close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110110021623/http://ortusmemoria.wordpress.com:80/

Top 10 of 2010 Reading

Jon’s post over at This Side of Sunday prompted me to come up with a list of my own significant pieces of non-fiction from 2010. My total reading list was noticeably short in comparison to other years. This is likely due to spending the first 5 months of the year teaching English in Egypt and making a pilgrimage through the Holy Land. Reading was important throughout those times but it was slower and more historical (which tends not to make my top reading lists). Upon my return, I picked up an intensive summer course at Canadian Mennonite University’s Canadian School of Peacebuilding and re-assumed my role as a full time student in fall. My top 10 list is primarily non-fiction books but also includes a couple particular essays (the order is insignificant).

BERJAYA

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

 

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology

 

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Rowan Williams, Resurrection

 

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death

 

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Daniel Coluciello Barber, “Epistemological Violence, Christianity, and the Secular” in The New Yoder eds. Peter Dula and Chris K. Huebner

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

 

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion

 

 

 

Anthony Paul Smith, “Eternal Custodians of a Machine for the Making of Gods: Thinking Ecological Restoration with Bergson and Deleuze/Guattari”

BERJAYA

 

Chris K. Huebner, A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge, and Identity

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

Slavoj Zizek, Violence

 

 

 

BERJAYA

 

And the one piece of literature that stood out above all the others

Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose


Published in: on January 2, 2011 at 23:49  Comments (5)  

A Christmas Confession: The Offense of Christmas

The following is a Christmas confession, not a sermon. It is a personal reflection on my experience through Advent and Christmas this year.  The three pieces of scripture are a compilation from the Anabaptist Prayer Book Take Our Moments and Our Days Vol. 2, Advent through Pentecost.  Following them are my reflections.

Isaiah 35.1-6
The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad,
the desert shall rejoice and blossom;
like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly,
and rejoice with joy and singing.
The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it,
the majesty of Carmel and Sharon.
They shall see the glory of the Lord,
the majesty of our God.

Strengthen the weak hands,
and make firm the feeble knees.
Say to those who are of a fearful heart,
“Be strong, do not fear!
Here is your God.
He will come with vengeance,
with terrible recompense.
He will come and save you.”

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf unstopped;
then the lame shall leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.
For waters shall break forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert.

Luke 7.18-23
John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to the Lord to ask,” Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” When the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’” Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”

Acts 3.1-10
One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon. And a man lame from birth was being carried in. People would lay him daily at the gate of the temple called the Beautiful Gate so that he could ask for alms from those entering the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked them for alms. Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” And he fixed his attention on them. But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk.” And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. Jumping up, he stood and began to walk, and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. All the people saw him walking and praising God, and they recognized him as the one who used to sit and ask for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Reflection
The season of Advent and Christmas is upon us.  There seem to be two stereotypical extremes of advent personalities: those caught up in the excitement of our habitual preparations and those who somehow can’t quite seem to get into the so called “spirit of Christmas,” the scrooges.  Most of us, I suspect, find ourselves somewhere in between – I certainly do.

The differences and similarities between how the world celebrates Christmas and how the church does always strike me. At the risk of sounding too sentimental, I confess that each year I have a hard time negotiating what this advent and Christmas business is really all about.  This time around it’s not about the children’s Christmas play, naïve and precious, and it’s not about the large table of socks, toques, and mittens that we’ll bring to Siloam Mission, too often a pseudo-charitable expression of our faith, and this time it’s not about the scandal of the virgin birth.  This year, I’ve experienced something else, something more horrible, perhaps, than ever before, but also, I think, more honest (at least to myself).  It is my Christmas confession, and it’s not something I’m about to apologize for. Are you ready? Brace yourselves…I’m offended by Christmas. It’s true – I’m offended, by the orgy of material consumption which distracts us from what we are actually preparing for, by the increase in monetary donations – what I earlier called pseudo-charitable expressions of our faith, and I am offended by the birth of Christ.  Perhaps, in this sense, I ought to identify most with Herod in the Christmas story.

But how can I possibly be offended at the Good News that the angels bring to poor shepherds? And the unconditional love, joy, peace, and hope that we receive with Christ’s birth?  Actually, that’s exactly why I am offended.  Let me try and describe to you how this offense has emerged.

