Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Is this Play? or is this Work?


Is this PLAY?
or
Is this WORK?

(What’s the difference?
What’s the relationship?)

To call into question  what is
being done and how  is always
demoralizing and  interferes
with the getRdone  agenda. 

The situation is something like
Heisenberg’ Indeterminacy: you
can measure position or you can
measure velocity—but not both
simultaneously. 

Imagine attempting a road trip
to Santa Cruz. Half way there
you start questioning what you
are doing and how and why. 

Interferes with your progress,
although it might be good for
your PROGRESS overall.

These two values (questioning
it, getting it done) are “hostile.”
They are also complementary. 

But which  dominates? 
The gettingRdone or the
questioning-procedures? 

My courses are all geared to one
of  these 2 values – at the expense
of  the other.  For good and for ill,
no doubt.

Play for some. Work for others.
Or as my students will  always say,
“It depends, Sam.  “It depends.”

71 comments:

  1. A Lutheran mentioned someone you know:

    …what we are immediately concerned with is to emphasize the necessity of keeping in mind this approach to the soul, in every sermon, if the preacher is truly to edify his hearers. But the merely “interesting” is often confused with what awakens true interest. This confusion is found even in Augustine, Saurin is not free from it, Beecher frequently succumbs to it. Many others, especially younger preachers, but also not a few of riper experience, fall into this error, especially in the French and American pulpits. Since the endeavor to be interesting often leads to much that is far-fetched and mechanical, extravagant and undignified, and goes hand in hand with flattery and vanity, we add the twofold warning of Hering. “The merely interesting,” he says, “as well as the superficially brilliant, may lead to secularization, the corruption of taste, and confusion of sensational effect with the result that alone counts with God.

    For the ‘interesting’ may, as the highly colored and all too attractive covering of shallow and even erroneous ideas, mislead babes in Christ or the religiously immature into wrong paths or separatistic byways. At times the external form, product of the wit and fancy of a vain preacher, may outweigh the contents and make so strong an appeal to the intellectual whim of the hearer as to draw him away from the serious and divine contents, intended to reach his will, into weakly sentimental enjoyment.

    … If a preacher has acquired the beautiful and useful art of introducing the full contents of the Gospel in its original spiritual power, with the assistance of his own natural gifts, into the sphere of his hearer’s will, he will be the more concerned, with earnest prayer, to put down every vain effort to shine, to resist a luxuriating aestheticism and the confusing of the divine with the human, and to keep the desire to achieve results subject to the discipline of the Spirit. This is the truth underlying Theremin’s famous dictum, ‘The orator should strive to please God alone.’ “

    Johann Michael Reu, Homiletics

    ReplyDelete
  2. Beecher was accused of softening the message and preaching a gospel of love. Edwards famous Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God attempted to jolt generational xtians back into a proper fear-of-God rather than an entitlement riding on the coat tails of ancestors. One might pitch to "interest" and another to "gospel" but if there's no "charisma' in the preaching--what difference does it make? .

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It all comes down to fear and love of God. Here preaches Moses: "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God:--I am the LORD.

    You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor:--I am the LORD.

    You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest your incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself:--I am the LORD.

    Leviticus 19. Treasury of Daily Prayer, p. 263, Saturday, Easter 4.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I give my self credit for none of what Moses advocates. I could deny and fake it--but that seems the worse "sin." Who can object to what he advocates? Wretch like me: not even close to these wonderful character traits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Then speak "frankly" and get it out of the way. That's your specialty, I thought. Restore the relationship, seventy times seventy times, if needed, as needed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I speak frankly (70 time 70 if needed) I don't have or practice any of the virtues Moses and numerous others--many many others--teach. Preach. I try to call attention to "relationship" and relating and relaying. That might be my specialty.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We strive all our life to see ourselves as loyal subjects of laws under which we can only be judged as outlaws.

    -- Robert Farrar Capon

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes - and for some, the outlaw is denied and covered. For others: turn it up--wretch like me. Probably a flaw in either attitude, but that's the nature of outlaw.
    i

    ReplyDelete
  10. And yet:

    http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.ca/2013/04/ought-can-hope-believe.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Mit meinem Gott, kann ich Mauern erklimmen."

    King David

    "With my God I can climb walls."

