nevermind the bricolage

constantly moving happiness machines

We watched a chunk of Century of the Self, Adam Curtis' 2002 documentary about the birth of the modern world, last night in the History of Advertising class. I showed it because it begins with a lengthy exploration of the work and influence of edward bernays, probably one of the most overlooked figures of the 20th century. Nephew of Sigmund Freud and developer of public relations and believer in the power of propaganda to influence the decisions of human beings. 

Curtis' film does a great job of setting up the tensions that have, and continue to shape our world with regard to the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Bernays applied lessons learned from propaganda used in wartime and applied them to peacetime living, essentially giving rise to consumer society as we know and experience it today,

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
      We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society."

The film is filled with intense material and doesn't paint a great picture of Freud's theories of psychoanalysis, but it sets up this dichotomy about us--are we to be 'active citizens' or 'passive consumers'? The answer to that seems to be the tension that we all live in everyday. Another theme is the tension between big business and government over the how and in what way industry should be managed, represented and offered to citizens--another theme that is still playing out today. 

President Herbert Hoover voiced this in 1928,

"You have taken over the job of creating desire and have transformed people into constantly moving happiness machines, machines which have become the key to economic progress."

The success for which Bernays is perhaps most widely known is his campaign on behalf of the tobacco industry to get women to smoke. smoking was essentially taboo for women, something only prostitutes might do, as with many 'pleasures' it was the domain of men. But Bernays, applying his uncle's principles and building on the theory from another psychologist that women view cigarettes as phallic, he managed to change an entire culture's view of smoking almost overnight, and with virtually a single act of carefully managed public action--heady stuff. 

The issues raised by the film, about Bernays, psychoanalysis, relationship between business and government, between democracy and capitalism, the emergence of the consumer society etc., are central to understanding the nature of self-understanding that was developed in the early 20th century and continues to plays out today and, I would argue, key to any public dialog about issues related to humanity--anyone preaching or teaching should be aware of all this, because it is key to understanding the way we see ourselves today and it is a unique and challenging perspective.

This is what Noam Chompsky had to say about Bernays' 1928 book, History Is A Weapon,

[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
     So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
     This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
     His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

millennials, whisky, and a whole bunch of other indiscriminate thoughts

 

I spend quite a lot of my life engaging with various aspects of religion, in two of my professions, one academic, the other ministerial I am continually engaging the complexities of what it all means. I try and read widely and broadly, engage with all sides of arguments, theories, etc., and I usually stay out of the arguments that emerge, usually because they seldom get anywhere anyway, so i don't really see the point. For some time now there have been these ongoing conversations within religion, particularly christianity over generational preferences and particular styles of worship etc. First it was boomers versus gen-xers, now it's the millennial discussion--what defines them, what 'they' like etc. Now, let me say up front that I think generational theory is mostly crap, it's essentially rooted in and borne out of the commodification of youth culture in the post-war years and is much a marketing strategy as anything else. Of course, there are differences among ages of people, but the idea that boomers like this, gen-xers like that and millennials something else is essentially a very flawed approach to anything in my mind. So much of this depends on so many things-geography, economics, for instance--you could argue that some supposed characteristics of gen-xers could to be applied in the U.K. to what would be regarded as baby-boomers because of a whole set of contributing factors such as the slow economic recovery of the post war years, the lack of a Vietnam-experience, latchkey kids--so many things--so I tend to be a bit wary of these generational studies, they are good for selling books and not much else as far as I am concerned--)I have also now lived long enough to know almost as many exceptions to every rule as the rule itself).

One of the conversations that has ebbed and flowed this year particularly, and perhaps more specfically because of a post that went viral from Rachel Held Evans and the shift toward more liturgical worship environments.

This came back around today as I read a post from my friend Tony Jones about what the church can learn about millennials from small batch distilleries. It is a smart and sharp post, as most of his posts are and he includes a quote from RHE in it,

"many of us," she writes, "myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions-Catholicism, eastern orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. -precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being "cool," and we find that refreshingly authentic." "What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance."

