Tag Archives: Christianity

Individualised Subjects

There is a trend in America — and likely elsewhere — to decontextualise events like the mass shooting last week by turning the perpetrator into a completely autonomous, loner, mentally disturbed, ‘sinful’ individual. I’ve heard this from both religious and non-religious people over the weekend. However, I’ve begun to wonder about such a move — especially the last one (the ‘sinful’ part). In discussing this with ministerial figures, they were quick to differentiate ‘killing’ (especially that ‘sanctioned by God’ in the HB/OT) and ‘murder’. For him, at least, there is a prior commitment to accept the literal (well, literal in English at least) wording of the Biblical texts as being directly from God and, therefore, to reject seeing the language of ‘divinely-sanctioned murder’ as political insertions by religious and political leaders of the time. This person was also quick to declare the actions and life of the shooter as ‘sinful’ as a result of his final act. Yet, I wonder if the share of ‘sin’ extends far beyond simply the act of shooting children in a school room. Ignoring the additional argument that ‘guns don’t kill people’, I want to explore the ‘sins’ of the community which far outweigh the shooting of American children.

First, while the shootings occurred in Connecticut, the American military has been involved with an ongoing campaign of murdering people indiscriminately in Pakistan. This includes children just as innocent as those in American elementary schools. When this fact is brought up in conversation, most people shrug their shoulders as if it is an inconsequential number (as is attributed to Stalin: ‘if a person kills a dozen, it is a tragedy; if five million, a statistic’). Interestingly, there was another mass killing on Friday in China. While this did make mention in the news, it was lost soon after in the deluge of speculation about the latest shooting in the US. Apparently, it is only newsworthy to the media when American children are gunned down by posthumously ostracised ‘individuals’.

Secondly, there is the looming question of gun control. This shooting — like the many before it — has rekindled the debate regarding gun control. There is a liberal knee-jerk reaction every time which shuts down this debate in the name of ‘respect for the victims’ — as if it would not be respectful to discuss a way of preventing further instances. It is a myth to say that outlawing handguns and removing them from public access will not affect how ‘criminals’ can acquire weapons — as if there is a gaping hole in the government’s oversight of its borders whereby guns flow freely. I believe the issue stems from an American romance with the Wild West in which laws were suggestions and ‘individuals’ could interpret ethics and legalities by the gun. For these people, outlawing guns would be a tragedy because they think by giving a person a gun, that person is empowered as a defender, equipped with deadly force, trained as sharpshooter, and prepared to become a vigilante at a moments’ notice. Never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are not stopped by average citizens with guns (and in fact, those who have tried to do so have become part of the body count) but by people who are actually trained and prepared to deal with mass shooters (i.e. the police and military). In other words, the general American romance with the mythological Wild West is one in which lawmakers and upholders of the law are also individuals decontextualised from their positions as government employees. They are freed from the constraints of the legal system and community mores in order to protect it. The same could also be said of the military. This kind of liminality makes the individual somehow superior to the urbanites who rely on civil services. It also implicates the desire to return to a post-civil society in which laws are relative to the individuals who are the sole and final arbiters of law (a la Judge Dredd).

Third, there is a meta-narrative which develops around each of these shootings whereby the assailant is a mentally unstable individual who must bear the complete guilt, shame, and sin of his actions against a ‘tight-knit’ community. Time and again, the police and the media work together to sell the story of the lone gunman who had serious signs of mental instability and was able to acquire (legally!) numerous weapons prior to his assault on the community. Rarely, if ever, does the ‘tight-knit’ community actually see the warning signs of such an individual, yet they are quick to excuse their own lack of care (how ‘tight-knit’!) for the assailant. In other words, if the assailant is an outcast of the ‘tight-knit’ community, it is mutually decided between the person and the community.

Fourth, the meta-narrative of ‘tight-knit’ communities is made to decontextualise the location from its embedded-ness in a city. Newtown, CT, for instance is a suburb of Danbury and part of the greater New York City region. Columbine is a suburb of Denver. Oftentimes, these ‘tight-knit’ and ‘non-city’ communities are part of an urbanised landscape. However, this decontextualisation is done to fabricate a fantasy of a Wild West town in which legal systems are superfluous and all the citizens of the town are as closely connected as can be without being related.

