Showing posts with label sacred. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sacred. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Sanctuary - Part II

There must, must be sustained commentary around the recent church shooting in Colorado. There is so much that is deeply disturbing about this issue. First and foremost in my mind is the presence of an armed security guard who killed the gunman. In one AP article this person "is hailed for saving countless lives in shooting a gunman outside her church". Her acts as saviour are recounted in several articles. This event has also fed into America's Homeland Defense Machine explored in another AP article. Here are a few excerpts.


Churches want to present an open and welcoming image, but in an era of mass-casualty shootings and terrorism threats, the violence at New Life highlights a new emphasis on security. Some of the nation's estimated 1,200 megachurches — places where more than 2,000 worshippers gather each week — have been quietly beefing up security in recent years, even using armed guards to protect the faithful.

Meanwhile, many more, often smaller congregations typically don't have detailed security plans because they don't have the money or don't want to risk turning people away.

At Potter's House, a Dallas megachurch led by star pastor T.D. Jakes, a private security company employs a team of armed, unarmed, uniformed and plainclothes guards that keep watch over crowds in the thousands. Under a new Texas law, all nonprofits must use licensed security guards, and the church hired Classic Security in response, said Sean Smith, who formerly led the church's security detail and now works for the company.

For the past three years, Potter's House has hosted a church security conference, drawing more than 400 people this year to sessions on surveillance, background checks and other issues. Although precautions can be costly, money spent on security can end up being far less than liability and lawsuit risks if no action is taken, the church says.

"You see (security) anywhere but churches," Smith said. "You see it in malls, at banks, at concerts. Somehow, at churches we feel immune to violence. But it's been proven not to be the case."

Even without a security department, churches can train volunteers to keep watch for suspicious behavior, such as a visitor dressed in a long coat in summer or not making eye contact with anyone, Smith said.

The security plan at New Life Church may seem extraordinary. The church's volunteer security force is stocked with people with military or law enforcement experience, they carry radios and weapons, and there are evacuation plan calls for hustling worshippers into "secure zones" in the case of emergencies.

I am not sure what is worse armed guards at churches or churches not having them because they don't want to turn people off. Are those the only two views? That churches are one of the only places where you don't see guards is a great opportunity to explore its unique social space but is here restricted to the idea that we are simply being naive. Where once we could perhaps look on "suspicious behaviour" as the context for witnessing to the grace offered in our faith it is now the criteria for confinement and judgment prior even to crime. And perhaps theologically most profound is the concept of moving people out of the sanctuary into "secure zones". That the space of communing with the One to whom is the "kingdom, the power and the glory" is less secure than that created by the boundaries of humans is cause for needed reflection.
Now this of course was no ordinary church under attack. This was the church founded by Ted Haggard. Hear some of the responses by church members and leaders.

"Even back then (when Haggard was pastor) we had people undercover in the congregation who were armed," Dodd said. "It was a big church at the time, it was Christian, and some people really hate that stuff.

"Not only do we have military and ex-military all over, we have this sort of frontier mentality. People around here are serious about protecting their own."

. . .

Assam, the security guard, had attended the church's early worship service at 9 a.m., then stood watch in the rotunda of as the second service was letting out.

There, she confronted the gunman, identified as 24-year-old Matthew Murray. Murray managed to two kill two sisters and wound their father and two others before he was killed. At a news conference Monday, Assam said that she prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide her, and that her hands never shook.

"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," Assam said.

Speaking of the church's security plan, Boyd said: "That's the reality of our world." He stressed that all armed guards are licensed and screened.

And with respect to the larger political response.

The Homeland Security Department created a grant program of nearly $50 million to improve security for religious and secular nonprofits considered at risk of terrorist attack.

Several groups have received individual grants, according to Homeland Security officials.

The Fellowship of the Woodlands megachurch in Texas employs a former FBI agent as a full-time security director, overseeing volunteers and paid staff, said pastor Kerry Shook. Those who are armed in the congregation are police officers, he said.

"It's something you just have to do today," said Shook, whose congregation draws 15,600 people per weekend. "We want everyone to feel safe. At the same time, we want to be open and accepting of everyone. An incident like this one in Colorado Springs just reinforces what the church is — we have to be a light in a dark world."

It is difficult to understand how you are being a light when you are simply producing the same reality as the culture around you unless of course you believe that your culture is the light of the world. And I do suppose this is the thinking here.

Read More...

