What Did I Do?

I am not entirely sure what I started here (as you could tell from my comment in the previous post).  I started with asking the question regarding Jesus' intent in giving the Sermon on the Mount (or Matthew's . . . whatever).  I do not want to lose sight of the fact that there is an establishing of authority here.  And that from this Jesus is clarifying the authority of life and the authority of death.  I assumed that this meant that part of the intent was to create a crisis between the two authorities/economies.  From this I broadened the question to ask whether not natural/political occurences also speak of this crisis.  I felt that this was most certainly the case for Isaiah and the Gospels too I should add have the natural and political order shake at the resurrection and apocalypse.  So from here I hoped to move to the contemporary.  Now I would like to keep in mind the stimulating conversation on demythologization over at The Fire and the Rose.  Is the natural order any longer connected to the Word of God and further, to what is the Word of God connected?  The social practices of the church?  The sacramental practices of the church?  The preaching and hearing of the Bible?  The expressions of the Good, True and Beautiful in the world wherever they may be?  Does all of reality carry the potential of hearing the Word?  Is serenity as much a medium as crisis?  In the discussion below I moved quickly to the extreme of the Holocaust.  The other move I suppose is to 9/11.  This event has significant markings of a prophetic/apocalyptic event.  Punks and gangsters sang about 'dropping bombs'

 

but then some guys came along and dropped bombs not in strategic empirical move nor in random desperate move but in a symbolic move.  An Abomination that causes Desolation.  If we can assume that there is an overlay of the Economy of God and the Economy of the World then to what extent to these orders run parallel and to what extent do they rupture and hemorrhage?  Would subscribing to a Bultmannian view of demythology mean that there is no overlay and they there is only surface or perhaps a palimpsest of interpretation and translation?  This would mean that all of existence is interpreted within the kernel of truth that is Gospel, right?  I can't really follow that path.  But I suppose prophecy only becomes canonized after the event and perhaps after the community has discerned the event.

I understand that my thinking is not getting much clearer but I hope (at lest for my own sake) that continuing this monologue will help either develop my thinking or expose its absurdity. The question again is whether God acts in nature/social order with the purpose of creating crisis.  My gut response is still to say yes, yes, yes.  And then to say that this has nothing (necessarily) to do with condemning or justifying people's actions within that economy.  It is only to say that there are multiple economies that at times run contrary to one another.  Sometimes our actions create ruptures and other times we are caught in something larger than our personal actions.  Does this make any sense?

Read More...

Summary only...

Mark Driscoll Kicks his Own Ass

Lord have mercy (or not)

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/driscoll-kicks-own-ass?page=1

In Houston, Driscoll was intent on making absolutely clear that he is in favor of masculinity. At the 2 hour, 15 minute mark, he invited five pastors from the audience to take the stage, put his hands behind his back, stuck out his chin, and said, “Hit me with your best shot. Go on. I won’t hit you back. I want to show everyone what this is all about.” When none of the five took a swing, Driscoll had them escorted from the building and proceeded to hit himself five times.

“This is what being a pastor is about, guys. If you can’t handle it, go back to teaching yoga or playing My Little Pony with the other girls.”

PS Geez, He really is becoming his own punching bag!

Read More...

Summary only...