    (Figurative and literally; early on in his career he conquered Jerusalem, ever after the city of David.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "At times the external form, product of the wit and fancy of a vain preacher, may outweigh the contents and make so strong an appeal to the intellectual whim of the hearer as to draw him away from the serious and divine contents, intended to reach his will, into weakly sentimental enjoyment." I think this was the original issue and concern--

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is the story interesting, compelling, inspiring, if it is only fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am wondering about how much I can be inspired by my own ideas and interested in other people's fanciful ideas, or wit and fancy vs. a true truth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If's all fiction - fashioned into fact and faction. Our representations are "made." Think how much is selected, how much left out in any account. Fictive. A true truth vs a false truth. I think "discernment" is the word we use for sorting out the fictions. Inspiration is something that comes to me--like a flock of birds, or lumbering stork. .

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think there is your Achilles's heel. There has to be non-fiction even if the task of the historian is difficult. And we are not inspired right out of the complete blue, there is always some kind of context.

    Most often we are inspired by people we know and especially those we know to be truthful, talented, kind, reliable, hard-working... whatever we have observed, appreciated and learned.

    When people talk about who and what has inspired them or guided them, you can get some pretty standard answers a good deal of the time. There may be nothing fanciful about it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sure: the non-fiction is all that is not incorporated and fashioned into our science and art and theories and histories and myth and accounts and accusations and representations. Achilles heel: the fiction representing where we are vulnerable. I suspect the drift of all your comment is, as usual, to assert the source of your inspiration and cast doubts and skepticism on other possibilities:" other people's fanciful ideas, wit.and fancy vs a true truth." That you are not inspired by your own ideas, or don't which to represent inspiration in those terms is fine. No one insists that your inspiration comes from within. It's all a manner of speaking anyway--which is to say: fictive.h

    ReplyDelete
  18. You might enjoy this one by George Jonas in the National Post on the Divine Historian.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/20/jonas/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good article. I have a Catholic colleague who gets the shivers when someone uses the word "create." Only god creates. I describe. I look for patterns. Right patterns Wrong patterns. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't--that's for sure. Good to know. Wretch like me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You've told me this Catholic and his "create" several times and I've told you, I had a Catholic priest in my town who wanted everyone to be creative because God is creative. One of his favorite things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What is it that deeply interests us? What are the main concerns? What moves us? What is it we really want to know? What kind of things are just showy and vain?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Beyond the profound and the trivial, the sacred and the secular, the fanum and profane, identity and vanity, good & evil, goodies and weasels... This is what interests me. The damned if I do or don't do is grace for me--immaculate conception from beyond. "Love God and do what you want" said Augustine Walk on eggs and walk on water: it's a mission impossible regardless. I've probably told you all these before too. Do I repeat myself? I am small. Very limited.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You repeat yourself to drill it in and then it sticks in the head and I can't get it out and it is the thorn in the flesh. (Damn.) You do it on purpose, ad nauseam, and don't seem to assimilate anything. (Rhino.)

    What hits us the most is a criticism, I'd say. The way we squirm and are insulted and angry and have a stroke with the blood pressure through the roof. What we like the most is a praise or love statement or look or however it is expressed. Linked to those is pain and pleasure, which we likewise avoid or seek. Pain and pleasure can be more imaginary. We can make mountains out of molehills in either direction, pain or pleasure. A little can go a long way, or a lot can even be dismissed. Not so much criticism or love they penetrate right away all the way unless we are much skilled in having that bounce off. Criticism and love move us for exactly the not-imaginary.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As one of our favorite women said: "If it's not real to hell with it."

    ReplyDelete
  25. She was charmingly dogmatic.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "At times the external form, product of the wit and fancy of a vain preacher, may outweigh the contents and make so strong an appeal to the intellectual whim of the hearer as to draw him away from the serious and divine contents, intended to reach his will, into weakly sentimental enjoyment." I think this was the original issue and concern--

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think you could plumb this chosen excerpt and dear Flannery a little deeper yourself and even connect it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Plumbing a little deeper and connecting: It's a lot easier and I think more satisfying to witness to one's inadequacies and shortcomings and foolish fears and desires and selfish pre-occupation and concerns than it is to testify to (and attempt to show-off) one's goodness and charity and profound sensitivity and righteousness--and yet my impression is that so many turn up the latter and pretty much neglect the former. All of Flannery's fiction involves the explosive "reality" of awful self recognition--an act of terrible grace, like a bolt from the blue--a "gift "nobody wants. That's why I love her & her reality so much.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I thought about Flannery's "fiction",today, as I did some more boring reno work and forgot to bring the I-pod and the radio (smack the forehead). There was another snow storm today to really lift the spirit... With Flannery the subject of knowing and believing is raised often enough, too. The Misfit couldn't decide if the whole story about Jesus dying and rising was true... It seemed a pivotal sticking point for him. Hazel with the Christ-less church is along that theme, too.

