Quiet...not really

It's just the blog. I've been really busy, but good busy these days. I have about 2 weeks before my first paper (AAR regionals) and May is simply going to be insane. I'll try and blog when I can, I really want to work on the Marriage series, but time is my problem.

Songs of Worship

We had Sean and Aimee Dayton come share a night of worship singing with us. It was really nice. We had the two of them for dinner and got to hear their hearts. I think their church is really blessed to have them leading the worship in song. I've been thinking a bit about songs recently. Frost, in his terrific book "Exiles", goes on a bit of a rant against the content of modern worship songs. In some ways I completely agree that our songs need to help us imagine a better world - a world of justice. But I'm also torn because for me part of that vision of justice includes a restoration of that relationship with God and a heartfelt response of love towards the one who first loved us. I find that this is a fine line though. When worship songs idolize the personal, as if Jesus were some sort of boyfriend - well that misses it. That makes it too easy for us to stick our heads up our arses, thinking that this all revolves around us. It does not. I don't buy the platitude that if we were the only person Jesus would has died for me - I don't need that kinda self-importance to recognize the utter privilege of Christ's redemptive act on the cross. If it is about anyone it has to be about Jesus. Yet, there is still an intimacy I don't think we should give up. Here is the hard balance I'm looking for.

For me worship, intimate worship in song, has been profoundly liberating. It opens me up to trusting, surrendering myself to God and God's plans for my life. It is a gateway to something bigger. Here is where I think Frost's critique really makes sense - at this point it should help us imagine something bigger. Worship songs should lead us somewhere. If all they do is let us get lost in warm fuzzy feelings I think we are missing a whole dimension of what worship can be. I think we can have both.

I've been longing for worship songs that capture my heart and lead me to justice. I really like Sean's song, You Are Good, because it starts to move towards that vision. Why is God good? If God is good for no good reasons, then is God worth worshiping? But this song reminds us of where God is active - in the mess of life. In recognizing that we get a new vision of where we can find and participate with God. I think that makes good worship sense. What was interesting is that Sean and Aimee started the night with a song that can be interpreted as dangerously individualistic (not one of theirs) and brought us full round to the vision of You Are Good. I really appreciated that.

Kenny: The Rise of the Disciplinary Society

In Chapter 2, "The Rise of the Disciplinary Society", Charles Taylor attempts to weave a contrasting set of intellectual and social moves in late medieval and early modern society into a narrative of secularization that does not simply tell what he has called a "subtraction story".

His aim in sections 3 and 4 is to outline how the instrumental view of human reason became dominant in Europe, whereby "a stance of poiesis" enters into "the domain of praxis" (p. 113). This is a set of moves is accompanied by what he calls a science of instrumental efficacy articulated by men like Cusanus, Ficino, and da Vinci.

The instrumental view of nature characterizes God primarily by his unlimited sovereignty, in contrast to the ancient characterizations of the cosmos as the realization of the Form (as in Plato). Nominalist writers like Descartes and Mersenne understand nature as a great mechanism because their God possess an all powerful will that can subject the universe to total manipulation. Efficient causality replaces teleology.

But Taylor wisely wishes to avoid placing all the causal force on a shift in ideas. He also spends a considerable amount of time on Justus Lipsius and the rise of Christian neo-Stoicism. This combines his earlier discussion of the "drive for order" and reform through a new understanding of man and his nature. Lipsius’ man of constancy, who stands above the disorder of the passions, when combined with the new religious drives for reform - including both voluntary and state institutions - represents an important social and cultural shift in Europe at this time: the goals of being totally rid of violence and social disorder, and to bring civility to everyone.

But where did the energy for reform come from? Taylor argues that for the Calvinists it came from a belief in providence attached to their programmes, and for the neo-Stoics a newfound belief in natural order. These two complementary beliefs receive an important column of support from the emergence of early modern natural law: "what emerges out of this reflection on Natural Law is the norm of a stable order of industrious men in the settled courses of their callings, dedicating themselves to growth and prosperity, rather than war and plunder, and accepting a morality of mutual respect and an ethic of self-improvement." (p. 129)

It was no accident that the move towards an ethic of poiesis, whereby virtue was understood as the dominance of the will over passion, was charted by Descartes, schooled by neo-Stoics at La Fleche. For Descartes the passions were to be brought under the instrumental control of reason, a reason fully detached from the proposed outcome of deliberation. Taylor argues that Descartes' key term was generosity: where once it had meant to live with a sense of one's rank and the honour attached to it, Descartes internalized its meaning so that generosity meant living up to a non-socially defined rational agent. What moves us now is not a place in tune with nature but an intrinsic sense of self worth.