God Did It

At a Christmas party this past December I was in a friendly conversation in which I was asked what I hoped to achieve or accomplish in my sermons. I talked a little about how at the very least I hoped the congregation could actually learn something about themselves, God or the world. I talked a little about my hope that the sermon contributed broadly to a person's overall spiritual formation. Then today I preached partially on Jesus's command to store up treasures in heaven. This passage of course is found in The Sermon on Mount. As I prepared for this message I began to ask myself what Jesus possibly could have hoped to 'accomplish' in his sermon. Before I could to anything very relevant I felt as though Jesus was first of all establishing his authority. Going up the side of the hill evokes images of Moses ascending Mt. Sinai to receive God's instruction. The imagery in Matthew is complete with a tiered ascenscion with Jesus at the top, the disciples in front of him, at the crowds in background (at Sinai the 70 elders ascended partway while the rest remained at the foot of the mountain). Jesus acknowledges the law but places under his authority. Following this I wondered whether Jesus hoped to create a crisis for the people. The sermon runs along in dialectical fashion always exposes the audience to the appeals of two authorities from which they must live.
I shared some this in the sermon and then in the adult educaton time afterwards we talked a little about the message. I asked the group about my suggestion that perhaps Jesus was trying to create a crisis in his audience. There was some general agreement to this idea but then the conversation quickly turned to whether or not God wills or creates 'crisis' in people's lives. To this we could not of course agree. God does not creates crises, right, though he seemed to be doing in so in his message.
Is this the difference between natural theology and dogmatic theology? Does natural revelation function in the same manner as special revelation. It did for Isaiah. And today I would argue that at the very least natural (and manmade) crises are in fact revelatory. Crises expose false foundations and de-centre our lives. The expose the spirit of a person or community.
Is it so horrible to say that indeed God caused perhaps even that God sent that crisis? Why does this have to then be equated with retribution for sin? Most often what a crisis reveals today is not the sin of those who suffered but of the ones who ordered things so that those might suffer. The connection of God with natural events carries a whole host of unhelpful associations. I am asking honestly, is it so horrible to say that God causes all or particular (I am not sure what is more helpful) crises? Is it possible to say that in a manner that then allows us then to appropriately discern and respond to the revelation latent within that event?

Read More...

Summary only...

Thanks for the Thankless

Here is a thank-you to all the devoted bloggers out there. I began blogging first to keep in touch and discussion with my peers from college. Then I blogged to work out some of my thinking. Now I rarely blog well or with any insight but I continue to read blogs. I am no longer surrounded by an academic community. I am no longer guided or challenged in my thinking or my reading. So I look to you faithful bloggers for my inspiration for my window into contemporary theology and social theory. Without you I would flounder in my work-a-day world peering through the single-pane window of popular thought. Because of you I remember that critical thought (can) shape practical worlds. Because of you I remember that the church is more than a western hobby. So I thank-you for the thankless pathology-filled task of sending posts into the void of cyberspace for I pilgrim there seeking outposts and sanctuaries, prophets, sages and scoundrels.
So,
Thank-you Jodi for wrestling with social order and showing your scars.
Thank-you Dan for challening us and challening yourself.
Thank-you Levi for bringing contemporary metaphysics to the masses.
Thank-you Richard for opening the lens of pyschology for us to view theology.
Thank-you David for breathing life into the misunderstood field of systematic theology.
Thank-you Adam for swimming upstream in contemporary theology.
And thank-you Ben for bringing credibility to theological blogging.

There is much to criticize in the world of web 2.0 but I will stand as a witness of one who has been at least to some degree educated by this so-called democratic platform of knowledge. So keep it up. Unless of course you can get paid to do something else!

Your faithful and fellow blogger,
David CL Driedger

Read More...

Summary only...

You Cannot Shrink Everything

I wonder if at some point people will be begin the calm and honest discussion of how if young women in Hollywood continue to get anymore skinny their heads will continue to look more and more monstrous. You cannot shrink everything. I know this is not a new problem but my wife and I just got through reliving Beverly Hills 90210 when we heard about the new series and well to whatever shame their might be we enjoy it. However most of their heads seem just a little silly. Anorexic Kelly in the original would come off as bloated in the new generation. Is it just me or does it just start to look bad at some point?

Read More...

Summary only...

Finds

I am almost always impressed with the book selection in my town's thrift store.  I addition to picking up a spare Greek New Testament I also found an excellent condition copy of Walter Benjamin's Illuminations for $2.  Here is a quote from the first essay titled, "Unpacking My Library: A Talk about Book Collecting."

Of all the ways of acquiring books writing them oneself is regarded as the most praiseworthy method.  At this point many of you will remember with pleasure the large library which Jean Paul’s poor little schoolmaster Wutz gradually acquired by writing, himself, all the works whose titles interested him in bookfair catalogues; after all, he could not afford to buy them. Writers are really people who write books not because they are poor, but because they are dissatisfied with the books which they could buy but do not like.

 This is great support for my rationale of why I have written any good fiction.  Its because I still find too many great works out there to read! (it helps me sleep better at night)

Read More...