Sanctuary - Part I

A great post over at I Cite articulates what I imagine many of us are feeling, especially at this time of year. Referring to a recent shooting at an Omaha mall this news article is quoted.

"Obviously, there is a period of time for mourning, a very appropriate time," Kavanagh said. "But . . . people have a connectivity to their center."

A person's favorite mall can be the site of first jobs and first dates, and it offers familiarity and comfort, Kavanagh said.

That makes something like Wednesday's shooting even more horrific, he said.

"It's sort of an invasion of a sanctuary in some terms. It will take time for some to go back, but others will go back immediately, almost in defiance of this individual."

Some morning radio deejays this week exhorted listeners to return to Westroads to shop as soon as it reopens.

I Cite comments,
The mall as violated sanctuary, the sacrosanct temple of consumption. This strikes me as infinitely more horrific than the fact that in a country unwilling to disallow weapons people sometimes shoot each other. The comfort of the mall? It sounds like a small town, but one without incest and abuse, alcoholism and suicide, lynchings and cross-burnings. Even the mall has its obscene supplement. But the shooter isn't it; the shooter is barely a symptom. Rather, the obscene supplement, what we have to suppress even to go in, is the truth that the people who make most of the products cannot buy them, that the people who provide most of the services cannot afford them, and that, really, we don't even want them. We go because it's all we know to do; it's the only sanctuary left. All those other sites we've imagined have lost their appeal.

It is the final comment that cuts deeply in my thinking. We go because it's all we know to do; it's the only sanctuary left. There remains few social activities that are not based in some form of economic consumption. The sanctuary in the Old Testament was based in the centrality of a generative presence and I see this connected to Mall as Sanctuary at least in the basic hopes of what consumption will offer.

Read More...

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Further Thoughts on Immanence in Response

In the world of high-stakes blogging there are the quick and the dead. I am amazed at the speed and depth of post discussions that I have come across. I am beginning to realize that much of what is written feeds directly into or out of published or taught material. I thought I would pace myself and respond to helpful comments directed towards my questions and observations. The firs series of responses comes from the discussion that I directed you to earlier (see here).

Following this I will address the comments made directly in the below post.


The first quote is from Larval Subjects who responded sharply to my thoughts that perhaps notions of the sacred (or at least theologically sensitive aesthetics) may be helpful navigating some the issues being raised.
LS responded by saying that,

Philosophy has abdicated itself when it follows this path [of assuming or requiring transcendence] or ends up in a pious crypto-theology suitable to the needs of priests, despots, and demagogues– immanence, which is philosophy’s vocation since Thales’ declaration that the world is sufficient to itself, requiring no mythological explanation or transcendent beyond, always rejecting any sort of obfuscatory and hypnotic sacred.


I find it difficult to respond to this quote. I also find it hard to be defensible. Either position (assuming or defending either immanence or transcendence) desires a superior perspective; an ability to see behind the assumptions of the other. I will leave further commentary until later.


In a number of respects, I draw my distinction between theology and philosophy from Jean-Luc Marion who rigorously tries to define the limit of philosophy. I differ from Marion in holding that theologies that posit transcendence ought to be left behind. I read the history of philosophy as the history of attempts to think immanence. These attempts can be deployed in a variety of ways, can be more or less successful, and the question of whether or not immanence has ever been fully thought is entirely open. By immanence I understand the thesis that we don’t need to refer to anything beyond, or to any intervention outside the world, to explain the world or to account for value. Consequently, when Thales says “all is water”, he is appealing to a principle of explanation that is strictly immanent to the world and is breaking with mythos or narrative explanations of the world such as those found in Greek mythology.


LS desires to discard reference to anything "beyond" the world. This is a very problematic statement. Again, I can't help notice such a position assuming an indefensible perspective; a seeing of the other side of immanence. I appreciate the example of Thales saying that "all is water". But is the Christian doctrine "God is love" any less a statement of immanence? Or conversely is water the "strictly immanent" principle LS takes it to be? Certainly the use of "water" as ontologically basic differs from speaking of there being "turtles all the way down" though perhaps not by much.
What I hope to clarify in my own articulation is that my using words such as transcendence and sacred are not to be pictured as portals to another dimension. Though I do not have a clear concept of a personal God I also do not consider God and spirit to be somehow "outside" of reality. Speaking of the sacred refers to the relational nature of truth and our inability to control or manipulate it. Transcendence refers to the movements and possibilities of "presence". We are boundaried people but that does not exclude the possibility of communion (and also the transgression of boundary).
What I am wondering is if LS's notion of immanence requires "truth" to always be clean, clinical and reproducible. To be scientific in the most modern sense of the word. I would find this much more frightening that the subscription to fairies and goblins as clinical dissection always requires the death or manipulation of the object and not a relationship with her.