And so at the end of section 4 the buffered self has been added to the disengaged rational agent: the one removes fears of spirits, the other now operates on the fears of desire. So equipped early modern man should now be able to stand back from desire and rationally determine how he should order himself.

Comments here.

Review: Out of the Cage

Eric Peters is my neighbour. I met him at a BBQ, but really didn't get to know him until I started to develop my own yoga practice. Like some of the people Eric has helped in the past, I have been suffering with back and neck problems for many years. Haunching over computers, anxious about impending deadlines and generally not taking care of my body has been the source of my problems. In Eric's little book he tells a much more serious tale. His book is very readable, I devoured it in a matter of hours. It is quite candid and if you know Eric his voice is clear on every page. Eric's pain led him into a serious narcotics addiction, and I find he is a bit overly concerned about the use of narcotics today (maybe rightly so though). But the real strength of this story is how he describes the yoga practice as a means to truly get to know one's self. I have found this true too. There is something about bringing awareness to the present moment that is liberating - he proposes a strategy for facing the truth of our situation, not hiding from it (such as through narcotics) or pretending it doesn't exist (fantasizing), but really being present to the way we are in that moment. I think this is good advice. And Eric does a much better job explaining it in an accessible and compelling way. This is not a book on how to do yoga, but a testimonial and encouragement to make some of the more important principles of yoga a part of your daily life practice. If you are at all interested in being free from chronic pain, or even in what the possible benefits of yoga might be, then this book is for you.

Easter 2010

Easter is the highlight of our liturgical year at Freedom Vineyard. We start our celebration with a solemn Good Friday Sensory service. Often we will follow that with a Candle Mass Easter vigil, but this year we had an Easter service on Monday.

We tend to change up the stations a bit from year to year. This year the theme was about our participation in God's redemptive work. I wanted to focus on the three ways we contribute to this work - through our time, energy and money. A cool note, we had a financial need coming up and all the money in our account was accounted for already - but at the provision station (that is a place where you can give or take money) we had almost exactly enough money come in for the need. I think that is pretty cool. We were over by a matter of cents. The provision station isn't new, but the challenge was creating stations that dealt with time and energy.

For time we asked participants to take at least 2 minutes (the timer) and meditate on how they use their time. We included a journal that had over 50 verses and quotes about time, arranged one to a page as reflection starters. The idea was to keep a journal that we could share as a community. I titled this journal "Thoughts on Traveling with God Through Time" and it was quite an interesting experiment. Being fairly activist in orientation (impatient is another way to put it) I often do not reflect enough on the power of waiting. Often Jesus would ask his disciples to wait. I think my reaction is against those who wait for an otherworldly hope, thinking that this means waiting out this life. Actually it is more a waiting for what God is doing in this world, so that we can learn to participate with that life and action. My favourite quote was from Leonard Bernstein - "To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan, and not quite enough time."

For energy I borrowed something from the Matrix. We presented a dare to the participants - a series of articles, editorial pieces, that gave accounts of injustice. Everything from a recent attempted child abduction from our city to this brilliant piece on the exclusion of homosexuals by evangelicals. If they dared to open their eyes then there was a two-fold response: a cry for God to come and a question "how will they respond?" We added red and blue pills (mini M&Ms) to drive home their choice.

We had a really good attendance to this service including both of my kids. We had a smaller group come out Easter Monday though. But what was cool is that David Kitz, who used to pastor the first church I went to in Ottawa, came and did his one person play - A Centurion's Report. David and I reconnected, through facebook, about a year ago. I hadn't seen him for over 20 years, but we have mutual friends so I'd hear the stories. He does a great job, I think that next time I'd have invited more people - but we had a lot of last minute cancels which if they all came would have filled our home almost too full. We started off with a potluck, I made a big gluten free lasagna (yummy) and had plenty of food. My friend Christine brought really good samosas. And we hung out for quite a while. I led worship for a bit and then interspersed the acts with worship songs. We did Kris MacQueen's "We Cannot Contain All You Pour Out" which is such a great song. I ended up closing with that song too. David did his play. It was really good to have someone come with a passionate presentation of the crucifixion and resurrection. Something very hopeful.

