

Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

This imagery of body and soul is a reality for people forced to or willing to stand against the powers that torment and destroy. It is a source of embodiment that can be drawn on for strength against these powers.

I have no interest in appropriating these movements and expressions for the Christian agenda (or that Christian theology can *best* understand it) but rather I want to point the church beyond itself to see the ways in which the ongoing struggle of taking authority over the powers that torment and destroy remains active and how we might hear and see and follow the Good News as it occurs today.

Perfect God or public faith; Or, why theology needs better options

Ben Myers recent posts (here and here) at Faith and Theology are reminders that the church and its theology often do not give very good choices. In these posts Myers reflects on the broad change in his thinking that went from being ‘apocalyptic’ to ‘eschatological’. In Myers’ words an apocalyptic orientation understands,

that God does not have an originating relationship to the world so much as an interruptive relationship.  God bursts in on the world like an alien intruder. God comes to knock things into shape.

In hindsight Myers reads this interest as reflecting,

ordinary youthful iconoclasm. All young people, young men in particular, feel a certain resentment towards the status quo and a certain seething desire to imprint their own will on to the order of things. Call it a rage against mortality. Anyway, when you allow that kind of resentment to guide your thinking, you easily end up with what Augustine called the libido dominandi, the lust to master reality and to make it conform to your own ideals.

Apocalyptic then, for Myers, was the option of projecting idealistic angst upon the notion of God so that God was (and could only be) understood as the one who breaks in with unprecedented presence, completely outside the current order of things. The realities of life, however, brought him to another consideration. He now had children to consider. He became immersed in the actual workings of institutions and he returned to early Christian writings. This led to a dramatic shift in his orientation. He now saw the doctrine of creation as needed to hold at bay the type of libido that apocalyptic rage against the world could ignite. This led Myers to a theological and practical position which proclaimed a divine transcendent order in which we could work and testify to in partial and real ways. Put simply Myers seems to have positioned his move from idealism to realism.

I think what has been most frustrating for me is that, on a certain and decisive register, Myers’s logic has not changed at all. Myers is still working within a clear framework of transcendence. This is of course makes sense given his Christian orthodox orientation but it should be noted that this is not the only logic to work within (Christian or otherwise).

The most troubling aspect of his posts is that he is indeed right about his critique but wrong about his change (or that he fails to follow through on his critique). I agree that there is a youthful male (and usually white) lust for control. For many of us this means that we rage against the Father (in the psychoanalytic sense of the one who sets the rules). Again, Myers is right this is typically pious fervor then learns some form of apocalyptic rhetoric but never intends or is able to kill the Father. Some white dudes just end up pouting longer than others. The change, I guess, is Myers’ relation to the Father. The Father is still in control and now the son can be more at peace knowing the world is won for him in the end, the inheritance is secure and there is even a portion of it to share in now if he goes about his Father’s business.

Myers, it seems, has allowed his life to be a bit more enjoyable, I think. Good. Fine. Just don’t speak publicly. To speak publicly in the register of divine transcendence is to always hedge for the Father in a way that positions him as determining and also out of reach. In Myers’ words,

That there is a divine order of perfect justice which transcends human history and relativises every social order.

The result is that both postures do not need to learn from anyone, least of all the least of all (it is self-sufficient, superior, prior to contact).

It does not take long to know that life is compromised. Yes, as I said, some continue to pout and posture in apocalyptic ideals but most of us know that is not where life is lived out. So, to return to Myer’s medium of biography, I too have changed. This change can be directly related to my being confronted in my apocalyptic / eschatological transcendence. I was challenged to consider that both forms of transcendence reflected ideological (and, I would say, idolatrous) stances. To put it simply I was convicted of my inability to be open to and affected by those who challenged my notion of a “divine order of perfect justice”. Through this conviction a change came where I entered a commitment of attention to what was around me (materially, discursively, affectively, etc.). I attempted to not pull rank on these realities and instead allowed for a further mutual-affection (to love the world?).

I have written about some aspects of this change before (pastorally, conceptually, ecclesially) .

All this to say that Myers has not changed, not really. He was right in his critique but wrong in his response. I am also further ‘implicated’ in the discourses/institutions around me. I have a kid. I have a leadership position in the church. I have a mortgage. I am ‘invested’. But to return to my comment about being public, to the extent that I speak and act publicly (and I appreciate I should not always speak) it should be in the service of those disadvantaged and suffering under the current order. So I will not speak publicly about a divine order of perfect justice which transcends human history. When I speak I hope it is to critique the present powers, to lend support to those who need it, and to allow my voice to be critiqued in light of the present powers. My knowledge, faith, and action comes from the eternal relay with the world engaging for freedom and against slavery; which, again, I must continually learn from my neighbour (pretty Christ-like, no?).