Stay tuned LS had much more to say on the matter.

Read More...

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Transcedence, Immanence and the Sacred

Much of my thinking and reading lately has come to a head over the issue of immanence and transcendence. In recent blogosphere ventures I encountered several posts on the issue (Larval Subjects here and here, Rough Theory, Transcendental Enquiries). There is understandable criticism over forms of transcendence which need to appeal to something outside in order to explain things or solve things. This of course is the common domain of much religious expression as well as Hollywood plot making where a miraculous visitor or event intervenes to change the course of someone’s life. This is part of the overall criticism of the weakness of religion, religion as a crutch.

My interest in transcendence does not grow out of a need to appeal to something beyond what we can see, experience or explain. However, I also do not assume that humans have the resources or senses to bring all of reality under a loosely scientific model of inquiry and explanation. That may lead some to view my thinking or theory as weak. I am beginning to understand that what I am concerned with is the relational aspect of reality. To paraphrase Nietzsche, “Suppose truth was a relationship – what then?” This is definitely a structural approach to reality. Meaning arises in contextual relationships.

I am however not satisfied with the view that this leads to an evasion of meaning, that meaning is endlessly deferred. This is I suppose where people explicitly or implicitly appeal to a transcendent source to stabilize or deliver meaning. This is where I begin to move towards what may be viewed as an incarnational (any other terms available?) view of reality. What I mean by this is that all of reality, reality as such, has its being (ontology) in a certain potential which as of yet has not bowed and submitted to human colonization. This is where the poetic and aesthetic become most helpful. The poetic respects the possibility of reality. My guiding quote in the header is becoming more and more significant for my thought, “There is another world, and it is the same as this one.” Beauty has not yielded her secrets but she still invites. This is not some plea for something “outside” to clarify or correct. This is the eternal task of relationship, of taking ourselves out of a perceived centre and hovering around the sacred absence necessary for relationship. This in turn leaves not a deferral of meaning but honouring its abundance.

Criticize where necessary. This is certainly a work in progress.

Read More...

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Rilke - Letter 3: Part II

Rilke offers interesting commentary on art, sexuality and gender. Though many comparisons exist between the birthing process of human life and of art Rilke encourages further that the artist offer the truly human in the artistic process. In this letter Rilke refers to the poet Richard Dehmel as one who writes in heat. He acknowledges that such writing indeed moves him, that Dehmel’s “poetic power is great, strong as a primitive instinct; it has its own unyielding rhythms in itself and breaks out of him as out of mountains.” But he continues to say that, “this power is not always honest.” Rilke claims that Dehmel’s artistic urge as “it comes to the sexual” does not find a “clean” sex world, that is it is not sufficiently human.

“[It] is only male, is heat, intoxication and restlessness, and laden with the old prejudices and arrogances with which man has disfigured and burdened love. Because he loves as man only, not as human being, for this reason there is in his sexual feeling something narrow, seeming wild, spiteful, time-bound, uneternal, that diminishes his art and makes it ambiguous and doubtful. It is not immaculate, it is marked by time and by passion, and little of it will survive and endure. (But most art is like that!) Nevertheless one may deeply rejoice in what there is of greatness in it, only one must not lost oneself in it.”

In the realm of art and beauty categories of male and female carry significant currency. In earlier posts I reflected on the role the feminine womb or interior played in spiritual formation. Here Rilke warns of the heat and restlessness of the masculine. It is receiving the artistic urge “in community,” in the “clean” sex world of the human that abiding beauty emerges. I am intrigued by Rilke’s notion of a “clean sex world”. This image both evokes and distances itself from cultic representations of the sacred in the Hebrew Bible. Having sex rendered one ceremonially unclean and required a distancing from the holiness of God. However, the union between God and humanity is often rendered in sexual terms. As with Rilke this too is conceived of as a (ceremonially) “clean sex world”. In the New Testament this would be expressed with the image of “the pure spotless bride”. In the Bible as with Rilke this union emerges only in trust and humility. In the Bible this is conceived in the act and life of worship for Rilke this is conceived in the space within and beyond ourselves (trust), “in the dark, in the inexpressible, the unconscious, beyond the reach of one’s own intelligence.” In this space the artist is called to “await with deep humility and patience the birth-hour of a new clarity.”

Read More...