We have one more big event planned for this spring - Sean and Aimee Dayton are coming for a night of worship. We'll be hosting this one at our place. We are suggesting folks donate $10/person. I think it will be an evening well worth it. April 14th, Wed. 7PM- Call my cell eight-seven-eight - eight-four-six-three (613 area code) or find us on facebook (Freedom Vineyard).

Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part II

What does God think about marriage?

I know right off the bat that this is a charged statement. Folks use the God card to support their ideas of marriage and invalidate the ideas that other folks have. Usually they do this by using a selective reading of scripture to support what they consider to be normative realities, omit the stuff that doesn't fit so well and say this is what God thinks. I'm going to try not doing that. I don't find it helpful.

The reality is that scripture approaches marriage in a number of different ways. So when some religious groups claim scriptural support for polygamy, they are right. But that doesn't mean polygamy is an acceptable norm in a particular social context. And it definitely does not support any form of polygamy that is abusive or oppressive. It just does not preclude it as a biblically identified construction of a family. I think that the scriptures, more often than not, are identifying culturally normative notions of family and offering deeper wisdom than what is an acceptable form of family and what is not. (For instance, I don't believe that any biblical text came out of a context that could imagine a same-sex family - which is why same-sex families are never mentioned in scripture. This neither endorses or dismisses such notions of family, we need to look for deeper criteria by which to evaluate possible configurations of family within particular cultural contexts.)

So if form isn't the main point, then what is?

I think a better case can be made for the biblical presentation of what a Godly relationship should be like. Through such an argument we can begin to assess notions of family (monogamous mixed-gender, monogamous same-gender, polygamous matriarchal/patriarchal/communal, etc.). That is we can develop criteria by which we can ask of a family unit - does this unit, within this cultural context, exhibit these values? By this we can get close to what we might say that God thinks about marriage, and separate that from what we think should be the normative form(s) of family in our culture.

So I've shifted from defining marriage to understanding relationship, in particular what we might say is God's view on relationships. I want to make a disclaimer that will help here. We can't really say definitively what God's view is, what we can do is interpret the texts and experiences of communities who have passed on revelation to us. This comes through scripture, tradition and experience. And it is always a mediated transmission meaning that the ones who had the revelation translated it to the transmission form and then we interpret the transmission we receive. This does not mean there is no correspondence between revelation and interpretation - but it does mean we need to approach it with critical rigor. We see but through a glass dimly, but at the same time God has not left God's self without a witness. We have to trust that the Spirit is faithful to lead us in our pursuit of truth - and guard against the surety that short circuits the role of the Spirit in this process. Some think this takes away our confidence, I think this opens up a need for trust in God - faith if you will. It also humbles us as we go forward.

So what does scripture say about relationships?

We'll go here next.

Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part I

I have been thinking a lot about marriage lately. As many of you know celebrating marriage ceremonies is seen as a privilege of religious communities, but I'm concerned with the disconnect between marriage and religious practice. I want to spend a few posts exploring this topic.

First we need to understand the term marriage. You won't hear me talking in terms of traditional definitions - because those tend to beg the question: traditional to what? Plus there is a movement that is really about excluding homosexuals from marriage that claim the term traditional but really mean what has come to be the normative experience in North American society (although I think those notions are internally challenged in ways these groups do not care to admit and they often ignore the emerging normative experiences of marriage). Actually I am more interested in a functional definition and from that seeing what, if anything, a religion like Christianity can bring to marriage.

We could start with the assumption that marriage is the foundation of the family unit. Let's leave aside that society has often given up on this as a reality. But if we think about family units they consist of people bonding together to form a corporate whole that is more than the individuals on their own. This includes some sort of commitment as well as expectations. This would seem to jive with the civil notions of marriage. These notions are codified by the state in order to allow for legal ramifications if the marriage contract is violated or dissolved. I happen to thing this is good, even though it can be expressed poorly in society.

Where the notion of a contract is helpful is when such a bonding (marriage) leads to internal growth (offspring, adoption, integration). It ensures, civilly, that the least capable of fending for themselves are protected in the event of such a contract breaking down. I like that safety feature because I love my kids and would want them to be protected no matter what. Also as a pastor I've seen how adults, in the midst of marital breakdown, can behave like real jerks - it is painful all around. So that is something that is important to me. But this civil union is more about how we navigate society and not necessarily a religious reality.