I spent most of November reading Doestoevsky’s The Brother’s Karamazov – a deep and wide and turbulent book with existential themes running throughout.  One of the brothers, Ivan, a noble intellectual, struggles with the question of faith in God and the problem of suffering in the world from the very beginning to the very end of the book.  In one of the most powerful speeches in literature on the offense of theodicy – of the moral defensibility of God despite the existence of evil – Ivan expresses his deep anguish over the injustice and innocent suffering in the world.  Especially stark, for him, is the picture of an innocent child beat and tortured by her parents and then locked up in an outhouse all night and forced to eat her excrement.  Ivan asks his brother Alyosha (a novice monk) “can you understand why this nonsense is needed and created? Without it, they say, man could not even have lived on earth, for he would not have known good and evil. Who wants to know this damned good and evil at such a price? The world of knowledge is not worth the tears of that little child to ‘dear God.’”[1] It is the problem of suffering that is at the core of Ivan’s doubt in the moral defensibility of God.  If God allows for innocent suffering and the forgiveness of wickedness with the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then belief, never mind faith, in God is far too offensive for Ivan.  He further exclaims:

“I do want to forgive, and I want to embrace, I don’t want more suffering. […But] I do not, finally, want the mother to embrace the tormenter who let his dogs tear her son to pieces! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she wants to, let her forgive the tormentor her immeasurable maternal suffering; but she has no right to forgive the suffering of her child who was torn to pieces, she dare not forgive the tormentor, even if the child himself were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, then where is the harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who could and would have the right to forgive? I don’t want harmony, for love of mankind I don’t want it. I want to remain with unrequited suffering. I’d rather remain with my unrequited suffering and my unquenched indignation, even if I am wrong. Besides, they have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t afford to pay so much for admission. And therefore I hasten to return my ticket.  And it is my duty, if only as an honest man, to return it as far ahead of time as possible. Which is what I am doing. It’s not that I don’t accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully return him the ticket.”[2]

What does this have to do with the birth of Christ? With the time of Advent, of preparation for the Messiah who brings us “good news of great joy that will be for all the people?  At the heart of Ivan’s incapacity for faith in God is his deep offense at the grace of God.  The preparation during Advent for the coming of God incarnate is an operative anticipation of the inauguration of a new way of living in the world – of the body of Christ, the church, transfigured here and now.  My question this Christmas is, do we actually realize what we’re beckoning when we sing O come, o come Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel, the mourns in lonely exile here, until the son of God appear / O come, thou Wisdom from on high, and order all things far and nigh. To us the path of knowledge show, and cause us in thy ways to go. The Kingdom of God names a radically different way of living in the here and now, formed and informed by the wisdom of the cross which includes love of enemies, praying for those who hurt us, serving those who make ours lives difficult and unbearable, inviting the strangers in our lives into our homes for dinner. Grace and forgiveness are offensive.  Urging a mother to forgive her daughter’s murderer is offensive. Advising a brother to let go of the injustice he’s suffered in his broken family, and to prepare a meal for those who have abused him, is offensive. Encouraging the poor to be more merciful is offensive (see Kierkegaard). The Christ event is offensive because it is counterintuitive to our ideas of justice, peace, good news.  The Christ event inaugurates a new way of living that breaks the sovereignty of justified violence, corruption, and deceit, but also the seemingly neutral parts of life, the-way-things-are, or what-we-are-used-to. The birth of Christ marks a breaking in of God into our daily living (which isn’t to say that God wasn’t working in our lives before).

In the story of Peter and John above, we find two apostles encounter one face of suffering in the world.  How do they respond? Not by tossing the crippled beggar some coins, to make themselves feel better, not an act of pseudo-charitable giving, as we see and participate in all too often during this time of the year…because it is Christmas, after all.  It is crucial to remember that these are post-ascension disciples, and it is the event of the infusion of the Holy Spirit into the lives of those who choose to follow Jesus that characterizes their response.  The beggar, once a cripple, receives healing from the apostles, healing by the power of the Holy Spirit. And the apostles, offer this healing in faith of its potency.  This is only the beginning of the transformation of the world into a new creation.  This is only a glimpse of the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.  I am reminded of a quote by Rowan Williams: “The power that counts for the [disciples] is a power that bestows life, not a power that simply commands. God’s will can be done, and the [disciple] can maintain loyalty to Jesus under the most appalling threats, because something has been imparted … a new depth of truthful living, a new and deeper centre to the self relocated in the life of Jesus, or standing in the place where Jesus stands.”[3]

