I’ve moved to https://davidcldriedger.wordpress.com/
Towards the end of his recent interview by the New Books Network Paul Verhaeghe makes the case for authority (which apparently is the topic of his next book now released in Dutch). Verhaeghe distinguishes between power and authority. Power is the relay of competitive forces that is maintained by the creation and imposition of rules. Verhaeghe is thinking mostly of the current neoliberal context in which economic powers structure are imposed on the various relations that determine much of our lives as well as promote the pervasive myth of ‘meritocracy’ and the goodness of competition.
Verhaeghe sees this as filling the void after the dismantling of patriarchy which he views largely in terms of authority. Authority is a structural relationship in which two individuals or institutions are defined hierarchically by their relationship to a third element. So in patriarchy the ‘third’ was the figure of the Father (ultimately based in a certain concept of God; though Verhaeghe does not say as much).
The West has dismantled much of this authority structure and Verhaeghe has no wish to go back to it. However, he does advocate for authority as opposed to power (I am sure his terms could be debated). He says that when authority is in place very few rules are actually needed. In this model (I am expounding here) more acceptance and collaboration is possible because of the unifying (or at least acknowledged) element of the third. Now of course the third can be tyrannical in need of being overthrown.
When asked to offer a suggestion of a positive relationship of authority Verhaeghe responds by naming the ‘horizontal collective’ as the third, the people. Theologically this appears to be the hegelian/zizekian move of the death of God and the movement of the Spirit in the community of the believers. I think care needs to be taken though that this move does not become equated with the posture of #alllivesmatter. Overall I like Verhaeghe’s clear and simply articulation of authority and as someone in a position of some authority it is always helpful to be given a grammar, vocabulary, and accountability for it. So while I would, at least in principle, accept Verhaeghe’s articulation I would argue that we need to continue to be accountable to ‘the least of these’ (to put it biblically) as our third. I understand there is a certain presumptuousness here and hypocrisy. However, in terms of expressing the theology and work that can and should be done in the church I still think this is most responsible and faithful posture towards questions of power and authority.
In a recent comment exchange regarding a post I wrote about the supremacist elements in Christian missions Tom Yoder Neufeld made a familiar Anabaptist move gesturing towards the particularity of Christ when he states,
“I think the mission of the church is about being the body of the one who made peace not with no-name healing and hope, or a generic just peace, but by the specific act of creating in himself a new human, destroying the hostility between us and our enemies and between us and God through the cross. That mystery is supreme over any and all of our efforts to articulate and live it; and it stands in perpetual judgment on our profound betrayals of it.” [emphasis mine]
I want to start by addressing the first half of that statement while hopefully coming to comment on the second half. By and large I agree with the move to particularity when it comes to talking about the content of our faith and thought. What I think Neufeld is critiquing is the notion that we can arrive a neutral or even secular criteria for ‘healing’ or ‘justice’ when it fact such notions come loaded with their own sets of assumptions and values that often go unnoticed. So for instance the liberal western notion of individual freedom often does not take into account indigenous claims to the land on behalf of an entire people group. These two notions of justice are at odds and one must, consciously or not, side with one particular notion or the other. I acknowledge and support such a critique.
Neufeld, however, wants to move this particularity under the category of ‘the cross’. The cross, however, was not a theological abstraction but a particular event from which particular believers were formed in their thinking and acting. I want to suggest, though, that perhaps the Gospel is actually much more generic, actually does arrive as one with no-name. That, and I hope I will understood here, for the cross to be the cross sometimes it will not be the cross. It seems that, according to the Gospels anyway, Jesus was not really concerned about the name under which ‘messianic’ or ‘kingdom’ elements were brought under. When asked by John’s disciples if he was the messiah Jesus asks them to simply tell John what they see. Jesus tells the disciples that they will be serving the king when they attend to the realities of the nameless marginalized. And most specifically Jesus clarifies that naming our lives and actions under the title ‘Lord, Lord’ gives no special place of status.