So what about religion? Is marriage just some leftover sacrament that is no longer necessary? Here is where we need a theology of marriage. We need to know what God thinks (as best we can know the mind of God) of marriage. We need to know where God is made present in marriage and where God can be edged out of the picture. I'll turn to this next.

But first - do you think marriage is fundamentally a contract? if not why? Also do you think that marriage is the fundamental building block of the family?

I Am 5 - Very Unsatisfied with the Service

Ok, time to rant. Nowadays it seems that every service or purchase (over say $20!) comes with a phone call. "Hello Mr. Emmen-yule. Can you answer a few short questions about your satisfaction with..." OK. so at first this seemed cute. A few companies seeming to care enough to check up on you, make sure you were treated right. But slowly these calls have taken over as the primary source of telephone spam. I've had enough.

Here is the deal, if I don't like the service, I'll simply not be back. Yeah. I don't lodge complaints (very often, you really have to screw me over) it is not my nature. So really this kind of survey is about the only feedback you will get unless you suddenly realize I've stopped paying for your services. I freely admit that this seems like the only way to get feedback from folks like me - the worst customers. However, the constant surveys, to me, is just as bad as some idiot salesperson treating me like crap.

It is mostly the predictable nature of these calls that annoys me. It is most impersonal. "Can you rate your experience on a scale of one to five, five being very satisfied and ..." AAARRRRRGGGGHHHH! Come on. You want me to quantify my satisfaction? I might respond better to a friendly, "are you happy with our service?", that opened up a conversation if I was not. At least then I could say "yup" and hang up instead of wasting my time trying to quantify my level of satisfaction with something I probably wasn't paying that kind of attention to. Life people, I have one.

So, I am 5 - very unsatisfied with this stupid phone call. You interrupted my day for this? Come on. I want to retort, "how would you like it if I called you up in the middle of your stupid phone calls and asked how you were satisfied with your last cold call, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very unsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied?" But I actually have a better plan.

I'm opting out. No more. I am saying no.

I cant help wondering if this is just a make-work project? If it really is a way of curing bad customer service then the cure is worse than the cause. I don't doubt that some companies use this data to evaluate their service representatives. But when, and this has happened several times now, the service representative asks you to rate then all 1's or 5's (whatever is better) on the impending survey then they are defeating the purpose of the survey. I'm not a jerk, I won't rate them poorly because they asked. But I'm just going to opt out altogether.

End of rant.

Please rate your satisfaction with this blog post in the comments below.

The Rise of the Disciplinary Society 1-2

With many, many apologies for the long delay.

The way that Taylor reads history is really interesting to me. Section 1 of this chapter begins to describe the displacements Taylor wants to track and then by Section 2 he has dove right in. This looking at how ideas become distinct and eventually part ways is a Hegelian tactic that is part of other works that I've read from Taylor. I'm sure Kenny will comment on this, he is the resident historian, but I want to shift our attention to something I really enjoyed in this reading - attitudes.

The attitudes that Taylor flags have far reaching influence. In fact we feel them still today. These attitudes are directed towards the poor, society and nature. They allow us to view these things in particular ways. In fact what he shows is that there is a marked difference in the way 15th century folk viewed the poor, for instance, and folks in the 16th century would see them. These attitudes evolve, but in a way that builds in a specific direction.

In the evolution of the attitude towards nature we see the breakdown of the Thomistic medieval synthesis. How we go from an idea of nature intrinsically connected with our ideas of the divine to a basically notion of utility. We end up with a nature that we can exploit because it has lost its divine significance. But it is more than this, it is that nature becomes something we must assert control over. Nature becomes the enemy (p.101). I think that attitude is what makes it hard to animate sufficient ecological response (I don't find stewardship compelling or sufficient). But it also identifies a root of our love of consumerism. What is life about? It isn't about a quest for the holy grail, the plumbing of divine mystery - but it is now about control, management and the mitigation of fear.