I realize that there was a particular context for this comment, related to responses from talks she had given about the state of things, and my thoughts stray from that a little, but i am not necessarily responding directly to her blog as much as to one of its statements, which she is not alone in voicing. There are many things I can say but let me begin by saying that I would agree that chasing 'cool' is always folly, I will also say that liturgical churches can be as prone to that as non-liturgical because that is about much more than style, ambition plays a factor, as does desire for impact in the environment, it is not always voiced in the same way in high-church environments but it is most certainly there, along with elitism, snobbishness, blindness and a host of other things that can haunt the institutional church of all persuasions. Admittedly 'cool' is more often associated with the artifacts of popular culture, but the idea of 'cool' has extended beyond that and has become a signifier. Trust me I have been in enough conferences on both sides of this aisle to say this with some emphasis. It is often more apparent in more contemporary churches because the desire for 'relevance' is voiced, but the counter to relevance is redundancy and liturgical churches face that in spades and their 'unconcerned with cool' liturgical approaches will not necessarily be enough to help them in my mind. 'Cool'  is an elusive facet of contemporary culture, it is, as I just said, one of our cultural signifiers, I am not saying it is necessarily good or bad, it just is a part of the wallpaper of late capitalist society, and it ignores the boundaries of liturgical practices. But I get it, you hear it more in contemporary environments, and the main problem with pursuing cool is that it can't be attained, it has to be conferred, which can lead to a sense of looking a bit desperate at times if it is a central drive.

I say some of this with some personal experience, I teach at an evangelical seminary, I minister in a progressive, liberal Episcopal church, I have planted and led and engaged in any number of non-traditional churches, emerging churches, alternative worship churches and conferences, etc. etc., and all of them have more challenges and problems than they know how to handle, and many of them operate along a spectrum of practices and ideas that are challenged by the world we find ourselves in, for different reasons perhaps, but challenged nonetheless, and the common problem in both, in my humble opinion, is precisely what is voiced in the quote--substance--they lack it, or perhaps more specifically they have the wrong kind of substance for the times in which we live. Lateral moves will ease some of the concerns worshippers may have for a while, but eventually, once the routine has set in, once the curtain has been lifted and essentially the same wizard is seen behind the curtain, a similar disillusionment will set in. The questions facing the world will not be addressed by unbridled pushes for cool and relevance, but they will not be served by redundancy either or simply by assuming that there is substance because something has an age/duration advantage.

I also happen to feel that substance affects style to some degree, there are reasons things are done the way they are done, and those things can become transformational but can also become ossified, and because it is old, doesn't mean it is better or not consumed with similar aims and intentions as newer approaches, it is just voiced differently.

Richard Rohr has said in a number of places that sometimes it feels as if churches are focused on a god who seems more interested in the past than the present or future, and this can be intensely present in high church environments, shaped as they often are by a high-low cultural perspective which tends to elevate the past as naturally better than the present, and then we find ourselves moving into the elitism that can haunt liturgical churches at times--the appeal to credibility and legitimacy based on length of practice--reminds me a little of Jesus' comment to the pharisees that association with god by birthright doesn't legitimize anything, stones can become children of god.

I get it though, all that contemporary church stuff can drive you nuts, but there will come a day when you realize that in a liturgical environment the same shit exists, it just comes with a different face. I think that a factor in all of this is that we often react adversely to what has formed us, or we simply move beyond its scope and I think a lot of that is happening today--it's bit like that moment when teenagers go from thinking their parents are the coolest people who know everything to the sense that they are the world's most embarrassing people, I think we all do or have done that to some degree with pretty much every issue of our lives. This is sometimes part of our own maturing process where we break away from things, take new responsibility for our own lives and realize the world is bigger, that there are other ways, perhaps more personally appealing ways of experiencing things whether it be life or church, but it is a misnomer to think that a change of substance is necessarily what you are getting, it is first a change of style with the same substance that you are generally getting, the same substance from a different angle, from a different style. And let's just address this idea of 'performance' for a minute, if you don't think a liturgical service isn't theatre, isn't performance, you haven't been in enough liturgy planning meetings, there may not be video screens and rock star effects but trust me it's a show, its a performance, and there is actually nothing wrong with that in my mind. But the issue of substance is not addressed exclusively by style.

