Selling Your Birthright

I have been watching #OccupyWallStreet be evicted and their camp destroyed. I feel the hope that this camp represented for me drain from my body. I remember the fear and discomfort I felt as we tried navigate New York under lock down on New Years last year. The Occupy movement has inhabited insistently the limits of freedom in our society and as they are evicted and their camp and property destroyed and so with it the illusion of freedom we thought we had, we thought we believed in, we thought was at the core of our identity. It turns out inconvenient freedom has been sold perhaps for as little as a bowl of soup. The NYPD has sold out freedom for a paycheque. I have been increasingly frustrated over the past few week to the point of miserable apathy at the quickness that Vancouver also has quickly and easily sold our birthright of freedom, we have been intimidated by tragedy and fear into sacrificing freedom. We do not seem to understand precedents are laid or broken based on this. We do not understand that silencing the voice of Occupy is effectively cutting out our own vocal chords in any and all future occasions. It is devastating to me the degree to which we have bought into the power systems and structures of our countries and are happily prepared to sell the freedoms of others for our own comfort. I am sad that I am so apathetic of our power systems and political structures I have failed to energize either myself or others to fight our slow slide toward totalitarianism. We have sold ourselves for soup. I am embarrassed. I am terrified. There is something very Machiavellian about the way that our Governments have dealt with Occupy. Our law has become complex enough and our freedoms expendable enough and loopholes large and plentiful enough that it is relatively simple to enforce and not enforce law as convenient by those in power in order to gain whatever result is desired. Its also helpful when you have a police force to violently enforce whatever you order without any immediate accountability.

Recently I have heard a lot of disturbing thing about a crime bill that Harper is trying to push through. Can anyone tell me more about it?

#OccupyWallStreet - Freedom and Oppression

Will freedom always give way to oppression? I ask this question because idealism in relation to freedom always must allow the possibility of oppression... Free speech, for example to be truly free must uphold individual rights to speak loudly against free speech itself even as well as anything else. So in relation to freedoms in general: the preserving of freedoms seems to naturally lean toward self negation since preserving freedom either requires the oppression of those who would seek to destroy it or its sublation into the oppressive desires and designs of free people. We love and hate freedom because our world exists between the dialectic of freedom/chaos and law/order. As we attempt to order and inscribe freedom into law we attempt to hold the thesis and anti thesis in tension but fail at true synthesis...

Is the natural conclusion of development always self negation? The capitalist becomes philanthropist (eg Bill Gates)

Žižek sees in this process evidence of Hegel's "negation of the negation", the third moment of the dialectic. The first negation is the mutation of the content within and in the name of the old form. The second negation is the obsolescence of the form itself. In this way, something becomes the opposite of itself, paradoxically, by seeming to strengthen itself. - Wikipedia

So are we doomed to a cycle of democracy negated by totalitarianism, which births democratic revolution? Is it possible to critique democracy without negating it? Is the combination of capitalism and globalization produce necessarily negative results due to human nature? How does globalization affect personal responsibility? Did you know that Britain does not have a constitution? At what point is a system bad enough that we are willing to endure worse in hopes of better? Can creation occur without destruction/chaos?

Appropriate to laugh? and The Topic of Appropriateness

Today on Facebook my older brother posted a picture, one I had seen before, but one that is worth looking at again. I believe the sign was made for the occasion of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s rally in Washington: “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and “The March To Keep Fear Alive”. The question my brother wanted me to blog about was “whether it or not it’s appropriate to think that this is hilarious”.

My simple answer is yes. I think it is a great spot of wit. First off, because it makes fun of Republicans, which is just as funny as making fun of any other group one can make vast generalizations about. Second, because free healthcare is awesome. Third, it calls out the underlying racism driving much of the Obama-hate. (This is not to say that I am for Obama and Democrats. To be honest, I think there is little difference between the parties; either option is too limited). From a Biblical perspective, this sign finds its correspondence in making fun of Pharisees, who were disturbed by Jesus shaking up the social order, or any other proponent of the status quo.