This is similar to the attitude towards society, or civility as Taylor puts it. Taylor insightfully identifies this need to combat nature with civility as the root of the pervasive notion that social transformation is only truly accomplished through religious conversion, and that true religious conversion effects social change. I have a particular frustration with this attitude. While I value religious conversion (I am an evangelical after all) I don't see that it is sufficient or even the tool for social transformation. The reason is that evangelicals are good at compelling religious conversion and yet are often deeply complicit in systemic injustice. There are lots of reasons for this, but I think that attitude, that is the expectations that are attributed towards religious civility, is at the root.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Thesis Proposal In The Bag!

After some back and forth with the committee and my director, my proposal was accepted! I will present on April 9th, 9AM. The presentation is more of a formality, there is no evaluation but more of a chance for the whole faculty (profs and PhD students) to comment on my work. I'm looking forward to this. But overall what I'm feeling is relief.

I actually had the results last Friday. But it has taken me this long just to recover. And I still have a long list of neglected tasks. This is the Lenten season after all. I will resume my participation in A Secular Age reading/blogging, expect something Thursday. Also I've got to start planning out two papers for May and two seminars for the Vineyard National Gathering in July (even though at this point it is not in the budget - I'm trusting God to provide a way if we are supposed to be there). And various Freedom tasks to do with kinships, mentoring and our book club.

On top of that I'm about ready to make some paper mache terrain for the custom scenario I will run at CanGames in May. I'm making two sets of interlocking valley walls (4 pieces in total) to block off a gauntlet path the players will have to run. I've got enough sketched out to run trials so the terrain is the next piece. I bought some rock casts too, which when painted will look really great. I'll post pictures when it is all together. I also have to do some work on both of the D&D campaigns I'm running. One group is almost at the end of my material and I have one more major quest for them before the final battle. Once that is over I'm going to suggest moving to version 4.0 and starting again 300 years in the future with all new quests and adventures. My current 4.0 game is just starting the 5th level of a dungeon crawl, so I need to start work on the 6th level (already have it mapped). But 4E goes together so much easier than any other version I've worked with.

That's enough to keep me busy for a while.

More About the Way I Work

I sent a full thesis proposal to my director today. Late, but maybe we can squeak it in. Basically it will depend on how much my committee wants to adjust it. Due to a number of personal reasons I ended up trying to do way too much work in way too little time. I'm not usually that bad. If I remember right my Master's thesis was a day early! I do tend to work well under pressure too, but some projects are way to big to do in a short amount of time. And even now thinking about my proposal I can identify at least three places that could use a couple hours more work.

Time to take a bit of a look at what I can improve on for the next project.

First, I have a bad habit of jumping the gun. I will be doing research and then feel like it has all fallen into place - so I start writing and realize it just isn't cooked enough. At this point I'm committed to writing, I've read about half the material and so I'm toggling back and forth between research and writing and my writing shows that it isn't my main focus.

Second, I am not the best at planning out paragraphs. If you remember my previous post on writing like Jazz, I am getting better at that. But my stream of consciousness does tend to leap across ideas quickly. But the best way to fix that problem is to carefully plan out my paragraphs. I am good at mapping out the material and organizing it at a high level, but planning a paragraph is not a skill I've ever developed.

Third, I am not guarding my academic work time well enough. Being a husband, father, and pastor can be very demanding at times. This one is harder for me to tackle.

Solutions

I'm open to other suggestions but I think I know the way forward on a lot of these issues.

First, I need to plan my research process better. I need to map out the material I am going to be responsible for with each chapter. Completely read that material before I start writing. Jot down ideas in a separate note book. I think it will also help to have set deliverables all through the project. This will help me track my progress and keep on task. Thesis writing is lonely work.

Second, when I get to the writing stage I need to go back to the writing technique I used in consulting. Start with a high level outline of the chapter/paper. Write one sentence for each level as to what I will cover in that section. Next outline each section, one point per paragraph. Then write one sentence that is the one idea that paragraph will communicate. Then stick to the outline! This technique is helpful. Whenever you can't write one sentence then you have too many ideas in that section/paragraph. It seems quite AR, but I know from when I took the time to do it that it does work well.

Third, I think I need to establish working hours. If I get funding, I definitely need to rent a studio at the library. Other than that I'm not sure what to do. It is too easy for other things to take precedence over the reading and writing that I need to do. I just need to be on guard better.

BTW I now have a second academic paper accepted - this time for the AAR regionals! May is going to be a crazy busy month.

USA Go Home!