Some churches may have more ancient links, but they are peopled by those who live and breathe today, and they bring themselves to those places and spaces and they are contemporary human beings and even their enactment of the liturgy becomes a different thing, it is unavoidably so--chanting becomes a preferential option, a commitment to a particular version of the liturgy, rather than essentially a means of extending the voice without amplification or the other issues that gave rise to the chanting of the liturgy or eucharist--the vestments that were once intended to not make the clergy distract from the worship experience stick out like a sore thumb today, because nobody else in the world dresses in a like manner, and it is worth remembering that there was a time when liturgical dress was current with the dress of the day. The clerical collar, adopted in the late 1800s, and adapted from the black coat and white tie that had defined clergy in a world where most people were defined by 'uniforms of dress,' was intended as a means of separating clerics from emerging and increasingly secularizing society at the height of the industrial age, it had particular theological and cultural implications, and it heralded a hint of culture despising as Brueggemann might say, rooted in a form of Victorian piety (it's just one of the reasons I refuse to wear one, it is not representative of my view of either the relation between church and culture or my particular pietistic views). It is essentially only in the last 100-150 years that the gap between the shape, design, practices and habits of the church have moved away so dramatically from keeping pace with and responding to the culture and has created this traditional/non-traditional divide. At one point not so long ago, much of what we experience as ancient liturgy would have felt much more modern than we realize. Many liturgical churches invoke ancient liturgy, but much of it is influenced and shaped as much by 18+19th century approaches as anything else, so don't be taken in and think that you necessarily entering some gothic cave untouched for centuries-you might every once in while, but mostly its not that at all, its a style, it's an affect/effect, beautiful though it surely may be. 

All styles and approaches to worship can be lauded and critiqued, I am however,  like RHE, deeply concerned with substance and for me the challenge for millennials or boomers, or gen-xers, or zeroes, post-millennials or whatever, will not be addressed by lateral moves to different forms of worship alone, which I really think that has something to do with personal preferences and experiences of the sacred--and like everything, its always good to try new things, even if they are old things:) but the real substance won't necessarily come from either one, or perhaps it can and will emerge from any and all of them, but something has to shift first.

Some may find that a shift in liturgical focus will be enough to meet their needs and desires toward the sacred, it hasn't been for me. I have spent the past thirty years in church of all shapes and sizes and I have to say that most of its 'substance' is completely lost on me, not only do I not believe it, I find it gets in the way, and surprisingly perhaps, I have met a lot of people who go to church regularly who don't believe it either, they just tolerate it, hoping that one day it will be different, hoping one day, something will be uttered that heralds the dawn of what we are all looking for--substance. I hear the same things iterated in all kinds of churches--they all have their varying preoccupations and focuses, but contemporary christianity is sorely lacking in substance in most environments where it is being expressed if you ask me, it always has a feel of "I've heard this before, and it didn't make much sense the first time, even less so now."

I think substance is what the church really needs to look at, not just the substance of its worship-that's too internal, I mean it's substance in terms of how it seeks to engage with the world, what it talks about, how it interprets both scripture, its practices and priorities, itself and culture at large. I come back again and again to the idea that christianity has all been said before and yet needs to be said anew--that one eras encounter with the gospel is not always enough for the next age. Neither the tendencies and preoccupations of conservative forms of christianity-liturgical, high-church or otherwise, nor the focus and concern of any kind of liberal/progressive church-traditional, non-denominational, contemporary or whatever, which have largely been shaped by late 19th and 20th century experience are at the core of the substance I long for.

Tony said in his post that millennials are hyper-conscious about where things come from, I agree, but again I don't think that this is an exclusively millennial dynamic, it is something that is occurring everywhere in our culture at the moment, there might be a preponderance of this among millennials but its not just them, it's a broader cultural response to the effects of living with disposable fashion, an attempt to manage constant change--it's like the work-wear trend in fashion right now--its romaticized, people are wearing it in the city, not on farms, it is an affect, the roots reconfigured to fit the contemporary world as much as anything else--sometimes brand new things transform the world. We live in a time where we both love and hate the new, again it's a phenomenon of our time, and it makes us a bit bi-polar in our approach to life.

The substance I seek is substance that addresses a world come of age to quote Mr. Bonhoeffer, not the ancient world, not the modern world, not the traditional church world or the contemporary church world, but this world--the post-freudian, post-darwinian, post-marx, post-liberal, post-secular, post-religious, post-christian, post-materialist, post-everything world, and only then will we be able to have a conversation about how to give it shape, in the meantime we are jsut moving things around, avoiding the most important conversation of all-that we need a new iteration, a new telling of the tale, one that is not simply an attempt at relevance or cool, nor marked by a blind resistance to the moment, but shaped by our time, reflecting the world we live in, not wish we live in, hope we live in, or want to live in. Until then I recommend going where you like but don't advance it as a model for what a generation is doing, because I think most of them are actually staying home and listening to Lorde.

on great leaps forward

I can't count the number of times somebody has bumped into me on the street lately because they are texting or doing something on their smart phones--I have enough of the VeryBritishProblems that I tend to avoid walking and texting most of the time, but I am not immune from being the problem myself. The benefit of cellular technology is mobility, the problem is distraction, it's a bit dangerous to be looking down all the time when engaging in public life, be it walking or worse, driving. So the remedy? Well, it would seem to me that new technologies like google glasses address that-they have us engaging with the world around us, or hope to--that is the purpose of glasses, Google or prescription, to see the world more clearly.