I like the question my brother poses…What is appropriate? Beyond this entertaining picture, appropriateness has been on my mind of late. My simple answer is” freedom in Christ”, implying that one is free to find such humour hilarious. I know that this “freedom in Christ” thing has swung this way and that way throughout history. I, however, refuse to take a stream of logic that states “when in a grey area always hedge toward the conservative side”. I refuse such logic because history has not proven this to be the correct approach. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, considers such swings, one of such she critiques this way, “In our own day, we have witnessed the permissive society of the 1960s giving way to the more puritan ethic of the 1980s, which has also coincided with the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the west.” All that to say, always defaulting to a more conservative ethic is not necessarily the best route. That is because following such logic leads to some undesirable outcomes, fundamentalism being the case and point.

I bring up freedom in Christ and the permissive nature of Christianity to speak to other whisperings surrounding this blog. What is appropriate to blog about? I thought we had dealt with this topic in a series of posts that all engaged the topic of censorship. Specifically, what is and is not appropriate to post on this blog. There have been some whisperings (yes it is amazing what all comes back to the sources even beyond cyberspace) that some of our posts have been “too far”, or “you are asking questions that should not be asked”. I am frustrated by this.

I am frustrated because there are people who have disagreed with posts and are too timid to comment their disagreements. We have a comment section for a reason. We by no means want to state that we are somehow authoritative on any of the topics we ponder. I believe I speak for Duncan and Danielle when I say that we would welcome a different opinions being posted in the comment section, we would probably be rather excited by such engagement. I am frustrated because this does not happen, but people continue to read, continue to be offended, and they gather their “evidence”, making their “case”. It finally comes to a head when they come out guns blazing, telling us to reconsider what we are doing, stating we are harming others. This I find frustrating because I also have people tell me how much they love the blog, it makes their day, or they wish we went further on some topics. Too be honest, I did not think we were pushing the limits as of late…some posts were downright hopeful! So what then am I to censor?

Rather than reiterate what has already been discussed in other posts about censorship, I want to state a little bit of my personal philosophy on why I do not always censor. I believe freedom in Christ ought to be embodied by those who claim to follow this rebel and social disturber. I believe this is relevant to one’s personal and social ethics, but beyond that I think freedom in Christ MUST relate to one’s academic and intellectual endeavours. It has been said before, but obviously it need to be repeated, “At the root of all fear is a lack of trust”. The limiting of academic and intellectual freedom, by “questions you should not ask”, I believe is rooted in a fear of where they might lead. I see the lack of trust directly relating to one’s perception of God. If your God is stagnant and dormant, then you will spend all you time defending that God. Whereas, if you believe in a living God, a God of personhood, who ought to be able to defend himself or herself, there is no fear to honestly question. Thus, to fear a question is to lack trust in the deity’s ability to deal with such questions. In my opinion, any deity who cannot handle a question is not a deity worth believing in or following.

I find appropriateness frustrating because the line of appropriateness is so hard to gage over the internet. There are many conversations I refuse to have when I am face-to-face with someone, because the other individual is not yet at a place to journey with me into a certain topic or way of thinking. On the other hand, if I do have the discussion I can precede slowly and appropriately, given the other person’s receptivity to an idea. On the internet, however, I have far less ability to perceive such things. There is some interaction in the comment sections, which is great. I also know many people who read the blog, but there are friends and acquaintances of Danielle and Duncan I do not know. Alternatively, even farther afield, other wonderful people who stumble upon the blog while upon their noble quests to read the entirety of the intertubes. How then am I to judge what might or might not be appropriate?

It is here I come to Paul’s concept of not doing everything that is permissible, but only doing what is beneficial. To this concept, I have no answer or rebuttal. My response is that you please engage us and the blog, rather than being hurt by it. If you disagree, comment. If you think something is too far and heretical, click the heretical button. If you are continually offended and are too timid to engage and be stretched in your perspective, please stop reading the blog. Please do what is beneficial for you. Govern your use of this public space and avoid the harm it is causing you. I am not about to be intellectually timid, because I see that as the most horrendous blasphemy and heresy. And with that, the ball is now in your court, your move.

