My Problem with Penal Substitutionary Atonement and How it Relates to Politics.

The following is a response to a piece written by a very eloquent and insightful friend. Garret Menges recently wrote a piece examining the theological concept of penal subtitutionary atonement and the underlying truths it covers up. The piece - entitled "The Power of Myth" - examines the obsession our society has created around the ideas of scapegoat and sacrifice. Garret points to a cultural invention that attempts to solve the inter-communal conflicts that have threatened our existence. When peace is threatened within a community, that community will attempt to find a scape goat, blame all of their problems, sins, illnesses, etc on that individual and sacrifice that individual in order to restore peace. Garret sums it up the following way:

Perceived threat to the community –> Innocent victim is chosen and accused of crimes related to the taboos of the community –> Victim is sacrificed –> Myth is told in order to validate the sacred violence –> Peace is restored to the community for a time –> Repeat

Garret points to the obvious connection between this repeated tradition and the popular Crucifixion story. In much the same way, Christ was chosen as our scapegoat and sacrificed on the cross. Because of this, our sins have been absolved and we may carry on with our lives with a new sense of inner peace and sanctity. This theological concept is known as penal substitutionary atonement (PSA).

Although PSA remains as the dominant theological doctrine within the modern church, it is beginning to see it's share of criticism. Garret takes issue with PSA because it disguises the fact that we are responsible for the murder of a sinless being.

This myth has glorified the violence of the cross to the point that we have forgotten what lies behind it: our participation in the senseless killing of an innocent man.

Not only do I agree with Garret, but I would argue that PSA is a continuation of our flawed and dangerous perception of human nature. PSA argues that violence is needed in order to preserve peace among human beings. It assumes that human beings are inherently at war with each other and will constantly be violent towards one another unless we have an external source to focus our violent energy upon.

This "scapegoat myth" is also why I have a problem with the way in which we exercise modern politics. Thomas Hobbes argued that if humans were left with complete freedom and autonomy, we would constantly fight with each other in a natural state of war. This state of war is a direct result of the combination of our unlimited self interest mixed with a scarcity of resources. Hobbes solution was to create the sovereign - the ultimate authority on the use of legitimate violence. The idea is that we subject ourselves to the laws of the sovereign in fear of its threat of violence in order to establish peace amongst ourselves.

However, I take issue with the idea of the sovereign for a number of reasons. First of all, the sovereign must rely on law, which is based on the idea of universal truths, a concept that is infinitely impossible. Although he would not have been able to even perceive the concept of nation states as we experience them today, Hobbes attempted to solve the problem of universality by drawing boundaries on the power of the sovereign. In this way, laws only need to apply to those within the sovereigns boundaries. Still, I argue that this kind of thinking only solidifies our "us and them" perception on our fellow human beings across the world. It focuses our attention on the perceived differences of each other in an exclusionary way as opposed to way of inclusion and empathy. Furthermore, I take issue with the sovereign's use (and often abuse) of violence, either threatened or actuated. When someone breaks a law, it is the responsibility of the sovereign to punish and make an example out of that individual as opposed to exploring the reasons and motivations behind that individuals crime and addressing them. In other words, the sovereign, through the use of coercion and violence, uses a "band-aid" solution in order to create short term peace - I find that dangerous, lazy, short-sighted, and only serves to promote an unhealthy perception of each other.

So what is my solution? Of course there is no easy answer to this question, although I believe it lies in a closer examination of the perception of human nature that both PSA and the model of sovereign politics builds their theories upon. That is, we believe that we are inherently competitive and self interested individuals who would rather be violent towards one another than cooperate with one another. It is fairly obvious that we make significant advances when we co-operate with each other. I could use a number of examples to prove my point; ranging from family life, to teams working on the next technological advance, to our cooperation with one another in times of extreme crises. However, I think the best example is found within the conception of human, a truly cooperative effort that has kept our species in existence for so long. In this way, we have evolved into social beings who constantly need to be connected with one another, whether that's through friendship and family, or through the social networking sites of our age. We have too much empathy built into our system to be in a constant state of war. The only way we are able to harm another human being is if we blind ourselves from their common humanity and block our empathic neurons.

My biggest problem with PSA and the sovereign model of politics is that it further perpetuates the myth that we are inherently violent creatures and that we will constantly be at war with each other. Instead, I prefer to view our violent tendencies a form of illness that have corrupted our human nature. One central thing we forget when we talk about the story of Jesus is that he is not dead. This tiny detail has huge implications when we examine his life. Jesus taught us to love one another, to recognize the common humanity within us all, and to cut out the violence towards one another. This message was so threatening to our traditional and comfortable way of thinking that we put him to death. However, Jesus resurrection demonstrated that his message cannot be extinguished even by death. Jesus took away the power of violence and coercion and replaced it with one of mutual cooperation and love.