However, almost everyone, myself included, I speak to about Google glasses, except for the geekiest of digital adopters, roll their eyes when the idea comes up. So there seems to be a disconnect between what is potentially a good idea in terms of enabling greater mobility, and its implementation.

I mean forget for a minute all the inherent other issues related to wearing a pair of Google glasses--visions of Minority Report advertising, price tags on everything etc., being able to engage with mobile devices without having to unnaturally look down all the down while mobile seems rather helpful. So why do we not connect with the concept more excitedly? One thing has to be the perception/fact that we are reluctant to give more of ourselves way to the machine that is Google; we fear more personal information being sold away from us; of being even more commodified etc., but another thing may be that how we move into embracing new technologies or even new ideas takes more nurturing than we realize, something is obviously in the way of us adopting this new approach.

Now I am actually thinking about this with little relation to mobile devices, phones or glasses, I'm thinking about it in terms of how and in what ways we can overcome barriers to change-how do we establish new environments, new norms? The one thing I know for sure is that it doesn't come easy, in fact, I think it is ridiculously difficult to shift things along. it's not that we are resistant to change, we make changes all the time, or perhaps gradual shifts is a better term, we seldom make great leaps, they do occur but much more infrequently than we might imagine I think, but we often live in environments where there is a perception that we can and do. Ideas often go fallow for a time, until they are picked up again, re-contextualized, tweaked and are offered again. In between there are other factors that come into play--we become aware of problems and challenges and seek to solve them and we acknowledge the folly of present solutions--we often do this through relational connections rather than via top-down proclamations--an environment for change is generated and we shift--it's gradual work.

I think again about iOS7, it's an introduction of new engagement within the horizon of an old one, essentially the same practices but now stripped of old and unnecessary artifacts. It took seven iterations and a change in (design) authority to achieve it. Sometimes you have to keep the conversation going within and until the old guard (however gifted) is no longer in charge.

(the image is from Wang Qingsong-whose work is always worth an investigation)

what is normal?

Normal. What is normal? Normal is what shapes our reality, a set of assumptions about the world. Normal changes. There has been talk of the 'new normal' for ages now, the perception behind that phrase being linked to an awareness that times are changing and with it so is our sense of normality.

Armed with this perspective a couple of researchers created The Mindset List, ostensibly as a way for them to remian more aware of the potential disconnects between their work as educators and the students they were going to teach. As they note, "“Every year at school,” teachers say, “we get older but the students stay the same age.”

This idea of normalcy is felt quiter heavily in the educational world I think, our weak point being that we always assume that our take or experience of the world is everyone elses, that may have true at some point, but it isn't now, hence The Mindset List, a brief overview of the way normalcy is different for each generation of the digital age.

the beginning is near

"When you meet someone new tell them the following: Our modern age is characterized by a sadness which calls for a new kind of prophet. Not the prophet of old who reminded people that they were going to die, but someone who will remind them that they are not dead yet. Do ot be embrassed. Do not be afraid." Paul Chan

Paul Chan is an artist who mixes literary with the political, the old and the cutting-edge, the religious with the erotic. His work, a lot of it being old-school charcoal drawing along with digital manipulations, is framed by the idea that space for something new can be created by juxtaposing opposites. I find some stimulating ideas in both his work and interviews he has given here and there. Chan is never photographed because he doesn't want to compromise his work as a political activist. Of art he says, "If art has any insight into life today, it is that we have no other interior than the world." I resonate with this and might twist that idea a little and say that if religion has any insight into life today, it is that we have no other interior than the world. I have voiced my materialist tendencies many times, so no need to go much deeper with that thought. And while I do think that people need to face the reality of death, I also resonate with the idea that there is a prophetic role in reminding people about the life before you die-to give it worth and value, not to diminish it, as religion often does it seems, or make shallow promises of happiness and the like, but to invite people to remind people that there is life to be lived.