I know Neufeld is aware of all these things. I expect that his expression is at least somewhat in agreement with them. However, I still wonder if the ‘mystery’ in the second half of his statement should actually offer more judgement over the way we recuperate any possible notions of mission or gospel within our existing theological categories, even if those categories are as broad as ‘the cross’.
There is no question that the image of ‘the cross’ has been appropriated in all sorts of ways. Many expressions of the cross have been easily taken up into dominant cultural modes whether in outright superstition or just gaudy consumerism. So I want to suggest that for ‘the cross’ to have any integrity in theology or missions it will of course remain particular to the Gospel accounts but the Gospel itself should actually be much more generic. The Gospel has no-name other than the ones that emerge from those testifying to their encounter with it. This is its power and its vulnerability. And it is precisely at those intersections of deliverance, testimony, fellowship, and discernment that we all must be open to having our thoughts and actions laid bare for the unmaking and remaking of our lives.
While surfing around the web trying to find out if anything interesting was happening in Harrisburg while I was at Mennonite World Conference I found out that last weekend was Pride weekend. On the website promoting this weekend I noticed that there was an interfaith worship service at the Metropolitan Community Church of the Spirit (MCC; for Mennonites this acronym is indelibly linked to the Mennonite Central Committee). I had heard of MCC before though I didn’t really know anything other than its connection to the LGTBQ community. There are only three MCCs in Canada and they are all in Ontario. I thought this would be a good opportunity to take in a service I would not otherwise be able to.
To be honest I was not prepared for my initial impression of this service. I can only describe this impression as being soft. Not just soft, but really soft, pillowy soft. I mean, literally. The lighting was soft. In the front of the worship space hung paintings in soft pastels. The chairs were soft. The skin of the 40 or so white upper middle aged worshippers was soft. And I kid you not but the majority of men walked softly and literally had a gentle soft arch in their back (even the younger ones). The women tended to overweight with soft curves moving across their bodies. I wanted to criticize. I so dearly wanted to criticize this, particularly when the white guy from the Blue Mountain Lotus Society offered the call to worship with his 3000 year old Buddhist sutra. I mean, I was beginning to think this just another cocoon of soft white privilege.
But things started to change. A representative from a marriage equality advocacy group came up a spoke. This person was of course happy to celebrate the recent rulings in the United States but he also noted the sadness and the hurt that was gathered there. When he said this there was a slight tremor in his voice. And suddenly I was taken back to the hard world in which many of these ‘soft’ people have to live.
The service otherwise was quite simple and straightforward. We even sang a hymn that we regularly sing at my church, Here in this place. They had a small choir that performed beautifully. There was nice message of trying to see our underlying issues of fear that turn to hate. We sang the community’s ‘theme’ song about being woven together during which we were asked to ‘look lovingly around at one another’ and during the song people did just that. There was a liturgical prayer, a poem was read and benediction given and then we went into the fellowship area for some snacks.
I started feeling awkward at this point. People seemed friendly but no one was initiating conversation with me. Quickly I began to feel that I should just go back to my hotel and leave it at that. I actually left the building and began walking away when I stopped and thought that I needed to give this time a chance. So I headed back into the building. I milled around for a minute when an old man (I found out later he was 76) made eye contact and said, “Hi there young fella.” I stopped and began chatting with him. He was easy to talk to and told me how long he had been attending the MCC. I asked him what his background was before coming to the MCC (assuming he would know I meant religious or cultural background). He said he was ‘whore’. As I thought hard and quickly to make sure I heard him correctly he went to say that he had sown his wild seed back in the day and that he could not really come out as gay when he was younger because of his religious background and the way things were back then. He shared about how important it was for him to find a place like this. He said that he is now 30 years sober.