Summary only...

A Review of Tripp York's The Politics of Martyrdom

The first volume of the polyglossia series provided me with a wonderful reentry into Mennonite theology. Volume Two was not a bad follow up . . . (thanks to Canadian Mennonite for the review copy)
In The Purple Crown: The Politics of Martyrdom Tripp York offers commentary on the social and ecclesial implications and meanings of dying for one’s faith. Perhaps more importantly for us York demonstrates how the possibility of martyrdom is tied up in the basic practices of the church which are inherently social and political. Martyrdom is not reserved for the super-human Christians but Christians are made able to become martyrs as the journey down the path of Christian practice and worship.
In the first chapter York lays out the fundamental themes of his book. By looking at the early church York demonstrates that martyrdom is public act. This act can be understood as a contest and a testimony. Often times potential martyrs were brought into the coliseum for public display to see if individuals would recant or at least break down and plead for mercy. Many of the early Christians did not see the contest as being between them and the wild beasts that they faced or even against an emperor. Rather the Christian “provided a vision of the actual celestial battle taking place between Christ and Satan” (35). The martyr’s life was taken up into the cosmic battles between good and evil. This understanding was possible because not only was the death of the martyr important but so was their life. Martyrdom was not possible because of a sudden burst of spiritual strength and resolve but because of the daily and nourishment of the church life. Martyrs are an example to us as much in their life as in their death.
After establishing his basic themes York goes on in chapter two to explore the Christian’s physical body as the field of conflict between faithful and unfaithful expressions. York then moves to the sixteenth-century in chapter three which is a move from pagans killing Christians to Christians killing Christians and the tension over who is a martyr and who is just a criminal. In chapter four York addresses the particular type of politics that the martyr’s demonstrate. Finally in chapter five York explores the life and message of Oscar Romero as a contemporary example of the politics of martyrdom. While the final chapter can be viewed as the ‘practical’ expression of York’s historical and theological accounts in the earlier chapters it would a mistake to do so missing the pervasive and persistent pleas to his readers throughout the book.
Chapter two, Body: The Field of Combat, demonstrates the sensual and bodily nature of early Christian spirituality. York is clear that the early martyr accounts view the spiritual battle waged by Christ as happening on the plane of the bodies of the faithful. Throughout this chapter York is asking the contemporary church to consider how it handles the bodies of its members through life and worship because for him the possible political significance of the church hangs in these practices.
Chapter three, Performance: The Sixteenth Century Debacle, attempts to walk the line between a Christian being persecuted or being prosecuted. After Constantine and into the Reformation church practices and beliefs were ecclesially but politically. Beliefs about baptism and communion were matters of life and death. And so to die a martyr or to be executed a criminal was a matter of doctrine. From this situation York asks the contemporary question of truth and its relations to doctrine and denomination. Is it possible that both the Catholic and Anabaptist church were faithful to Christ in the midst of its persecution and prosecution?
Chapter four, City: Enduring Enoch, attempts to flesh out some of the implications of his study. He frames the post-Reformation relationship between the church and state as own of the state’s perverse parody of the church establishing its presence as body with its own story of salvation. York then describes the church not simply as an alternative to the state but rather as preceding the state founded and nourished by the body of Christ. The church functions as a city that overcomes the world’s boundaries of space and time allowing fluid participation of people across borders and eras.
After exploring the life of Oscar Romero in chapter five as an example of some of what he has been trying York concludes by offering the Eucharist as the centre and source of the vision we are given from the martyrs and then reminds us that the martyrs are important because they point to Christ which is to be the aim of any faithful expression.
York takes some very large strides in this book moving across disciplines, eras, denominations, and continents. While this has surely limited York’s ability to flesh out any one aspect thoroughly I would rather view the entire book as a type of introduction that is calling for the church to continue to recover and enact the resources that are offered to us here. In presenting to us the martyrs York offered no militant call to heroic and dynamic exploits. Instead York followed the arc back from their deaths into their lives and pointed us to the daily practices that shape a world without end.

Read More...

Summary only...