There is something of the call to make oneself present in the world-to be here now-and not living in the past (as Richard Rohr has said, too many religious people seem to think God is more interested in the past than the present or future) or focusing on some future-hope-yeah, I'm not an  eschatalogical optimist:)

12 Years A Slave

Last week there was a fair amount of press given to a film that was shown at the Toronto Film festival. One headline questioned whether it might be the 'next' Schindler's List. The film is 12 Years A Slave, directed by Steve McQueen and based on the true story of Solomon Northrup, a freeman, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the mid 19th century. I was privileged to attend an early showing of the film with a very small group(6) of people from various faith traditions in LA, to give comments and ideas about the film.

It's an intense film,perhaps the most intense film I have seen in ages, so much so that we were offered kleenex on the way in! And trust me, you will probably need them if you see this film. It is a relentless journey into the nightmare of slavery-it is brutal, physically and emotionally, a relentless two hours with barely any respite from the horror of northrup's situation and the horrendous world of slaves and their owners. The performances are pretty stunning, Chewitel Ejiofor, plays Northrup, Michael Fassbender his chief nemesis-but it's the story itself that is so amazing.

After the screening, we all just sat there in silence for a while and then gathered in the lobby to process, although our processing was basically guttural. It's like a counter to Django Unchained, the sober cousin to Tarantino's revenge movie. The violence is horrific and not 'cinematic,' i.e. it's not por-violence-all flash and in-your-face, it feels so painfully real that you find yourself repelled by the abiity of humans to show such inhumanity to each other.

This is one of those films that you have to prepare yourself to see, and I am sure that for many it will be too much to take on so many levels.

This is a very different film than Schindler's List, there is no hero transformation, it presents a very different character arc and focuses very much on one man's descent into a world from which, for twelve years, there was absolutely no escape, each day bringing its own version of hell.

On a slightly lighter note, a friend of mine has just launched a web-series based on her experiences working at Mount Vernon, George Washington's home and plantation. It's called Ask A Slave and is simply her acting out real questions that she was asked by visitors to the house. Funny and provocative!

armchair nation: boardwalk empire

I have confessed many times to my love of television, and of my predilection for the anti-heroes that litter the channels these days, from Tony Soprano to Walter White, from Justified to Hell on Wheels, from True Blood to Dexter, I like the way TV develops ugly characters and somehow gives enough pathos to make you like them enough to come back again and again to watch their descent into whatever madness is their particular bent.

I like the way many of these shows grapple with the complexity of ethics and morality in this shape-shifting world of ours. For instance, I think that one of the most fascinating shows on TV is Californication, David Duchovny's Hank is a serial-sex addict with a heart of gold, who wants nothing more than true love and family and yet fucks it up every chance he gets. Rather than a celebration of licentiousness, the show lingers over heartbreak as Hank recognizes over and over that his pathologies are the death drive that hamper the fulfilment he so desperately seeks. No point in watching if you can't handle serious nakedness, lots of sex, foul language and twisted humour, but every reason to tune-in if you want to encounter brutal honesty and a no-holds barred examination of the plight of a man.

Tonight sees the return of another anti-hero, Atlantic City's, Nuchy Thompson, in Boardwalk Empire. Apparently we are going up to Harlem and encountering the Jazz-Age in full swing. The 1920s were an amazing time in our cultural story-those giddy years after the Great war and before the Wall Street Crash, Great Depression and every other challenge to sanity that the 20th century seemed to bring.

Once I start with something, I generally travel the whole journey, I know there are mixed feelings about BE, but I like it a lot. I could watch it for the fashion alone, I have 'suit-envy' pretty anytime there is a man on screen, but more than that, I once again, like the complx tales of lies, corruption and the lengths people go to undermine what they really want. This inversion, or corruption, or thwarting of desire seems to be a big theme in televison as we dig into the 21st century. I would hazard a guess that this is because it is a huge theme in the broader culture. As we leave the 20th century behind (and I think it takes a while for one century to remove itself from another-a calendar date is arbitrary and not the truest indicator of time change), it seems that much of life-why we live our lives, and what we live them for, is being interoogated once more as we see more and more people looking for ways to enrich and enhance their lives and struggling to come to terms with the lies we've bought into, the lies we've been sold, and come to terms with what lurks within us all as we try to make sense of our being. Or maybe I just like gangsters.