The conversation continued to flow and he shared about the church more generally, his role on church council, a little bit of gossip about some of the members, his concerns about their future now that other churches are becoming more welcoming (everyone has church growth anxieties right?). To make me feel more welcome (or something) he pointed out the few straight people there. At one point he leaned in closer with a whisper You know at first I couldn’t stand how huggy they are around here. Though a few minutes earlier he had greeted another member with a friendly kiss on the lips. I said to him that I guess hugs aren’t so bad when you get used to them. He smiled. He pointed out the straight people.
This man certainly moved me. This notion of softness also lingered with me. Maybe this man’s softness was reborn. Though I also wondered if for others you don’t survive softness by becoming hard. You either die from it or you find a place and a community that will protect your softness. I could not help but be struck by this softness. It was so distinct, so pervasive. It seems that softness is not the same comfort. That in fact it is telling that the population most marginalized from the church reflects an expression that is also often lacking in the church (well at least in the Russian Mennonite tradition). It is in fact not easy to be soft. There must be a lot of strength to maintain your softness and fight for your rights.
At the very least I could go away saying that I met a sinner whom the Lord had saved, a drunkard the Lord had redeemed. Praise be the Lord.
[For the ‘first thoughts‘ see the below post]
I was hoping to write a few coherent posts regarding my experience at MWC but thoughts and experiences kept piling, swirling, and jostling and so I gave up (for now) trying to apply some sort of interpretation to them. So while something more reflective might come, for now I will post a few experiences. Have look, skim a few, let me know what you think.
Many people have gathered here in Harrisburg, PA. Many more, I think, than I have been a part of in worship. Being a part of many people gathering, of many people singing can be a moving experience. We place many bodies in rhythm and so can gain a momentum impossible as individuals. As a description this momentum of course is neither positive nor negative. This is true of rock concerts, football games and political rallies. The theology articulated so far has been unexceptional. This is also not a criticism, it is only to say that the impact of the speakers is not in some exegetical insight or theological innovation. I would say that there has been no theological revelation so far. Rather the movement and momentum reflected in the worship, in the gathering of our bodies and our attention has been to stories that reflect two elements of our faith (and not only two of course).
The stories and worship reflect a faith and a fellowship that can resist destructive powers. This gathering, this rhythm of worship vibrates in the frequency of peace and justice. Our time began with the indigenous of the area of Pennsylvania calling us to worship by calling attention to the Mennonite church’s complicity of dispossessing the people of this land and the need to work for reparation. Cesar Garcia of Colombia (General Secretary of MWC) told a story of his faith calling him, despite physical abuse, to refuse allegiance to his country and military commander because he could not fight for them. He encouraged the church to stay together because if you want to go fast, go alone but if you want to go far, go together.
The next morning I listened to a young third generation Christian woman from Ethiopia share her struggle with doubt. She had faced and wrestled with the question of whether her faith was simply the imposition of the colonizer. In the global south she was not immune to the changing worldviews and effects of postmodernism and the question of where Jesus’s lordship fits. She came committed to the church, but commited also to face her doubts. In a workshop I listened to a group celebrating their accomplishments as the Latin American Anabaptist Women Theologians who themselves were inspired by a similar earlier movement of African Anabaptist Women Theologians. This group began as a dream because at the time there was no place for them in the church at the time. The group works to directly address issues of violence and patriarchy as well nurture solidarity and support for each other.
The stories, songs and prayers reflected a history and a gathering with the resources to resist powers of violence in the name of the God of peace. This element of MWC deeply affirmed my connection and involvement with the Mennonite church.
But after just a day I can also see the conflicts and I experienced discouragement. I was part of informal conversations that made me cringe and shudder over the ongoing concerns I have about church practice and theology. I heard stories of the practice of converting Muslims in Indonesia that were shared with pride. Another from North America seemed to think we needed to be more evangelical, that this would bring the needed ‘persecuted’ if we bravely said the name of Jesus. In these and other conversations I am seeing that ‘mission’ is an expression born of and birthing conflict. This is my generous definition of mission because there is conflict when destructive powers are confronted for peace and justice and so if that is one’s ‘mission’ then yes conflict will follow and I want to support that. But much of the conflict I see seems born out of an abstracted notion of God’s calling and so much more is born out of ego and turf wars inside the church. Mission strikes me as an expression that will require much more attention in the future.