This commitment, while becoming more ‘invested’ in the institutions, has also led to more conflict and antagonism. It has demanded more from me in terms of being able to describe and navigate my place in the discursive flows. Rather than appeal to transcendence I am trying to figure out what it is to become public; that is, to express good news (or to be quiet when there is none). So while I remain invested, I also have regular conversations with my wife about the possibilities that there may be time when I will not be employed by the church.

The change then is the commitment to what being public means, which is the mutual relay of my engagement with the world apart from a transcendent authority. This is not a woe-is-me statement, it actually points back to my privilege in the discourse. I could, if I wanted or if I didn’t pay attention, easily slip back into the flow of some discourses that I have been trying to distance myself from or create antagonism with (my existence is loaded with the tone, gender, and tradition that would allow this easily). The converse of this need to be intentional is that for many people their very existence (tone, gender, tradition) is experienced as an antagonism, a rejection or abjection of their lives from the dominant discourse (and so to cope there has been the closet or the white mask). This, it seems to me, is a fundamentally different experience than what I am going through in ‘becoming public’. Many others are cast out, stripped of discursive power in the public domain. I cannot forget that.

I don’t begrudge Myers for attending to his family and working hard in his institution but his public framing of this ‘change’ is false and potentially destructive (and in many ways I take his account as symbolic of many theological expressions). This is not the only option. I am working within the institution of the church to try and change that.

Whether Oka or Ferguson there will be no monument to the warriors

[I sat on this post for a while. I wrote it before the events in Ferguson. I am still uneasy speaking into these issues but I want to offer them to challenge some themes and to open myself for criticism as well.]

I was biking through The Forks the other day and noticed a small gathering area with seats and monuments. I stopped by and read the main plaque. It was a monument honouring Indian Residential School survivors. The first lines of the monument read: Residential School survivors past and present provide powerful lessons in faith, forgiveness, joy, and peace. Next to that monument was another sign noting an historical event that occurred around 500 years ago in which it is said that a number of indigenous nations gathered at the meeting of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers (The Forks) to establish a peace treaty.

This monument is placed in the ‘Peace Gardens’ outside the soon-to-open Museum for Human Rights. I understand that this monument was initiated from within the Indigenous community and a number of representatives were present at its unveiling but I have no idea how the wording was developed. And it is the wording and the framing of this are that has given me pause. My concern or criticism is precisely in how the indigenous traditions get taken into dominant media/cultural discourse.

One thing that I have learned from my (limited) contact with indigenous writers and activists is there deep and abiding vision of peace. I was impressed by a short piece written by Ellen Gabriel for the Indigenous Nationhood Movement website. This website reflects a movement not interested in political compromise with colonial based governments but is committed to following “the natural course of actions taken by Indigenous peoples struggling to reclaim, rename and reoccupy our homelands.” Peace within this context is a ‘warrior’s’ commitment. Warriors in Gabriel’s tradition are, at least in part, those with a burden for peace. Now of course the notion of ‘peacekeeping’ is contentious but what I found interesting in Gabriel’s notion of the warrior is the integrated context in which a warrior functions.

In Kanien’kéha, the word [for warrior] is “Rotiskenrakéh:te”, meaning “those who carry the burden of peace”. In the younger days of our societies’ existence, Rotiskenrakéh:te were trained for combat by using the game of Lacrosse, to get into shape as “warriors”. But more importantly, they carried with them the teachings of peace and the customary laws of their peoples. They underwent ceremonies to prepare them for physical battle, and when they returned they underwent more ceremonies, such as a condolence ceremony to cleanse them spiritually and mentally for what they had endured on the battlefield.

Leaders like Clan Mothers and Chiefs were the voice of the people; they listened to what was in the hearts and minds of the people and brought forth the issues that needed to be discussed. In Haudenosaunee customary laws, the women are the protectors of the land and hold title to the land, while the men were the protectors of the people. During the Kanehsatà:ke Siege, this kind of governance was practiced by the people of the Longhouse and our allies.

. . .

It is important to note that in times of war, women have always participated equally with men on the front lines.

Gabriel sets this understanding of the warrior within the context of the ‘Oka Crisis’ in the 1990s and how the Indigenous community was characterized as led by masked warriors ready to do battle with the government. This indeed was part of the posture but it did not define the working of the community and its engagement with this crisis. As is clear from Gaberiel’s account the warrior was a much more integrated figure within the workings of a community that allowed a greater diversity of voices in discerning issues and responses.