Come All Ye Faithful

If there is one thing that I have been impressed with in preparing for sermons these days it has been in noticing the centrality of worship in the biblical witness.  This should of course go without saying and yet I don't think we reflect the biblical concern.  First it was returning to the prophets and before I listened to Isaiah's concern for social injustices I allowed myself to hear how this judgment is rooted in faithful worship or what had turned into unfaithful worship (Isaiah 1).  Then in Advent I reflected on the visit of the angel Gabriel to Mary.  I took note for the first time that Gabriel is only mentioned in the book of Daniel in the Old Testament and there Gabriel brings a political vision of the end of the world.  This vision came in the context of Daniel's prayer.  In Luke both Gabriel's message and Mary's response are steeped in Old Testament imagery.  The imagery is political but also liturgical.  There appears to be an integration of worship and politics that we (Mennonites) still do not yet fully understand (well I will speak for myself).  We say that worship and work are one but I am not sure that is helpful.  There is only worship.  There is only liturgy, whether it is to a true or a false god.

Now I am in the midst of preparing a message for Epiphany, the visitation of the Magi.  The Magi bring gifts of gold, incense and myrrh.  This gift giving is set in the larger context again of the Old Testament where the nations will come and bring their wealth to the house of God.  This imagery always disturbed me.  I never felt comfortable thinking that this vision was one of increasing power through the means of earthly wealth.  It did not fit with the experience of the Second Temple Israelites and certainly it did not fit with the ministry of Jesus.  I decided, however, do perform a simply search of 'gold', frankincense' and 'myrrh'.  What I found was that all of these materials are used predominantly if not exclusively for the purposes of worship, particularly in the Temple and Tabernacle.  Even gold's use as a measure of monetary worth is far and away overshadowed by use in worship.  Worship and work are not one.  There is only worship.  The nations who come with their treasures do so to join in the song.  This too is the vision of Revelation.  God's Kingdom is restored as a liturgical community.  It is from this place that peace and justice will be restored.  It is to this end that we must re-conceive both worship and work.  The center of our worshipping community has been born.  Come all ye faithful.  Come let us adorn him.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Note on Notes From The Underground

And then I read the line, “So this is it – this is it at last – a head-on clash with real life!” This was spoken by the Underground Man of Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground. Having worked through his major and late novels I have been enjoying his earlier shorter works. This is where you see his ideas take a cruder form. It is here that you listen to his dress rehearsals and confirm you inklings about his vision. Dostoevsky will make any turn necessary so that there will be a possibility for the real. The Underground Man both despises and feels despised by his anonymous audience. He attempts to recount his life with brutal honesty which means being honestly deceptive at times. He throws any notion of consistency out into the street for it is being tossed on your head into the street that one might actually learn something about one’s self. The Underground Man concludes spitefully that he was sorry for ever starting this account of his life recognizing that is was a pursuit in vanity and has move away from literature. For, “[a] novel must have a hero, and here I seemed to have deliberately gathered together all the characteristics of an anti-hero, and, above all, all this is certain to produce a most unpleasant impression because we have all lost touch with life, we are all cripples, every one of us – more or less.” He goes to tell us that because of our disability with are left with a disgust for any encounter, any taste with ‘real life.’ In response to any rejections his audience might raise for this view the writer continues by saying that, “for my part, I have merely carried to extremes in my life what you have not dared to carry even half-way, and, in addition, you have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourselves.” And even after this the Underground Man is not finished.

My opening quotation came about half-way through this short story and immediately guided me the rest of the way. It has crystallized for me what is clear to all of us. As humans we act out and articulate the desire for something ‘real’. I don’t think we do this for all of our life. Realness in childhood is knowing that the world is more than it is. Realness is creative and unstable. Realness becomes in young adulthood more concrete as we begin to pursue tangible goals in love and vocation. Because the real was always more and bigger than ourselves it was never captured or tamed and so in time most of us began to simply give up on the real and sought the comfortable and stable. And so from below the order streets and time-conscious pedestrians the Underground Man emerges not with a challenge but with an assertion and a condemnation. I have followed through and looked around the corners of the dark corridors of the real. I have said yes to all of life. The pitch of the Underground Man rises in its crescendo. In deceiving yourselves “as a matter fact, I seem to be much alive than you. Come, look into it more closely! Why, we do not even know where we are to find real life, or what it is, or what it is called. . . . We even find it hard to be men, men of real flesh and blood, our own flesh and blood. We are ashamed of it. We think it a disgrace.” The Underground Man includes himself in this condemnation.