Hipsterdom/Hipsterdumb?

I recently read this article: Hipsters and Low Tech

It's a great article and makes some very interesting points. One of the things, however, that I have been reflecting on again recently is the very nature of the word "hipster"... which is used throughout the article.

The word hipster often has a distinctly pejorative connotation that I think comes through in the article, and can be much more blatant in conversation in phrases such as "I hate hipsters," which I have heard on multiple occasions, or the current ads for some job search website that read "Hipster is not a job."

It is also an interesting aspect of "Hipsterdom" that many "hipsters" will deny the label...

A friend of mine spent years denying that he was into hipster music... "I just like music," he would say. The hipster in his mind were the pretentious kids who liked a type of music because it was "cool"...

So what defines a hipster? Is it clothes? Or stuff? Or attitude? Or something else?

the fetishization of low-tech is about the illusion of agency; it provides affirmation for the hipster whose identity is defined by the post-Modern imperative to be an individual, to be unique...The hipster aesthetic reflects an ideology of hyper-individualism, though this individualism is itself paradoxical because it is socially mandated.

This great quote (above) from the article, gets near the heart of the hipster critique.

I think what is at the root of most negative judgement levelled against hipsters is:

that there is something false and illusory about hipsters - that their fashion, toys, music are all accessories carefully arranged to create a particular image in order to establish a unique identity and thus fit in. One of the comments in the article used the term "posed authenticity"

It is this final goal of social acceptance through false social rebellion that is a primary target for critique.

If true, the critique of hipsters is also of a shallowness.

Hipsters, in their most shallow, are obsessive devotees to the "cult of cool"; at their best, setting trends and at the worst, chasing them, while pretentiously considering themselves above corporate western culture...

Now, let's go through the checklist:

• I have a vintage leather jacket from the '70s.
• I have a polaroid camera collection.
• I've read and listen to Zizek.
• I have a some plaid shirts.
• I shop at thrift stores.
• I love Wes Anderson movies.
• I have a tobacco pipe collection.
• I used to own a '71 VW bus.
• I cut my own hair.
• My jeans have become skinny.
• I have a beard.
• I own an Apple computer.

The only areas I fail the surface hipster test are in music and bike riding.

And I definitely resonate with a desire for the opt-out.

The hipster low-tech fantasy–"the dream of the 1890s"–is one of escape from the complex socio-technical systems that we are highly dependent on but have little control over. It is a fantasy of achieving the most radical expression of individual agency: the opt-out.

So yes, I will ruefully accept the label hipster if you would like to use it on me in whatever sense you feel applies. And I will acknowledge that some of the hipster critique is probably validly levelled against me.

I will acknowledge that I have escapist tendencies; that when I was in high school I wore baggy pants and swore that that would never change; that I find the complexities of modern life overwhelming and difficult to navigate. I am, by nature, an idealist, and struggle at gut level with compromise. I could be legitimately accused in participating in a false rebellion: I supported #Occupy but I didn't occupy anything. I am not a rebel. I am, at most, the image of a rebel. I like my parents...

How can there be real rebellion when rebellion is integrated into the system? I am looking for a radical middle but can there ever be anything radical about the middle?

Allow me a moment of self-indulgent hipster sympathy...
If everything is f#%ked, why not grow a moustache and bury yourself in anxiety reducing irony? 

I think that our contemporary culture can fairly be labelled escapist... which means that "all of us" on some level are aware of how screwed up things are...

Everyone is escaping; they are jet setting on holidays to Mexico; or they are playing massive multiplayer games online; or watching all of their favourite TV shows; or drowning themselves in drugs and alcohol; or work; or sex; or books; or sports. I think have effectively defined away reality...

So what are we escaping from? I think we are trying to escape the hard realities of mortality, not just that we will die but also a lack of meaning and the realization that life is short and we are small, but our problems and the problems of the world are large...

Do we hate hipsters because at both their best and worst they affirm our fear that meaning is an illusion? If the low tech fetish of hipster is not attacked, if those who would opt out, are not undermined as hypocrites, is it possible that the industrial illusion of progress might begin to crack and crumble?

Is the person we have, with disdain, labelled a hipster, fairly critiqued for 'posed authenticity'? Or is their ironic and eclectic choice of clothes, hairstyle, etc an explicit, intentional and acknowledged rendering of the inauthentic and posed nature of lives and interaction? Am I aware of the social forces that have constructed me and my wardrobe? Are you aware of the social forces that are moulding and shaping you? 