Did that get your attention? This really pisses me off. I get that the US is a paranoid nation, and that their politics thrives on this Straussian fear factor. But as a Canadian I want no part of it. Consistently the US embassies around the world are the most fortified. But this is Canada people. What are they afraid of? I'm not about to waste my maple syrup lobbing it at your windows. Heck if we so much as glanced the wrong way at your ugly building you can bet we'd profusely apologize - we are Canadians. I digress. I get that in the post-9/11 fear exploitation you decided to enlarge your boundaries. (Would it have hurt to have asked?) But now you not only expect to keep the lanes you have appropriated - you want us to pick up the lions share of the tab to make it look a bit less shitty? Come on. If you don't feel safe here then build something somewhere we don't have to look at it, build huge prison walls with guards for all I care. Uh but do it with your own money. Seriously. If that doesn't suit you - go home. It is not like you are very far away anyway.

Lot Up In The Air

This has been a brutal start of the month. First I feel like apologizing, I am the hold up on the A Secular Age reading group. I just have too many things on the go. We also had a relationship go south on us, which has been hard on the whole family. I am happy this hasn't happened very often for us, but when it does it hurts. I think we are starting to get settled again. But I'm also missing deadlines, which is not like me. I was supposed to have my thesis proposal in to my director on Monday. I pushed it to Tuesday and handed something in Friday. My director has also been sick this past week. It is not the end of the world if I have to defer to September, but it is frustrating. A big part of the frustration is that I did not guard my time properly. The thesis proposal is a huge piece of work. One of the areas that I was hoping to critique is evangelical social engagement proposals - but the more I research the more really good ones I find. Where the deficit is is amongst the popular writings and that is much harder to get at and justify writing a thesis on. Hence, it is way more work than if my initial critique held up across the board. And to compound this frustration, I am delighted to find that evangelicals do some fine theology, but having studied in a Catholic institution for so long I am just now discovering it. I have been ordering books like crazy, reading and realizing the richness I've been missing. Now I have to sort out a whole theological culture and my assumptions about that culture. What this means is I will have my head down for a while yet.

Some good news. I am presenting two focused interaction groups at the Vineyard National Gathering this summer - one the fire Ladd lit for Wimber and the other on Post-modern Hermeneutics. I'm also presenting at Congress 2010 (Montreal) for CETA (Canadian Evangelical Theological Association) on evangelicals, language and consensus. And I'm running a custom gauntlet style scenario at CanGames this year - going to start working on the terrain soon.

What is a Pastor?

I'm wondering here. I think that some people think a pastor is someone you can walk all over and will just take it with a smile. The reason I think this is that when folks do that to me long enough I bite back - and when I do I feel like a complete failure. I know that this is really my issue, but I'm wondering if there isn't a better theory of pastor that might encourage me. Help me frame my responses better. Really I should learn to stand up earlier when folks are abusive towards me. Shoulda coulda woulda - yeah.

Looking forward to what you have to share.

When is it Helpful?

I'm watching a few blogs report the sad news about Benny Hinn's immanent divorce. As you know I'm not a real fan of Hinn, I think he is quite heterodox actually. But what I'm wondering is when and how it is actually helpful to bring a critique on a Christian ministry? It is a serious question. I find that sometimes I want to jump right in when folks are slamming what I consider to be gross theological errors. But then another part of me wonders how helpful that is. I'm not afraid to give my opinion, but at the same time I need to be self-aware enough that I realize that I'm not always going to be right.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are? When it is helpful? What form is helpful? Is there a line we shouldn't cross? What do we do when we inadvertently or deliberately cross that line?

For the meanwhile my heart goes out to the folks who have put Benny up on a pedestal. I trust that you will meet God in your pain. I trust that God is working through this whole situation and will ultimately have the last word.

Bulwarks of Belief (B van den Berg; Repost)

By the fifteenth century, Europe had emerged from the Age of Calamity (as referenced by one of my history books), or an age of anxiety as described by Charles Taylor (p.88).

In this new era comes two major societal transformations: the Renaissance and the Reformation. On page 75, Taylor turns his attention to the impact of one particular Protestant theology, Calvanism. It emerges* during the Reformation as a continuation of St. Augustine's thoughts on God's sovereignty and our predestination, as furthered by John (Jean) Calvin.

* Could they be the Emergents of their day? But I digress ...