(p.s. Armchair Nation seems like a good title for a book, i'm sure someone has already used it, but I might try and use it for a series of books on culture that I am refining and trying to find a publisher for)

theology after the death of self

Last night I did a podcast with my friends Bo and Tripp for their Homebrewed Christianity event with Reza Aslan--I was the 'opening act' if you will. We had a pretty wide-ranging discussion about what it means to be human in the 21st century and how that affects the ways in which we think about faith/belief etc. We talked a little about my own theological trajectory in the past few years which I outlined as taking in a couple of different factors. I think about theology chiefly after two significant 'events.' Theology after the 'death of god' and theology after the death of the self.

There is lots of talk about death of god theology these days. There have been a few less than friendly social-media exchanges over certain interpretations of that project, principally around radical theology and various interpretations of what that means. It highlights the problem with labels and naming things--the minute you do, someone usually takes issue with your particular interpretation of the contours, or appeals to some kind of assumed legitimate criteria for speaking about this or that, that one supposedly violates, misses or doesn't understand. I find most of it petty and not worth the effort of addressing, it is the kind of stuff that makes people walk away from institutions and groups of all kinds, but that's another conversation.

So I have been working through ideas around the post-metaphysical world and death of god theology, but I am also interested in the shifting world of the self and what that heralds for faith. I have never been that 'god-fixated' that may sound funny from someone who has spent more than thirty years in public dialogue about faith and religion, but god has always been a difficult issue for me, but it is only in the past few years that I have faced that fully and freed myself of other people's obligations for what constitutes faith (my rather general and dismissive dictum about this is that dogma is the noise of other peoples thinking and sometimes I have to tune it out). Where I have come to with some of this is captured in a perspective drawn from Altizer and others, that I cannot dismiss the present world for a transcendent one and that a continual reflection/obsession/focus on 'god,' particularly the metaphysical view of god, keeps lifting us out of this world, and I am interested in fully living in the present, in the here and now.

I have been living for a while with a few ideas drawn from here and there that I have been returning to over and over in an effort to harness and focus my own thinking on what all this means. Of particular importance has been a section of Bonhoeffer's letter about religionless christianity. I've written about this before so forgive repetition, but I am in a cycle of thinking and I tend to view and review until my thinking comes clear.

"How do we speak of god without religion i.e. without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness and so on...How do we speak in a secular way about god?"

Bonhoeffer's little comment has fueled a long journey of thinking for me. And I have taken that two-pronged comment, along with similar ideas from others and myself, as a starting point. The one side--the 'temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics' has gained a lot of traction and there is plenty of thinking in that arena , its the 'inwardness' comment that has had me wrestling lately. I think he is talking about the inwardness of subjectivity. Elsewhere and earlier Bonhoeffer writes that,

"we must finally rid ourselves of the notion that the issue...is the personal salvation of the individual soul...in such religious methodology human beings themselves remain the central focus." (you could do yourself a real favour and read Jeffrey Pugh's Religionless Christianity for a much clearer and expanded perspective on these ideas).

It would seem that the consciousness of the world has changed. Mark I. Wallace, in his book, Fragments of the Spirit, names both the 'de-priviledging of metaphysics' and the 'erasure of the self' as two significant challenges to Christianity in the third millennium. What does this mean? Well to me, it heralds a shift in human self-understanding away from the subjective and static view of the self, bequeathed to us by the Greeks and others that has driven our understanding of the self for centuries. I believe this is being eclipsed by a more mobile and fluid understanding of the self, where inwardness is not of prime focus. Two things going on for me--we can reference ourselves without a working hypothesis of God (Vattimo) and we can now consider ourselves without the anthropocentric impulse of the Enlightenment.

What are the implications of this? Well, they are immense. It throws into question how we engage with life, ourselves, each other. It challenges assumptions about what is prioritized in religion--'spiritual disciplines' for instance, in that I believe that most disiciplines are rooted in ideas of the self that no longer hold true (at least for me) and therefore must be revisited. I also think we are liberated to pray as Jesus invited us to pray, i.e. communally--'our father'--it is a form of prayer not anchored to a technology of inwardness. I think I'll stop there because I have things to do but I'll return to flesh this out at a later date. But then I'll talk about prayer, and why I don't.

the best way through the fog, is through the fog

Embrace Ambiguity from IDEO on Vimeo.

 One of a series of in-house videos from IDEO on some of their core values.

seeing in colour

There is a fascinating little tidbit on The New Shelton Wet+Dry, about a group of scientists who studied colour and moral judgement. Their discovery is that if people are shown high contrast black and white images, their judgements tend to be much more 'black and white,' fascinating. The consclusion was that there are other factors that come into play when a person makes a moral judgment and part of that is that non-affective cues related to style can affect the judgments we make.