The Oka Crisis is an excellent example of contrast to the monument of Indigenous ‘peace and forgiveness’ at The Forks. In the Oka Crisis (which I have limited memory of as a kid) Canadians were shown a band of warriors out in the woods preparing for violent (or at least threatening; definitely threating) confrontation with the Canadian military. This is a necessary image (a threat) for justifying military action. These images saturated and effaced what I can’t even image was the painful and all too common process of indigenous people trying to legally address land claim injustices which has literally gone on for centuries (I have read claims of peaceful action in response to unjust lang appropriation going back to the early 1700s). Regardless of this history the branding of a warrior was imprinted; natives at the edge of the woods ready to attack.

Contrast this image to the monument at The Forks. Here we are given the image of ‘Indigenous wisdom’. The way of peace that has stretched back over 500 years and now can be seen in the ‘forgiveness’ of the Indian Residential School survivors (we are not told who is forgiven and for what). This is another useful image for settler culture. It appropriates the Indigenous vision of peace and re-inscribes onto our thinking. This re-inscription moves in two directions. First, it creates a norm in the mind of settlers. It feels like progress (for liberal whites) from the notion of the ‘violent savage’ so that we can now feel good acknowledging that Indigenous people really are those who work for peace, we see this now. Peace is named here as ‘faith, forgiveness, and joy’. What is implied here however is that when peace does not come in this form we should be wary as settlers, we will be concerned that Indigenous people are not walking in their own wisdom. What, you are angry, you hold us responsible, you want justice!? But what about your way of peace and forgiveness? In naming this tradition of ‘peace and forgiveness’ we will now be tempted to hold them to it. There is no monument for the community’s warrior tradition that will stand against injustice.

Perhaps I should just experience this monument as a positive, even if flawed step. I really want to be careful because I cannot speak of the journey survivors have gone through and what it means to them for this monument to exist. There should indeed be recognition for Indian Residential School survivors and I hope to support those expressions as they continue to develop and emerge from within the indigenous community. As a settler, though, I want to name at least the potential damage in framing this tragedy in the way it is. I am not convinced that, as it stands, this social expression can create a break, shift, and alteration in the dominant discourses about indigenous/settler relations.

This post feels all the more pressing as events in Ferguson unfold. We seem to have only two images of the black and indigenous person in Canada and the US. It is either the visceral aggressive male (whether the masked ‘savages’ of Oka or the bare-backed Molotov cocktail lighting ‘animals’ of Ferguson) or it is the appropriated peace ambassador who is only acknowledged in the posture of forgiveness. These are the only images we are able to function with as a society and to the extant this remains true I am not sure how it is we can work for peace and justice.

       

When you go to the grave you don’t get up again

I love talking with people close to death about death.

[Visit with 98 year old in hospital]
[After some length of conversation where I am not quite sure whether we are both working on the same plane of reality]

98 yo – I’m going to die
Me – What do you think about that?

98 yo – [laughs wryly] Well what do you think of [starts using some German phrase about heaven]?
Me – Blah, blah, blah, God of life, blah, blah, blah Jesus is greater than death, blah, blah, blah.

98 yo – In the Bible there is the cross, the grave, then what?
Me – That is a good question.

98 yo – [Laughs] Well?
Me – We believe that [stumbles over some affirmation of the resurrection]

98 yo – Does the Bible say that?
Me – Yes it does.

98 yo – [Pause, turns deadly serious and looks at me] NO. When you go to the grave you don’t get up again. [another pause] What do you say about that?
Me – I think we are asked to love while we are alive and then let go.

98 yo – You are right.

Feminine Friday – In Three Acts

Act 1

Outside my office window is a small green courtyard. The warm spring air has just begun to draw a few souls out to the four circled benches. A woman in her eighties wearing a kerchief is sitting on a bench warmed in the sun.  There is another woman, also in her eighties wearing a kerchief, carrying a flower who slowly walks up to the seated lady. Upon meeting, the lady who is standing gives the flower to the woman sitting down. After receiving the flower she looks at it for a moment and slowly lifts it to her nose and smells it. She then proceeds to gently pat the bench with her hand. The standing woman sits down and they begin to talk. About twenty minutes later they walk off together.

 

Act 2

I am on bus #71 heading to Seven Oaks Hospital for a visit. With my head down in a book I hear a raised voice,
– Stop staring
Another voice calls back
I can look wherever I want

It is a young indigenous woman probably still a teenager confronting a middle-aged white man wearing sunglasses. The confrontation continues.

No you can’t look wherever you want. Stop starting at me.
– You’re crazy
– Don’t make me sound like I’m wrong. You’re the one staring, you’re creeping out my cousin
(sitting next to her).
– What? I can’t look out a window?
– No, you can’t look out my window
.