No Parking Fire Lane

OK, birthed out of our cumulative experience of unemployment, I/we have created a short film. This film explicitly brings to bear our previous musings on both censorship and meaninglessness. Censorship in that it contains explicit language, such that it definitively would not make it through the fearsome church filter. If you are offended by the word F#%k, please do not watch this video unless you desire to be offended. Please note that the word is not directed at the audience but rather shared with the audience as an evaluation of the meaninglessness of the monotony and repetition of life. While in the film this is depicted in the form of unemployment, it is my definitive experience that employment can be both just as monotonous, repetitious, and meaningless. I think that it is not too much of a stretch to consider this film a modern paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 1:2. It has been an interesting and worthwhile process to step into the void of unemployment and not find myself scooped up into the safety of employment immediately. According to Ernie Zelinski (The Joy of Not Working, 2003) employment often provides, by default, three things that we crave as humans: structure, purpose, and community. I think this is an accurate assessment and I would like to add that our identity is directly related to two of those three and perhaps not entirely disconnected from the third. It can be easy for people either unemployed or retired to lose track of their identity because without their job, which society reinforces defines you, one can lose self identity entirely. It has therefore been crucial in our journey of self discovery and reassertion of identity to build structure, purpose, and a sense of community into our lives outside of work and beyond school. I think that I have learned the importance of having one's identity rooted in something larger and more stable than employment.

The title "No Parking Fire Lane" makes reference to both the sign in the hallway as well as a reference to the socially unacceptable nature of unemployment. While on the one hand we are plugged into the machine with dreams and promises of "retirement" a carefree time of leisure "later". On the other hand, those who are unemployed are often berated with accusations of laziness and forced to struggle with issues of self worth along with the obvious financial challenges. Part of the challenge in the midst of this is that we evaluate everything in dollars and so, without income, it is easy to internalize the idea that one's time is worthless. In a job one is paid in some fashion for one's time, in school one pays large sums to spend time learning. In both cases time is valued highly. However, for the unemployed or retired, time becomes socially meaningless because it is no longer evaluated financially. Minutes, hours, days blend together. Time can be measured in books, cups of coffee, or Farmville crops harvested, resumes sent, or cover letters written...

This film is a comment on life and gives voice to a particular perspective. It should not be interpreted as an absolute perceptive or as Silas's perspective, rather it is a piece of art attempting to make social comment based on a single interpretation of a certain experience.

Further Thoughts on Censorship

At my bible college there was a bulletin board that is mostly meaningless at this point - thanks to me. I apologize. The bulletin board is called the Wittenburg door and was supposed to be a location of free and challenging dialogue. In my first year a member of student council posted a page criticizing the student body for apathy and non-participation. I was unimpressed, not only with what I read as an unhelpful and self righteous article but also with student council, who I experienced to be disconnected, unavailable, and irrelevant. I posted a scathing rebuttle to the page which definitively crossed the line to personal and was a very public and specific criticism, full of exaggerated rhetorical flourish, of not only student council but individual people, who I didn't really know. The results were a nuclear melt down of emails and meetings and apologies and defense and discussion and rules. The rules, which I helped write will ensure that posts will probably never again challenge the powers that be and to that degree, the door has been destroyed...

What did I learn? I learned the importance of relationships and the priority of people over power-politics and rhetoric. That was a good lesson. I also learned that when you stick it to "the man" there will always be hell to pay and also usually an invitation into the establishment. I navigated the remainder of my bible college career without incident. I learned how to influence through friendships and relationships rather than very public and negative criticism and I learned how to ask questions rather than make accusations and to discuss rather than argue. These were all very good and important lessons. I also learned that churches have gatekeepers who will let you know in no uncertain terms if you cross their imaginary lines of orthodoxy.

I have for 4 years been clever with language and questions in order to create enough ambiguity to maintain relational acceptance. I have held my tongue when I want to disagree, or criticize, or argue. I have lost arguments in order to actually listen, which often leaves no time for a rebuttal. But I'm tired. I'm tired of always being concerned about what you will hear despite what I am saying. I am tired of being afraid of what you will think of me if I just tell you what I think. I am tired of valuing relationships with people who might reject me if I was open, authentic, and honest. We talk about integrity but encourage hypocrisy and social christian fakeness in order to maintain relationships, the status quo, and "future opportunities." I have decided I should probably take my mission statement seriously.