This short piece also confirmed for me the thought that the dominant two forms of pursuing the real for men are sex and violence. The slogan for The Ultimate Fighting Championship is As Real as it Gets. In these matches two hyper-masculine men enter an intimate and solitary space where they touch and embrace, sweat and grown moving from one position to another until there is climax and exhaustion. There is an overt sexuality to this expression that dangles right in front of the aroused spectator but remains unnamed. Conversely of course sexuality remains the oldest field of battle for position and dominance. And the vast majority do not even go so far as engaging in these expressions but rather we remain passive, insulated observers allowing the barest union between what is happening in front of us and what we are experiencing. These are the only two plotlines in Notes. First it is the author’s confrontation (verging on physical) with his peers. The second is with a woman he meets a hotel where he hopes to confront the men he spoke of the first half of the work. So it would seem that Dostoevsky also acknowledges these two paths of the real for men. I would argue, however, that the difference is Dostoevsky’s willingness to wrestle internally and then to vulnerably articulate externally. It is in his process where there is the possibility of ‘real life’ and not in the story itself. The Underground Man himself warns of the comfort we find living by the ‘book’ (we could substitute television now). Do not assume that this story itself will be of any aid to you. It is simply an account, a testimony, of one who wrestled.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Celebration of the Culture Industry

In Adorno and Horkheimer's The Dialectic of Enlightenment we come across a rant of the poverty of western arts seeing as they have become consumed in the larger culture industry.  With the rise of the techonological rationale comes the homogenization of expression (in its mass production).  All expressions despite input, varying budgets, and plots all come to the same end.  With regard to television they write, "Televison aims at the synethesis of radio and film, and is held up only because interested partes have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverisment of aesthetic matter so drastically, taht by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out into the open, derisively fulfilling the Wangerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk - the fusion of all arts in one work."  Then referring to producers they go on to say that, "Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically recurrent and rigidly invariable types, but teh specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from them and only appears to change.  The details are interchangeable.  The short interval sequence which was effective in a hit song, the hero's momentary fall from grace, the rough treatment which the beloved gets from the male star, the latter's rugid defiance of the spoilt heiress, are, like all th other details, ready-made cliches to be slotted in anywhere; they do anything more than fulfill the purpose allotted them in the overall plan."
In a response to Ben's 10 Theological Theses on Art poserorprophet (p.o.p.) offered an alternative 10 theses based primarly on the work of Adorno. p.o.p. questioned aesthetic form and expression in the west because of its implication in the larger system of death.  I appreciated his rigorous response but in the end I felt that they first of all were not really alternative theses at all but instead placed a kind of control on beauty which is simply not appropriate.  p.o.p. ended up affirming though limiting much of what Ben was getting at, I think but on his own terms.  The trajectory of the Messiah is indeed towards the cross and much of (and perhaps most of) the beauty in this world is born of suffering.  Above this though the trajectory of Christ is one of freedom, the most truly free life.  I do not see p.o.p.'s articulation allowing for both the judgment and freedom of Christ.
This was actually not meant to be a very theological post.  I just wanted to set up the following videos by Girl Talk.  Adorno and Horkheimer expose the monolithicity of western art and Girl Talk seems to celebrate it.  If indeed all songs are the same and the details interchangeable then Girl Talk may herald the end of the world bringing them all together in one apocalyptic anthem.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Now Former Leader of Our Opposition Party in Canada - Wow

Read More...

Summary only...

Response to Zizek Review

A great response to the buzz around TNR's review of Zizek.

Read More...

Summary only...