To speak, then, of the ‘sins’ of the shooter is misleading at best. Had the community been as close to its fantastical utopian narrative as it claims to be, the event of violence which actually occurred would not have happened. The ‘sins’ of the community may be that of the narcissist whereby nothing and nobody is of a concern except for the ‘tight-knit’ community which has a bad history of excluding people who do not fit the orthodoxy of the community. Adam Lanza, for example, was a stranger in his own community, alienated by the very narratives which construct Sandy Hook and Newtown as ‘tight-knit’ communities. If that is the case, then his violence was more than just violence for the sake of violence but also a cry of desperation for the community to see its narcissistic reflection. To put this in terms of ‘sins’, Adam Lanza was the sacrificial scapegoat by which Newtown and Sandy Hook can continue their ‘sinful’ practises of alienating those who live within their borders. Please do not misinterpret me here: yes, Adam Lanza shot and killed dozens of people; however, it is short-sighted to blame him as an individual for the sins of the community which produced him as the alienated individual.

Faceless Suffering

Unfortunately, this story doesn’t seem to be getting much attention. It’s yet another sad case of religious belief gone wrong. However, there are a few things about this that should be instructive for both Christians and people in general.

The first point, which is primarily for Christians, is about the dangers of conflating religious belief with political belief. This isn’t to say that one’s religious beliefs cannot influence one’s political belief. However, the problem arises when one mixes the two completely such that political beliefs become religious ones. Christianity in America has this in its persecution complex: the belief that Christians are always being persecuted. Again, this isn’t to say that Christians aren’t being persecuted but that persecution doesn’t happen very often in secular courts. Ironically, this complex is very similar to what is perceived as the behemoth of Muslim outrage (e.g. the protests because of the Danish cartoons). The Christian response should not be to fuel the fire or succumb to the same kind of outrage, but to show love. If Christianity truly is different, then Christians need to act differently. The greatest act of difference a Christian can do is to show love; this is the radical message of Christ in the Gospels.

The second point is that these events aren’t done only by Muslims. That may be what is most common in the news, just as everyday murders are (at least in the US). The point of the news is to highlight events out of the ordinary (i.e. the newness of the news). One of the common criticisms against Islam is the honour killing scenario (i.e. when a person is kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert/marry her rapist or be killed to save her family’s honour). People may not remember or realise, but this also happens in Christian families as well as others. These stories should not be read as religious extremists (with the emphasis on the particular religion which in these times happens to be focused at Islam), but as extremists who happen to be of a particular religion. Just as Christians like to argue that the extremists who act in the name of Christianity aren’t ‘real’ Christians, other religions must be afforded that same benefit of the doubt. Again, if Christianity is truly different as a ‘relationship instead of a religion’, its followers should be able to prove this on its own merits exclusive of what ‘other religions’ do (ignoring the contradiction of Christianity-as-a-non-religion and Christianity-against-other-religions).

Targets of “Emergent”

This is part 3 of 6 in the What is "Emergent"? series

Next question is

#2: Is the “emerging” movement fundamental a church of protest? And, if so, is the primary target of the protest evangelicalism? What are its targets?

i think this question is much easier. The Emerging Church movement is a movement of disillusionment. While the church groups the EC “emerged” from were focused on a stringent hierarchy and maintaining some balance of top-down leadership, the EC wants to break that order and return to an egalitarian structure. Charisma (leadership quality, not speaking in tongues or raising the dead) is becoming the focus again. Leadership is being invested into people of various backgrounds who are able to lead charismatically.