According to Taylor, the Reformation - and particularly Calvanism - is central to the "abolition of the cosmos" (that is, the loss of the enchanted world) and the "eventual creation of a humanist alternative to faith". The Calvanist approach to faith leaves little room for mystery. In an attempt to create a rigid system of theology (and by rigid, I mean the need to have everything figured out), there is a "lock on the mysteries" (p.78). Anyone with experience in Calvanism recognizes this trait; there is little room for mystery or wonder. Taylor states that this "offers a model for the later humanist hostility to mystery" (p78).

Taylor discusses three levels that are emphasized with the Calvanist Reform: 1) a disciplined personal life, 2) a well ordered society, and 3) a right inner attitude. The third level creates a cycle that oscillates between salvation and depravity. We are saved, but before we become too comfortable we are reminded that we are depraved, but before we become too distraught we are reminded that we are saved ... The second level results in attempts to engineer society through social reforms, and causes the pendulum to swing between spasms of Arminianism and Calvinism.

Finally, this age also sees the "succession of elites from popular culture" (p.87). The elites begin to view moments of anti-structure (that is, the times the populace lets off steam, such as Carnival) as simply depraved acts, whereas previously they would have actively participated; there had been little difference in the activities of elites (clergy, nobility) and the common folk. It is here that Taylor argues this is the forerunner of political correctness. There is also the establishment of a "less enchanted" version of the Catholic church by the elites.

And now, for my own observations:

Recognizing that Taylor doesn't normally opine, his use of phrases like "horrifying conclusions" (p.78) and "repelling people from the faith" (p.79) make it easy to infer his views on Calvanism. Without forgetting about the log in my own eye, the phrases could be applied to his own Catholic faith too. There have been many other so-called Christian institutions fraught with corruption, playgrounds for bloodshed, politics, and power (in the manner of repelling people from the faith). I agree with him more so on the Problem of Evil - which cannot be addressed by Calvanism - and the movement towards total disenchantment (abolition of mystery). Whereas one cannot base an entire system of theology on Romans 9, one cannot dismiss it either.

I am hesitant to accept that one specific Protestant theology can be given as large a responsibility for ushering in certain aspects of the modern secular age as Taylor initially suggests, but there are over 700 pages left and I hope to find more answers there.

I gave thought to our own elites in North Atlantic societies; whereas the sixteenth century saw a succession between elites and the common folk, our own society sees an entire class of elites created by popular culture. We create icons out of movie stars, athletes, musicians, and politicians (for example, the recent Obama Mania). We adore them, gossip about them, keep track of them, and then discard them when they no longer interest us (or fail us). This is almost akin to the anti-structure described by Taylor, such as fools made king for a day, or a child in Bishop's clothes. Is our society coming full circle on some of these things?

Finally, his quick statement about the birth of political correctness could have used more fleshing out (as in, some data or studies to support his argument). What can I say? zetetic skepsis ...

Please comment here.

So Sad...

This makes me want to weep. What leap of logic could support the idea that our interaction with God could possibly automated? Has God become that depersonalized? Is it possible to think that God responds to petitions that cost us nothing but a wee bit of money - oh wait, that's that the whole notion of charities is based on. Sorry, my bad. Carry on. I'll be the one weeping in the corner over here.

So Is This

Thanks Byron.

Well Worth Watching

Paper Proposals

I fired off two paper proposals this week. Well one just got back from my director and will be packaged up and emailed out in the next day or two. It is a bit of a challenge to choose something that will help with my dissertation work, but will also not be too much my dissertation. I think I have hit on it, hopefully one or both will get accepted.

The first is for the AAR Eastern Regionals, here in Ottawa! I'm proposing to write on the the Emerging church as an evangelical effort to return from a self-imposed cultural exile. Basically I'll be comparing Carl Henry's project in The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism with what is written about Emerging church forays into social justice.

The second is for CETA at Congress 2010 (Concordia, Mtl). And I want to look at the problem of imprecision in popular evangelical terminology. In this one I'll be taking a focused look at the term missional. I have written about that term here in the past, this will be a good opportunity to spend quality time with the Gospel and Our Culture Network folks (their books anyway). The title I have so far is: Is there a Missional Bridge to Evangelical Unity? I think it is catchy.

I figure I'll just try for two this year. I did two proposals last year and ended up with both being accepted. This was great, except both conferences are in the same month, the same month as the Vineyard pastoral retreat! It made for a busy month and this year Sharon is also writing an exam in that same month.