We Shopped Till He Dropped

Did we know it would only be a matter of time? Were we aware that possible escalation had no real check? Did the legion of reality TV shows, sporting events, and corporate ladders instill in us an instinct for conquering? There can be only one! This weekend CNN announced the 'hero of the year'. There could be no community of heroes, no spirit and discipline of heroism. There could be only the 1 million dollar hero. But yesterday the weight of this culture crushed Jdimytai Damour. The 5am sales blitz at Wal-Mart corralled desperate shoppers for over 24hrs until the first crack in the dam opened at which time they flooded through the gates and poured over and killed the temp employee Damour who was brought in for the holiday season.

Lord have mercy. Lord have justice.

Yesterday was also Buy Nothing Day. I am standing on the sidelines.

Read More...

Summary only...

Whos Who?

Who is Brueggemann and who is Hauerwas? Is it just me or do I think all old people look alike?

Read More...

Summary only...

"I Am an Arena of Contestation"

Just sort of stumbled across this. I only watched the first five minutes but I thought it was great Brueggemann (especially the part around 5:00 where he starts banging his head calling himself 'shit') . . . wonder if he got invited back to the 'emergent' events?
(Oh geez I didn't notice him drop the 'n' bomb either!)

Read More...

Summary only...

Serious Business

A Christian life is not child's play.
- Hans Schlaffer 1528 (Early Anabaptist)

Read More...

Summary only...

Lame-O

Now I am no longer a huge hockey fan but as a Canadian I feel some responsibility over the new anthem that the CBC will be adopting. The original is of course awesome and has served its purpose. It seems the two finalist are lame second-best attempts to have something similar . . . though much, much lamer. Here are the two finalists.
Sticks to the Ice
Canadian Gold

Read More...

Summary only...

On My Own

Well Chantal is off to Thailand for a few weeks. I view myself as a bit of a loner and so I was actually looking forward to some time on my own but as I soon as I got home from the airport the house felt so empty. I guess I am a bit of a suck. Just sitting at home listening to some good lonely music. If any of you have never heard of the fabulous Winnipeg band The Weakerthans then listen up,

Sorry for not posting as much. I have been working on more not-for-public-consumption pieces which have been rewarding but I am sure I will surface here again some time soon.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Saddest Story . . . Ever

Do you remember when you first started writing stories? The story would inevitably begin with a title and 'Chapter One'. Yesterday I was looking in our junior church library for a children's book to read on Sunday. After finding it I opened it only to find a page on which a kid had started a story. The illustration occupied primary place with a horizon dotted with mountain peaks and the most pressing image being a mountain on which a small dog appeared to be climbing. The mountain was imposing with its peak nowhere to be seen as its side was near vertical stretching beyond the limits of the page, it was also snowing. At the top of the page a few lines were written,

Chapter One: The Lost Puppy

Once upon a time a puppy was looking for a home and a name. But nobody wanted him.

Ouch. It made me almost want to cry . . . seriously. It reminded me of an 'at-risk' youth a worked with who was just beginning to learn how to read and write. He would spend time writing and illustrating in his journal. I can vaguely remember him writing thinly veiled allegories about a puppy who seemed to be having some similar struggles as he was. I am not saying that the person who wrote the above story was somehow personally in crisis, only that some of the primary concepts of love, value, and security and instilled and understood at such a young age.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cracking the Cavey Code

I sent my review of The End of Religion to the author Bruxy Cavey and received a prompt and detailed response. I thought it would be helpful working through those points before shipping the Review off to Canadian Mennonite.

Cavey begins with the most important response stating,

I believe that understanding the target audience for my book helps clarify many things, which you have not mentioned in your review. The End of Religion is written primarily to non-Christians who could be described as religion drop-outs - people who are open to "faith" (whatever they mean by that), but would tell you (often in impassioned and colourful language) that they have a negative take on organized "religion". From that starting point I want to engage these readers in a "from here to there" journey toward the biblical Jesus and New Testament community. I believe I state this clearly at the start of the book and follow this approach throughout. . . .

So this book is my attempt to describe the biblical gospel in language these people might have ears to hear. If I were writing a book to a primarily Christian audience my approach may be very different. I see the approach I take in The End of Religion as comparable to the Apostle Paul's communication style in Acts 17, communicating the message of Jesus in words and images that beckons his pagan audience to go further in their investigation of Christ. No doubt he would phrase his teaching very differently if he were writing to a Christian audience (for instance, the New Testament demonstrates that Paul is not in the habit of quoting pagan sources in place of Scripture and calling all people, whether believer or not, "God's children").