How often do we eagerly approach the manger with all the joy, hope, and peace the sweet newborn baby brings us? and then hasten to return our ticket when we find ourselves at the foot of the cross – faced with suffering, and the many options of response we can choose from? What were we preparing for during Advent? A quaint nativity scene for the birth of our Lord, or were we preparing ourselves, to do that which the Lord requires of us, to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with Emmanuel, God with us? who invites us to come and follow him, to take up our crosses and follow him? Have we calculated the cost of discipleship?

The word Advent, from the Greek word parousia, signals the coming of the Messiah.  Advent is a time of preparation, but I would suggest that it is a time of preparing ourselves for the task of discipleship, of preparing ourselves to be formed by God according to God’s will in the continuous work of transforming us into a new creation on earth as it is in heaven.  In a world in which we are told we are in control, to not only accept the gracious gift of new life in Christ, but to have faith in it, to put our hope and joy in the possibility of world -reconciliation despite of, even in spite of the immense suffering in the world, the brokenness in our lives – this, is offensive…but it is also the good news of great joy. And although we are continuously offended by Christ breaking into the world, into our lives, in unexpected ways, that derail us from our ideas of justice, peace, and harmony, the struggle of Advent – parousia – will continuously be not to return our tickets.

Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.””


[1] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1990), 242.

[2] Ibid, 245.

[3] Rowan Williams, Christ On Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 90-100. Emphasis mine.

Can the Analogia Entis Support Privation Theory? (by Lexi)

After failing all attempts to add my friend and peer at Canadian Mennonite University, Lexi, to the authorship of this blog, I’ve decided to simply post her thoughts as  a guest post. So there you go. Enjoy and engage.

 

Can the Analogia Entis Support Privation Theory?

Among the theological theories that most thinkers consider well-supported, timeless and theologically helpful are Aquinas’ analogia entis and Augustine’s understanding of evil as privation. The former refers to the notion that humanity and all else that we consider to “exist”, exists in a way that is analogical to God’s way of existing. God does not participate in the same category of being as we do. In the words of Simone Wiel “The God who is, does not exist.” This idea was put forward by Aquinas as a response to Duns Scotus, who suggested that everything that exists, including God, participates in being to a different degree – God to the highest degree, then the angels, then man, then animals etc. The problem with this however is that it sets up a prior category of ontology to which God is subject. Aquinas therefore suggested that rather than there being a univocity of being – a category in which all that is participates according to degrees, there is an analogy of being.

Augustine on the other hand, is interested in a somewhat different problem; the existence of evil. In contrast to his former Manichean beliefs, which suggested that God and evil are two opposing forces of ontological substance waging war against each other, Augustine came to understand evil as the absence of God and therefore not only an absence of good but also of being. Pure evil, therefore, has no ontological status and impure evil is simply the corruption of that which was good, pulling it towards non-being. In proposing this, Augustine was attempting to protect God’s omnipotence. Postulating the existence of an ontological evil that is more or less as powerful as God is a threat to that omnipotence. It also raises difficult questions regarding creation and the origin of this ontological evil. These are easily avoided if evil is not given ontological status.

The two theological theories do not have much in common, and are rarely presented in conversation with each other as they pertain to rather different areas of theology. Nevertheless, both share a concern for freeing God’s being from notions that reduce and confine his being to anthropomorphic conceptions. It therefore seems reasonable to me to consider these two theories together, especially since many theologians hold to both to be true. What strikes me, in putting these two theories alongside each other, is that the idea of evil as privation seems to adhere far more closely with Duns Scotus’ univocity of being than Aquinas’ analogia entis. The notion of privation attaches goodness to being, suggesting that as goodness decreases, so too does being. The less something participates in goodness, the less it participates in being as well. This is therefore a quantitative understanding not only of goodness but also of being. It thinks only in terms of more or less, not in terms of qualitative difference. Has it not therefore also again reduced God to prior categories of both being and goodness? Since God is the most good, he participates in being the most, with things which are less good moving progressively down the spectrum. This was precisely Duns Scotus’ suggestion.