To challenge the cultural status quo, corruption, stagnation and apathy both within and outside the church, as a teacher and artist in North America.

To pursue passionately faith, learning and creativity seeking to experience God’s transformation in myself and others.

If you are a defender of status quo you have hereby been warned. Do not threaten my future, do not try and intimidate me. I am no longer having any of it.

Voyeurism and Censorship

I would like to let you all in on a discussion that is ongoing behind the surface of this blog. Duncan touched on it here. Right now I am keenly aware that I am being watched. I had no idea how powerful this notion of being watched would be over my willingness to be transparent and live up to the goal we set for this blog, an uncensored place of free thought. I have to admit that I have begun to think in blogs, everything I think I shape into a blog with no restraints, yet it is incredible how many of these I am censoring. I find myself censoring because it is incredibly unnerving knowing that about 150 people a day, at the moment, will be reading what I write, I feel like a little bit of a spectacle, or as Duncan so adequately put it when we last met, "we are pastoring a small un-church" (or something like that). I feel a little bit like Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga. This is a new experience for me as I enter into what feels like a one-sided relationship. I permit all of the internet a window into my existence every few days and there is surprisingly little feed back. Beside the few comments, a conversation, or a "like" on facebook, I have absolutely no idea who is "watching". Now to toss this back on you, because if I am using the concept of voyeurism to best explain how I am perceiving this blogging thing...that makes you the peeping tom :0 which is ok as long as we are all aware of the roles we are playing in this one-sided relationship :)

Having no idea who is reading this blog is trilling and disconcerting all at the same time. It is because of this that we as a group of bloggers are running into the constraints of censorship. How much is too much. How much honesty can the internet really handle? Censorship is not my expertise, I am usually overly blunt, I'll say what I think and ask for forgiveness later. Because of this I have a few requests. First, if we offend...Respond, post in the comment section. We are all more than willing to open a two or more way dialogue, and then I at least know who to ask forgiveness from. Second, if you are a regular reader follow us, it is really nice to know who is reading.

Censorship is complicated. It is nearly impossible to determine what people find offensive, as Duncan puts it "I always think its funny what people find offensive or a "big deal" its like swear words... which ones are really bad? I think my mom is probably more offended by cigarettes than by "losing faith". I say "damn" all the time without thinking. Other people love the word "fuck" but think "damn" is crossing the line... some people think "crap" is ok but not "shit," other people the reverse. Some of this is cultural both locally and globally but to me it is a reminder of the ambiguity of language and the inherent risks one takes when speaking. It is not surprising that public speaking is something that many people fear more than death - speech acts both spoken and written take enormous courage." (from our private ongoing conversation). I find that we are in a particularly interesting spot when dealing with censorship. We all have Christian educations which was four years of tip toeing around censorship issues, how much could one say, what would be too far, "if I say what I actually think will i be considered a heretic?" Sometimes all three of us through caution to the wind and said as we pleased, but i think for the majority of the time we played the censorship game quite well. The thing is the game is not over. As we pursue higher education and jobs it is likely people will find this blog. The thought then becomes will I loose job opportunities because of what I post here? Or maybe more significantly, will something I say here offend a person to such an extent that they stop being in relationship with me in the real world, outside of the intertubes? As our virtual and internet lives mesh I find things become more hazy, more uncertain. Hopefully as we pursue academia and careers we will land ourselves in positions that value freedom of thought, freedom to think without fear. Hopefully when perfect love casts out fear the absence of fear is presence in the intellectual realm as well, so we do not slip into divisive tribalism of fundamentalism.

I often find it helpful to communicate my ideas through other mediums people have already created and published. I ran across a music video this spring (one that did not get as much play as I think it deserved) which had some interesting thoughts about censorship tied in. I found it extremely enlightening when the same music video came out with a directors cut it was much more disturbing. Specifically enlightening is the contrast between the two videos. Many people will find the first offensive, but the message I believe is more apparent in the second. The song is Natalia Kills -Wonderland and here is the directors cut. I hope you enjoy the difference in the movies. For now I think I will be treading/blogging towards the official version, my posts at least will attempt to convey what I mean without becoming too over the top. But if you think I am not being fully transparent call me out in the comments section if you would prefer the directors cut on a certain post.