So I finish with a few questions:

• Does the word hipster have a pejorative connotation? Or is it neutral?
• In your opinion/experience, is a "hipster" primarily defined by: clothes, music, moustache, or a pretentious attitude?
• Are "hipsters" validly critiqued as hyper individualist? Why or why not?

Black Square 62.1.5

            Black Square was originally painted in 1915 by Kazimir Malevich, a Russian painter. He pioneered geometric abstract art and avant-guard suprematism. He follows in the line of growing abstraction within art. As is evident in Picasso’s works the subjects become more and more abstract, which developed into cubism. The subjects, people, things, vistas, were broken down into rudimentary shapes. This breaking from form can be understood as an attempt to get behind what is perceived to what is known, or conversely showing that nothing can be know only perceived. In moving to abstraction, and non-direct representation the era sought to define itself. As the cultural milieu sought to define itself, so to did painted art. Malevich incorporated cubism into his works, as did many others. Malevich, however, took cubism to its logical end. 

            In looking for what represented pure artistic feeling, Malevich broke everything down to geometric shape and solid colour. The cornerstone of his exhibit was “Black Square”. It defined what is known or felt as black, and the rudimentary form of square was totality. Created in 1915, as WWI raged in Europe, “Black Square” can be understood as art’s response.

 

            Not only did Malevich create “Black Square”, a statement in itself, the way in which he hung it was of utmost importance. He hung the square from what is called the red/beautiful corner, which in Russian Orthodoxy is the place of the Icon in the house. In so doing, Malevich not only made a formidable painting. He proposed an even more totalizing idea: that true knowledge or reality can be summed up in “Black Square”. In so doing, he painted his manifesto “From Cubism to Suprematism” into reality.

            Though it is no longer 1915, it is my perception that many of the same emotions and outlooks pervade our society. Looming ecological disaster, militarization, national brinkmanship, continuous knowledge that at any moment nuclear accidents can ruin the entire globe, all result in a “Black Square” looming over our everyday lives.

            “Black Square” captures me as a person. When I look at it, and when I ponder it, it resonates with me deeply. (This should not be too much of a surprise to those who read this blog often; I am sometimes critiqued for being too pessimistic and negative). In “Black Square”, I see my own complete nihilism. It makes sense. Reality often seems more like a chaos then a cosmos. “Meaningless, Meaningless” is a refrain that comes blowing on the wind; it is a refrain that inspired the origins of this blog. Wallowing and uncertainty find themselves in the Icon of “Black Square”. It is something that once I discovered has not left me and often floats to the forefront of my mind. It has almost become a fetish of faith for me, something to which I cling. No matter how depressing it seems it grounds me in reality.

            I have been very fortunate to see many of Malevich’s paintings on display in New York on my various visits. “White on White” is a compelling piece but does not hold the same power for me as “Black Square”. Yet, as I looked at art this past summer, I became inspired to physically create my version of “Black Square” that has been percolating in my mind for the past eight months or so.

            “Black Square 62.1.5” is my rendition of Malevich’s “Black Square”. I have added a little, imperfect, blip of white, which I pulled into a seven-pointed “star”. It now hangs above my desk in the red/beautiful corner of my apartment. The “star” is small, centered, and is either breaking through the darkness or receding into it. It is my icon, my window into the divine, my grounding on earth when sometimes it seems all is “Black Square”, at those moments I remind myself I chose to profane “Black Square” with white.

            The day I finished it, my roommates had some people over, and they wanted to hear what I meant by it (which I have just told you). First, I asked for their impressions. Foreboding, empty, and alone, were words they chose to describe it. Then a curious remark, that I like very much, was stated, “The longer I look at it the smaller the white dot seems to get”. I think this is true, the longer the stare, the farther away the perceiver becomes. Almost as if we retreat into ourselves at those moments of contemplation.

            As for the title, “Black Square 62.1.5”. I hope the “Black Square” part is evident enough. 62.1.5 is a reference. I have chosen to name all my paintings with a numbered code. Book62.Chapter1.Verse5 “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.

           

What I'm Learning About Learning

I'm back at school! (More on that later)

As the first few weeks have rolled by, there has been a common theme running through the majority of my classes. Most of my profs having been talking about the ideas and problems centered around the academic world. I'd like propose a few questions that keep popping up in my readings and lectures, questions which have really started to get me thinking about the other side of the picture. They are presented here with a large degree of simplification, but my hope is that they get us thinking and talking about how academia is practiced.

Question 1: What is education for?