I trust that if you read The End of Religion keeping in mind that you are eavesdropping on a conversation between me and a specific target reader - one who comes to the table with baggage that they need help putting down - it will go a long way to clarifying why I take the approach I take and emphasise the things I do.

The claim is that because Cavey is writing to a non-Christian audience the approach will be different. As I mentioned in my review I get the impression that for Cavey 'Christians' are stuffy old fuddy-duddies blinded by the lure tradition. But to these people I suspect he would want to bring the same message. In addition the lecture I heard at a Christian event ten years was also in the same medium. Perhaps he was unconcerned with those who already had a meaningful religious expression. I agree that when I teach Sunday School for 10 year olds and when I prepare a college lecture I will be using a different vocabularly and syntax. In the case of Cavey however, I see his medium and message so intricately tied together that I am not convinced he is interested in articulating the Gospel in any other way (though I have not heard his church teaching), which of course is fine only that his comment does not apply to my criticisms. I guess I am simply not sure why this would not be the same message preached to the church, because according to the book, the church sure needs it!

In my review I viewed Cavey's work as inappropriately seperating himself from church history. In response he says that he is interested in responding to the cynic who stumbles over the atrocities that the church has perpetrated and that he does acknowledge "that Christians are responsible for many wonderful examples of charity and benevolence through the centuries. But these positive examples cannot nor should not undo the repulsive effects of the judgmental bigotry and horrific violence that permeates church history" (58). It is fine to have that caveat but then it would be important to state that the chapter is dealing with a particular aspect of church history, as opposed to a near blanket statement. And this chapter would then be even more palatable if there were any sense that Cavey was interested in drawing from the wells of church history (other than the quotes that preface some of the chapters). The way Cavey overcomes the challenge of church history is seperate himself from it. My concern is that if the reader accepts Cavey's basic positions how could they then not also be swayed into thinking that Cavey's expression of irreligion is the climax (or return) of true Christian spirituality. Cavey explicitly acknowledges that his work is within the stream of evangelical/Anabaptist. I suppose it is the tendency of working within this stream to not elevate the role of church history and tradition. This, however, makes it no less of historical religious expression.

In my review I stated that Cavey's book led towards an individualistic 'me and Jesus' view of spirituality. Cavey responded by saying that in the end of the book the final thing the reader is encouraged to do is seek out intentional community (230). In reviewing the book I can more understand the role he gives for the community of believers. For instance baptism is a sign of the iniatition into a community and not just a personal experience of forgiveness. Communion, however, appears to have a much lower view of community. There is neither the act of economic distribution emphasized in Anbaptism nor the communal formation emphasized in more mainline traditions. It is rather a replacement of the the sacrifice for the individuals forgiveness. I understand that Cavey emphasizes the need for community I just find it in the end subordinated to the role of the individual in his overall work.

Finally, Cavey feels as though I have misunderstood and so misrepresented his intention for 'organized irreligion' which is what he sees as the natural expression flowing from the Gospel. I appreciate that his book is an attempt at helping people to take the next (or first) step in their faith. And I was almost ready to admit that I was in fact very wrong in how I understood his intention but then he made this strange statement, "I can only leave you to draw your own conclusion about the theology of The End of Religion, and certainly no human effort to communicate the gospel of Jesus is necessary. God doesn't need us - we need him." This I assume is in response to my statement that indeed we need to rely on the things Cavey rejects because they are the realities of life. Indeed they are God's medium as God was the one who came as the word. This is I suppose what I can't get around. All of these things, all of these things of faith are ultimately wedded in the material world. I never said God needed us and yes we need God, we need all that God offers us.

Cavey asks in his book that I do not get caught up in semantics. That I look to the essence of his message. But semantics are indeed part of the message. Yes many have come and found this message attractive (and I find hard to argue with a transformed life) and many others have found their way out the backdoor of similar 'emergent' expressions. So as Cavey asks in his book, So What? I suppose each should be convinced in their own minds and may any friction add to a fire that warms, illuminates, and purges.

Read More...

Summary only...