Protest is a pretty strong word to use for the EC, especially if one considers that the EC wants some kind of harmony and/or acceptance. Protest excludes that possibility. If the EC had to be characterised as a protest, i’d suggest its target is Fundamentalism (again, think Niagara Conference in the 1890s and not a specific denomination). Fundamentalism arose as a result of Darwinism and was meant to define as being totally against any kind of science. The five fundamentals that came from the conference were: (1) inerrancy of Scriptures (total perfection of the text with no contradictions, writing errors, even to the last jot ant tittle) which was a rather new concept, (2) the diety of Jesus (and hid virgin birth), (3) the substitutionary atonement, (4) literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and (5) the literal return of Jesus in the Second Coming (which required some kind of view of Revelation that excluded amillenialism and preterism). Some of these don’t seem too bad–and they’re not. Yet, by taking this relatively radical position in the 1890s, the fundamentalists were able to set up a strong dichotomy between “sacred” and “secular” that had slowly faded away since around the time of the Reformation.

It became such that these fundamentalists decided what was orthodoxy and what was not. Belief in evolution (even the one scientifically proven)? Wrong. Belief in a metaphorical interpretation of eschatological events in the Bible? Wrong. The radicals defined Christianity instead of the texts. They defined the method of interpretation (which excluded any kind of critical or grammatico-historical approach). That is what the EC may be protesting: a group of humans claiming authority on things well behond human understanding.

Culture and Christ

It seems that so many people nowadays, even Christian fundamentalists, confuse the cultural phenomenon of Christianity and the spiritual phenomenon of . To be a “real” Christian (for them) is to be both cultural and spiritual.

Yet, this is not really the case. For a historical lesson, let’s travel to Denmark around 1850. During this time, everyone born a Dane was automatically a Christian. To become a citizen, one must convert to Christianity. Now, that may sound good at first, but let’s now fast forward a hundred years. Denmark, still with its official state religion as Christianity, has amazingly little church attendance. Why? Because everyone is a Christian. This is because they confused cultural Christianity with spiritual Christianity. They thought that because they walk around claiming “Christian” as their religion that they needn’t actually practise it. That is the problem of confusing cultural with spiritual.

Now then, let’s return to the mid-19th century Denmark. Here we have a philosopher running around named Soren Aabye . He’s writing more books than can be imagined and many of them under psuedonyms such as Johannes Climacus. One of his main contentions against his culture was that cultural Christianity. He attacked it every chance he got. In fact, he made a distinction which i believe is important between the cultural Christianity (or as he called it, ““) and the spiritual Christianity (“Christianity”). One of his last books was even titled Attack upon Christendom. That’s how adamant he was against the confusion between the two.

Where does that leave us? Well, in short, we must recognize that one needn’t be a cultural Christian (i.e. in Christendom) to be a spiritual Christian (i.e. in Christianity). Once we realise that being a Christian does not involve hanging out with a bunch of people claiming to be Christian, but rather following Christ, things will change for the (universal) Church. Until then, we must suffer unwarranted persecution because of (i’d suggest Pat Robertson as one) acting publicly without an attitude of Christ.

More Paul

Some more on …
In his discourses/letters, Paul makes reference that there are neither Jew nor Greek in Christ. Why those two? “Greek” really doesn’t encapsulate the totality of all the “nations” (ethne), does it? “Jew” doesn’t encapsulate everything not-Greek. So, why those two? Why not “Roman” and “Jew”?

That’s because Paul wasn’t talking ethnicity or nationality. He was talking ideology/philosophy. Basically, Christianity fails as a Jewish idea because of the continual refusal to perform signs that the Jews demanded. The Jewish idea of a “master” was one who would perform miracles on demand. Look at the prophets of the Old Testament. Signs were not the focus of Christ.

Christianity also fails as a Greek idea because of the continual refusal to submit to logic or answer the questions. Paul tells the Greek sophists in Acts that the weakness in God is strength and the foolishness in God is wisdom. You can’t get any more illogical than that. The Greek idea of a master was one who answers the perplexingly complex questions in a logical manner. Christ’s focus was not on answers.

Paul makes into a new discourse. It won’t conform to Jews nor Greeks. In fact, it asserts that those are utterly worthless in this new Christian discourse. This new discourse is one of declaration. It is found in Paul declaring the Resurrection. By people experiencing this event that breaks History into two, salvation occurs. By experiencing this salvation, the person is transformed from slave to son. By becoming a son, the person also becomes an heir. That is Paul’s message.