This back and forth goes on for a little while. Until the man finally stops responding. The woman begins talking with her friend saying things like how tired she is of being treated this way (of how aboriginals are still treated this way). She is sick of it. I have so many thoughts going through my head. She is resolute. Unyielding. I am proud of her. I respect her. I want to speak words of affirmation but what would that mean come from a white dude? She doesn’t need me, she doesn’t need my affirmation to know what she was doing was right. But still wouldn’t it just be good to affirm someone . . .
As I am performing my ethical dialectics a black woman, probably in her 50s, stands up and goes over to the young woman. You can see the energy pulsate in her body. She puts her hand on the woman’s shoulder and whispers in her ear. I can’t make it out. I think I hear the phrase ‘stand up’. From all that I can tell she is strongly affirming what the young woman did.
I was piecing this all together on the fly. I was following the script and in that time I had already laid it out its ending. Surely there should be a moment of meaningful acknowledgement; a recognition of their solidarity and support. But no. In respond to whatever was said to her the young woman replied in a deadpan, almost sarcastic voice OK.

This disrupted my thoughts. All I could do was speculate. Why was she unable to receive sheer affirmation? Was it too vulnerable? Did she actually not care? She did say she was sick. Sick of being treated like an object for manipulation. How could you receive affirmation from a stranger when the outside world, your environment, made you sick? And then I thought of the middle aged woman. What had this evoked in her? I didn’t want to think of it. I could see it viscerally in how she held herself next to the woman. Whatever was happening there it was powerful but it was not my script.

 

Act 3

I arrive at Seven Oaks Hospital. I have been there often enough now that it does not take me too long to find patients, as the building is cleared modeled after some medieval conception of hell. I need to gently wake up the elderly woman lying in bed. I don’t really know what is wrong with her. I don’t think she has family in church. She can’t really talk because she is a little confused and does not have her dentures in. There is some recognition, some connection. I ask if I can pray for her. She nods. I do.
She looks into my eyes.  We are leaning fairly close together now after the prayer. She keeps looking into my eyes. She raises her hand and lays it against my cheek. Her hand is unexpectedly and overwhelmingly soft, like innocence. She holds it there for a moment and then brings it back down. We say goodbye and I leave.

 

These are the scenes. I would like to weave them into something more but they have already defied my discourse. They strike me as foreign. They do not reflect my form. My postures rarely take time for simple deliberate gestures. My expressions are weak introducing too much nuance and so dance around the enemy, lending him strength. My acts are not unnervingly gentle.

Barber and the Naming of God – Review Excerpt

Excerpt from a forthcoming review in Mennonite Quarterly Review.

Daniel Colucciello Barber. Deleuze and the Naming of God: Post-Secularism and the Future of Immanence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014.

The question of God is not one that can be answered with a yes or no. What is evoked in these questions “is the task of imaging a world, the task of world-making.” With God – or at least the name of God – “the stakes of world-making are pushed to the highest degree” (3). With this orientation Daniel Barber furthers his project of exploring the implications of Deleuzian immanence in the context of religion and secularism. Barber challenges the notion that the critical question is between religion and secularity by claiming that religion (as Christianity or defined by Christianity) and secularism work under the same supercessionist logic that is able to name and position all non-adherents; as Christianity re-positioned Judaism and eventually non-Christian or heretical others so to secularism re-positioned Christianity and religion in general.

. . .

Chapter 6 takes up the challenge of what it means to give attention to the present without escape to another world (whether religious or secular). One example is the life of Malcom X, born Malcom Little. Little did not change his name but marked the site of a name with an X. This X demanded attention to the present because of its constant reminder of a now inaccessible genealogy of his past, his marking under the Christian colonial naming in the present, and his refusal of effacing the present by taking on some eschatological future name. The X remained and resisted the present, opening new possibilities. Barber concludes the chapter with a section called The Fabulation of Icons. This section returns us to the opening comments regarding imagination, politics, and the naming of God. At some point all these elements converge on particular types of story-telling. We are told a story that the question of God can be answered with a yes or no but this and other stories keep us from asking the question of yes or no with regards to capitalism, nationalism, and other ideologies. In the face of these competing imaginations Barber proposes the act of fabulation which “names the capacity to tell a story that outstrips the criteria that would decide on its truth or falsity.” (200) A fable takes the materials of the present and creates an account that refuses the present criteria of truth or falsity and so opens a space for the new. These accounts come most clearly from a place of suffering because suffering demands attention to the present but is itself already outside the discourses of truth (inasmuch as suffering remains senseless).