This then raises the question as to whether it’s possible to conceive of privation theory according to analogia entis and this is the question that I’m submitting for thought. If we maintain Augustine’s implication that being and goodness are inseparable, then according to Aquinas, God’s goodness as well as being must be analogical to our own. However, if that’s the case, then the goodness and being in which evil does not participate is not God’s goodness and being, but is a created, analogical goodness and being. This leads us then to understand evil not as an absence of God (his being and goodness) but as an absence of some other being and goodness. Would it not then be possible for God’s being and goodness to still be present where there is evil, that is where the analogical goodness and being are absent? If being and goodness do not exist on a spectrum then can we really say that God and evil (his absence) are mutually exclusive?

At the moment then, it seems that both the attempt to rearrange our metaphysics according to privation theory and the attempt to insert privation theory into Aquinas’ metaphysics are problematic. The former succumbs to Duns Scotus’ problem of subjecting God to a prior category and the latter makes it possible for God to be strangely present where there is evil, thereby negating the importance of the notion of privation in the first place! So, I cannot see any way that the two can fit together. If this is indeed the case, then we will have to start asking ourselves which theory needs revising…

 

Cancelled: Charles Taylor Lecture

Once again, due to Taylor’s unfortunate health, the Lecture scheduled for tomorrow (Nov. 23) is cancelled.

Published in: on November 22, 2010 at 11:54  Leave a Comment  

Charles Taylor @ UofW – Rescheduled

RESCHEDULED! Charles Taylor at the University of Winnipeg.

This event is open to the public and admission is free. It will take place in Theatre A – room 4M31 at the U of W.

Dr. Taylor was scheduled to appear at the U of W on Oct. 28, but had to cancel due to illness. The lecture has been rescheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 23 – 7:30-9:00pm.

Dr. Taylor will give a lecture titled “Solidarity and Diversity in a Secular Age: Managing Belief and Unbelief in the Public Square.”

Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Philosophy at McGill University, globally renowned philosopher Charles Taylor was the co-chair of the Taylor-Bouchard Commission on Reasonable Accommodation in Quebec.

Dr. Taylor was the recipient of the 2008 Kyoto Prize in arts and philosophy and the 2007 Templeton Prize for progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities, which included a cash award of US$1.5 million.

Highly respected sociologist of religion Robert Bellah called Dr. Taylor’s 2007 book, A Secular Age, “one of the most important books to be written in my lifetime.”

“The change I want to define and trace is one which takes us from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is one human possibility among others,” Dr. Taylor writes in the book.

The event is sponsored by:

The Knowles-Woodsworth Centre for Theology and Public Policy
The Mouseland Press Speaker Series
The Uniter
The University of Winnipeg Department of Politics

Published in: on November 16, 2010 at 23:44  Comments (3)  
Tags: ,

To remember is to work for peace

On Remembrance Day this year I have the Israel/Palestine conflict on my heart. The following pictures were taken in May 2010 during my pilgrimage/study tour to the Holy Land.

BERJAYAThe Wailing Wall

BERJAYAThe Dome of the Rock

BERJAYAThe “undulations of the snake” and Panopticon
(Deleuze & Foucault ref.)

BERJAYAThe “security” wall from the West Bank side in Bethlehem

BERJAYAOlive wood nativity set with “security” wall

BERJAYAIsraeli soldiers/security asking for ID and questioning Palestinians
for no apparent reason in the old city of Jerusalem.

BERJAYAPeace mural at Mar Elias (Elias Chacour – author of Blood Brothers) school in Ibillin

BERJAYAFamous mural in Bethlehem

BERJAYAMennonite Central Committee’s alternative to the poppy

 

Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur
Our Lamb has conquered; him let us follow

Published in: on November 11, 2010 at 00:00  Comments (1)  

Some Dostoevsky & Bonhoeffer

The following quote is from Dostoevsky’s The Brother’s Karamzov. The speaker is Elder Zosima (a monk). The quote is long, but well worth reading through.