Then there was the conversation about the hundreds of congregations that have left Mennonite Church USA and the many more poised to do so. These churches would rather break fellowship than allow some congregations to affirm the testimony of faith of non-straight folk. Tangled into this conversation is the question of money and how institutions are necessarily at the whim of financial support even if it goes against the beliefs of those in leadership.
And so it goes, and I guess it could hardly have been otherwise (and there is probably someone somewhere writing a post criticizing all the things I find hopeful). I remain committed to the Mennonite Church because it is committed to the call of peace and justice. It understands these expressions as forms of worship. It is only in worship that a gathering of individuals can sense the rhythm, the Spirit, to sustain a movement. So let’s gather again tomorrow.
I enjoyed reading S. Sayyid’s Recalling the Caliphate and am following the current book event on it at AUFS. That said, I don’t really know how to enter into or better engage the thinking or implications of the book. While some of the critiques certainly register, I have only impressions of its possible impact. This could simply be for lack of understanding but I also wonder if I am simply not in a position to get what is going on here. In this way I was struck by what seemed to be a contrast in the conclusion of Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s recent book Heroes: Mass Murder and Suicide. In many ways this is a more intelligible account, a more Western account in which Beradi mounts a somewhat erratic but still convincing picture of the suicidal machine that is global semio-capitalism.
Both Berardi and Sayyid are working on global scales.
The caliphate is a polity which represents a global Muslim subjectivity. The caliphate is not merely an historical institution but rather an overdetermined ensemble around which questions of the governance of the ummah and the relationship between Muslim biographies and Islamicate histories are played out. The caliphate is a concentration of meanings about how the venture of Islam fits into the world. The ability of Muslims as a ‘collective will’ to make their own history, to project themselves into the future, to elaborate and enrich their sense of who they are and who they wish to be rests upon the possibility of the caliphate. (179)
This posture strikes me as very different from Berardi who wrote the book because he is looking for “for an ethical method of withdrawal from the present barbarism.” Is this a necessary move for westerners? Is this what is needed to then be able to properly see and support real forms of decolonization? Berardi does not think there is anything to do. His last chapter is ”What Should We Do When Nothing Can Be Done?” Berardi does not qualify this as a western posture and therefore negates Sayyid who appears to have something to do.
So what can be done when nothing can be done?
I think that ironic autonomy is the answer. I mean the contrary of participation, I mean the contrary of responsibility, I mean the contrary of faith. Politicians call on us to take part in their political concerns, economists call on us to be responsible, to work more, to go shopping, to stimulate the market. Priests call on us to have faith. If you follow these inveiglements to participate, to be responsible – you are trapped. Do not take part in the game, do not expect any solution from politics, do not be attached to things, do not hope.
Do not belong. Distinguish your destiny from the destiny of those who want to belong and to participate
and to pay their debt. If they want war, be a deserter. If they are enslaved but want you to suffer like them, do not give in to their blackmail.
You will die anyway; it is not particularly important when. What is important is how you live your life.
Finally, don’t take me too seriously. Don’t take too seriously my catastrophic premonitions. And in case it is difficult to follow these prescriptions, don’t take too seriously my prescriptions.
Irony is about the independence of mind from knowledge; it is about the excessive nature of the imagination.
There is a certain rhetorical flourish here that I take is supposed to jar or liberate(?) but it appears to work in contrast to Sayyid. What is at stake in the difference? Is Berardi simply unable to see and account for the possibilities of the caliphate as Sayyid expresses it? Is Berardi’s process necessary for such understanding?
I just wanted to register that contrast and my experience with Sayyid’s book to see if anyone else following the event had similar struggles.