All throughout my life, I have been going to school to learn new things; new facts, new ideas, new theories, new ways of getting things accomplished, etc. This seems fairly self evident - that is until you ask the question, "for what reason am I learning?" So often we assume (or at least I do) that we learn so that we can contribute to our ever evolving story on this planet. A medical sciences student goes to school to learn how the body works so that she may learn how to help others when they are sick. An engineering student goes to school to learn how design buildings that we may some day live in. A history student learns how to categorize our past experiences so that she may continue developing the story that we come to understand ourselves by. The political science student learns theories of governing ourselves so that we may design a better system that works for us all. Essentially, we participate in academia in order to better the world.

David Orr - a professor of political ecology at Oberlin College - questions this romanticized view on academia in his book, Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect by pointing out that it is people with their undergraduate degrees, Master's certifications, and Doctorates who are responsible for an economic system that degrades and exploits the environment. He even goes as far as to use Ellie Wiesel's analysis of those individuals responsible for the atrocities of the holocaust saying that they "were the heirs of Kant and Goethe, widely thought to be the best educated people on the planet" (Orr, 7). What is it about these individuals education that lead them to neglect moral judgement? Was something missing? Do ethics, morality and character building have a place within the academic world? What about action? Does education need to lead us to a place

Question 2: Who's knowledge?

The question implies two notions that, in my opinion, are often overlooked.  The first is that knowledge is a created thing. This idea has been around for a while but it's been most exemplified in my study of Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes spends the first few chapters of Leviathan explaining how our senses inform us of our surroundings and help us form an awareness of them. That is to say, our experiences shape our understanding and knowledge. Alongside with this is the obvious notion that we all have different experiences and therefore have different knowledges. My understanding is quite different than yours and collectively - assuming that we have both grown up in the same culture - our knowledge is quite different than someone's from say India. The question then becomes, who's knowledge do we present in University? Which knowledge gets privileged and why? 

I believe in the power of intersectionality. That is, the power of recognizing where two different knowledges intersect. I believe that where these intersects happen, a connection is made and a great deal is learned. Is it the academic world's responsibility to facilitate intersectional dialogue? If so, how do we open the classroom up to knowledges that are not the same as the professor's? What power dynamics are in the way when promoting intersectionality?

Question 3: Who get's to participate? 

Time and time again, I am reminded of how lucky I am to be here. There are many barriers to education, both seen and unseen. Although, I've struggled with the money issue, I've been lucky enough to have a government service provide me with the funding necessary to go to school, as long as I pay it back when I'm done. But what about those who can't? What about those where government funding is just not enough?

It's also important to examine the question of who excels in the academic world and why. I stumbled across a great meme that asks the same question. 

We're not all designed the same way and I think that our education ignores that, thus inhibiting the participation of others. We recently heard from both Kelsey and Danielle about the benefits and joys of learning beyond the classroom. Does the academic world make room for different types of learning? Is it emphasized enough or is it just payed simple lip service with the inclusion of a practicum class here and there?

As I stated in the beginning of this post, these questions are limited and quite simplified. These are questions that I hope I can explore throughout the rest of my academic career. I hope to encourage discussion and thought about the ways in which we approach academia and I hope to expose some of the power dynamics behind the institution. 

Thoughts?
 

Education – A Time of Slowing

            Being that it is reading week, I finally have some time to breathe. September seems to have dissolved without my knowledge and as the weather begins to turn, I am keenly aware that it is no longer the beginning of the semester.

            I am back at school, and boy am I glad to be back. I am starting a Masters of Christian Studies at Regent College, which means I get to see much more of Duncan and Amy as well as spending countless hours with my face in books.

            I am glad to hear from Danielle and Kelsey in their latest posts that education occurs in the work place and on the farm. I value these kinds of learning, and might even posit that these types of experiential learning have a longer lasting impact on us as persons, but that is not where I am at this moment in time. I have chosen to return to the academy. Why have I done so?

            Well because I love it and I am challenged by it. I think that wrestling with the mind is a worthwhile endeavour. The challenge to think in new ways, to consider information from previously untried angles, and the opportunity to test and reconsider beliefs and values is never a frivolous pursuit. 

            I also love the academy because at its best it makes a mockery of the capitalist system we live in. What I mean by this is that the academy, in its true form, makes a mockery of our prevailing worldview that time = money. In essence, I can waste vast amounts of time on a paper, which in reality will be read by one professor at one moment, probably not making a huge impact on that person, to receive a grade that does not matter all too much. This, to my knowledge, is not generally accepted in the working world. In some ways, academic pursuit acts as an extended period of the spiritual discipline of slowing. The discipline of slowing is to stop time, pause, think, reflect, realign oneself in order to act and live better in the subsequent moments.