“Work tirelessly. If, as you are going to sleep at night, you remember: “I did not do what I ought to have done,” arise at once and do it. If you are surrounded by spiteful and callous people who do not want to listen to you, fall down before them and ask their forgiveness, for the guilt is yours, too, that they do not want to listen to you. And if you cannot speak with the embittered, serve them silently and in humility, never losing hope. And if everyone abandons you and drives you out by force, then, when you are left alone, fall down on the earth and kiss it and water it with your tears, and the earth will bring forth fruit from your tears, even though no one has seen or heard you in your solitude. [...] If the wickedness of people arouses indignation and insurmountable grief in you, to the point that you desire to revenge yourself upon the wicked, fear that feeling most of all; go at once and seek torments for yourself, as if you yourself were guilty of their wickedness. Take these torments upon yourself and suffer them, and your heart will be eased, and you will understand that you, too, are guilty, for you might have shone to the wicked, even like the only sinless One, but you did not. If you had shone, your light would have lighted the way for others, and the one who did wickedness would perhaps not have done so in your light. And even if you do shine, but see that people are not saved even with your light, remain steadfast, and do not doubt the power of the heavenly light; believe that if they are not saved now, they will be saved later. And if they are not saved, their sons will be saved, for your light will not die, even when you are dead. The righteous man departs, but his light remains. [...] Never seek a reward, for great is your reward on earth without that: your spiritual joy, which only the righteous obtain. Nor should you fear the noble and powerful, but be wise and ever gracious. Know measure, know the time, learn these things. When you are alone, pray. Love to throw yourself down on the earth and kiss it. Kiss the earth and love it, tirelessly, insatiably, love all men, love all things, seek this rapture and ecstasy. Water the earth with the tears of your joy, and love those tears. Do not be ashamed of this ecstasy, treasure it, for it is a gift from God, a great gift, and it is not given to many, but to those who are chosen.”

I was also reminded of  a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Dein Reich komme (Thy Kingdom Come) which I think could be brought into dialogue with The Brothers Karamzov in a number of ways (but which I wont do here).
The translation is my own (so bear with me).

“We are Hinterweltler* or we are Secularists; that is to say, we no longer believe in the Kingdom of God.  We are hostile towards the earth, because we want to be better than she, or we are hostile toward God, because he steals the earth, our Mother, from us.  We flee the violence of the earth, or we brace ourselves rigidly and immovably to her.  But we are not the wanderers, who love the earth, which carries them, which they actually only love, because they encounter strange lands on her, this they love above all else—otherwise they would not wander.  Only those who wander, like these, can believe in the Kingdom of God, those who love the earth and God inseparably. We are Hinterweltlerish, since we came up with the heinously clever idea to be religious, yes even to be “Christian” at the expense of the earth.  This flourishes in the Hinterweltlertum.  Where life begins to become embarrassing and intruding, one always jumps boldly and swings oneself effortlessly and carelessly into the so-called realm of the eternal.”

* literally ‘behind the world’, but rendered as separate from or independent of the world/earth in the context of the quote. Unfortunately I have no idea what English translations use and I only have the German in my possession.

Christmas Gifts for your beloved Academic #3

So this custom design website I found is a pretty good time and in the spirit of Christmas…

BERJAYA

 

 

…wait for it…

 

 

BERJAYA

Published in: on November 8, 2010 at 12:53  Leave a Comment  

Christmas Gifts for your beloved Academic #2

BERJAYA

Here’s an offside one for your up-and-coming Neo-Orientalist…

Last year a couple of friends and I read some of Said’s Orientalism so when I travelled to Egypt a few months later I decided I would finish reading it IN the Orient. I said then that I would make an I heart the Orient t-shirt in memory of my accomplishment…this is the closest I have come. Edward is probably rolling over in his grave.

Published in: on November 7, 2010 at 21:58  Leave a Comment  

Wittgenstinian Word-bomb

Have you ever wondered what a Wittgenstinian word-bomb is? Well, search no more, this is by far the most excellent one:

“…if a man could write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world.”

Continuously,

“…we have not yet succeeded in finding the correct logical analysis of what we mean by our ethical and religious expressions. Now when this is urged against me I at once see it clearly, as it were in a flash of light [most likely from the aforementioned explosion], not only that no description that I can think of would do to describe what I mean by absolute value, but that I would reject every significant description that anybody could possibly suggest, ab initio, on the ground of its significance.”

And that’s that. I cannot explain this, for “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” I could, however, show it.