            My goal in this extended period of slowing is to increase my ability to be self-critical. I think education at its best teaches and trains a contemplative mind, not only skills and content. It trains us to perceive the underlying questions, to show us how “facts” can be read and interpreted in various ways, and to open ourselves to other perspectives. In doing so we can approach the rest of life more humbly, acknowledging the complexities, the diversity, and the wonder of the human experience. So although education, specifically education in the academy, often does not feel like slowing, I think it largely emulates the discipline of slowing.

            This reading week has also given me time to finalize a paper I wrote at the UN this past summer, which was presented August 24th in New York at a conference in honour of Shi’a Muslim scholar Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub. I spent Sunday finalizing the citations and writing an introduction and brief critique on Christian just war theory, which now introduces the main argument of the paper. It is entitled “A Mennonite Vision for Tolerance and Global Peace” and it should be published by the end of this year. After sending off the final copy, I received an e-mail from Doug the MCC UN director. Here is an excerpt, “You should also know that Ed Martin [Ed Martin was Mennonite Central Committee area director for Central and Southern Asia from August 1989 through September 2007] borrowed freely from this (with my permission) for a short presentation he was asked to give in a meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad here in New York on September 25th.”

            This in no small way made my day! As I told my mom about it over the phone this evening, we reflected on the importance of sharing alternative perspectives. Specifically because without sharing them we remain limited to our own conceptions of reality. We wondered together if maybe, in some small way, my paper might have been an alternate perspective Ahmadinejad needed to hear. I am not sure, and there is probably no way of ever knowing. Nevertheless, as I wrote on education this example seemed to fit. For I think at the heart of education is hearing and perspective sharing, and then learning to think about what we hear. 

Much to Gain

This month, as back to school season transitions to midterm season, I will celebrate my first year on the job. The first year of my career, and one of the longest seasons of my life outside the classroom.

Though my days as an undergraduate are over and I do not know when I will embark on further studies, at work, my learning curve is on the rise. I am learning to write funding applications and to form community partnerships. I am contributing information to an author about the history of interfaith work in Abbotsford. I am building a cross-sector professional network and meeting others in my field. I am managing multiple contracts, deliverables and evaluations. I am becoming a confident facilitator, speaker and presenter. I continue to learn about diversity, discrimination and anti-oppression work from my colleagues as well as from our program participants and volunteers.

I was a "green" hire, fresh out of college with no direct experience working for a non-profit or with government contracts. The manager of our department and my supervisor took a risk to have me on their team and I could not be more thankful.  I am learning through experience and under incredibly knowledgeable and generous people.

Cheers to sharing knowledge and experience with others, to life-long learning and another year of work.

Year Two

Last year Amy and I moved to Vancouver and I started a Masters program at Regent College on the UBC campus. I was very naively surprised by the trauma and difficulty of that transition. The move, while small, was absolute. Unlike our move to Abbotsford, we had no friends or acquaintances near us in the city. While I knew a couple of CBC grads at Regent, they were second or third years and our paths crossed minimally. It was a difficult year of birthing and integrating into a new community, rhythms, and place.

As I start my second year, I am conscious of this challenge the many first year students are going through. I am thrilled to not be dealing with the chaos of moving and figuring out buses, shopping etc. We have become established in a place. We have routines and rhythms. I am comforted by the anticipated change in leaves as the canopy above out street becomes golden. We considered moving into a community house this year, which would have been exciting and challenging and the fulfillment of a dream and discussion that has been going on for the past 5 years. However, in the midst of what has felt like a whirl wind of change over the past year, I am convinced that choosing to stay in our place has helped create a sense of stability in our lives that has helped us to live through difficult decisions, such as Amy's transition in jobs. 

Silas, started at Regent this fall. Amy, Silas and I are all HIST 681: Mapping Gender - a look at gender in the 19th century. This is a highlight of my experience at Regent thus far. The class is amazing and is only made more so with such great friends to engage in it with. Every Thursday feels like a party! 

September has been busy! Despite established routines and familiarity with school and Vancouver, I have been blessed with lots of video work this month which has presented a challenge as I work to keep up with my readings and assignments and shoot and edit videos. This is a good problem but a challenging one.

Since kindergarten there has only been one fall when I was not in school... The stimulation and excitement of intellectual engagement and education, being part of a learning community, is something I love and am nervous about leaving... This blog as previously described, born out of post graduation anxiety and underemployment is a touchstone and reminder that neither community nor learning end at graduation.