    And I love most of all the story of the young aspiring writer who just can't do it and is looking for material and catches the illness from drinking unpasteurized milk. He just doesn't know anything either, nor has he experienced much. Orthodoxy is not for him, and his mother has failed in not teaching him the catechism. He is just floating and trying and messing and now thinks he is dying--mistakenly so. It is not a fact. I love that story. That one is my favorite. Trying to make friends with the negros just so he has some material--fake! When he sinks low and embarrassed enough he has a bit of an epiphany.

    I do think O'Connor has a great concern with what is real and what is true and authentic. All of which does not contradict what you said but rather dove-tails. I was wondering about the grandmother's goodiness. She wants to be interested and interesting and caring and proper... and everything is nauseating and annoying about her. But what about the Misfit and his thinking she needed someone to shoot her every day. It is also a whitewashing and rationalizing. He was right to shoot her. He is good. She needed this. Calling good bad and bad good. We need to sort it out, what's right, what's wrong, what's true, what's fiction, what counts, what's real, especially since we can be deceiving ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  31. We all would be good persons if it was someone to shoot us ever day of our life.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Life shoots constantly and we are not good. We are riddled with holes. And the enemy has his arrow pointed and the bow taught all the time, like a sharp-shooter. Trained.

    You've brought it back around and limited it again to what you always like to say. Are you not interested in the "whole", as they like to call it--at all? This is a sample of the post-modern way, where only what I bring to the text and how I interact with it matters?--No shooting at that,eh? It's all good. Maybe the post-moderns are the ultimate goodies, like the Misfit. He shoots a family and he's all good, the judge of everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I identify more with the Misfit than with Granny. The whole? Post Modern? What I bring to a text or context or experience is crucial, a violation, a rip-off, a discrimination. I could deny and cover up or not even be aware of my "criminality." But I am. Aware of it. Post modernist may be goodies like the rest: any who can afford the bad it takes to get good. I don't think Flannery sees The Mistif as you say: all good. But ironically he is the good man hard to find as far as Granny is concerned. It's complicated, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Can't afford, is what I meant (re goodies) Goodies are not hard to find.

    ReplyDelete
  35. We are all always rationalizing, are we not? So is the Misfit. Rationalizing even mass-murder. Rationalizing rape. Rationalizing ethnic cleansing and holocausts. Rationalizing not keeping 1. Cor. 13, as being non-prescriptive...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Is your point that we are weak and miserable, vulnerable and inadequate people? Rationalizing all our actions to make our own sense? If you had this conversation with Flannery, she would say you are missing the point of her story. We always rationalize. Makes sense. Human nature. Misfit killed in order to have a reason for himself--why he felt guilt. A rationale. I don't think her story was essentially about human rationalization More about the total oblivious clueless-ness of Granny Goodie.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, we all know you want it to be about the oblivious clueless-ness of Granny Goodie. Easy target.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Flanney's target--story after story, and I approve her message. But you might could say what you think she should be about straighten--tell her what the hard target is..

    ReplyDelete
  39. It's always mother's fault. And maybe it is. The hand that rocks the cradle...

    Or the pastor's.

    "If only theologians and teachers of religion would not make themselves so contemptible and hated by their own fault! Alas! This sad fact is recorded not only in the annals of the history of the Church, but it is also confirmed by our own experience. There are too many teachers of religion who misuse their sacred office, their minds, their greed of money and glopry, and their love of domineering. They do not only hush and even deny the truth continually, partly from a miserable fear of men, partly from an abominable favor of men, but instead of preaching the pure Gospel, they proclaim the very opposite and spread lies and errors. Why, there is no vice too shameful, no crime too awful, but teachers of religion have desecrated their office with it and have given the world offense, grievous beyond utterance.
    Is this fact to deter you, my friends, from continuing your devoption to the study of theology? God forbid! Consider, in the first place, that the omniscient God has foreseen these sad events and has nevertheless in his infinite wisdom adopted this order of adminstering the sacred office, not through holy angels, who did not fall from their holy estate, but through fallen men, who are subject to sin. May God keep us from taking offense at this arrangement! Let us rather adore God for having made admirable provision that His church shall not be overcome by hell, in spite of the fact that it is served by such poor and, at times, such abominable ministers."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Actually, Flannery did have a complicated relationship with her mother, with whom she lived most of her adult life. I assume that's Luther you quote, and isn't there always gap between the ideal and the real-time reality? .Ah, the humanity. Secular Humanist, Religious Humanism: it's all "humanized" and easily "idolicized"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nope. It was not Luther. C.F.W. Walther is the man.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Who ever said it really isn't the issue, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Donovan Riley is an amazing pastor and writer. Here he quotes a contemporary man Rod Rosenbladt, on Christian prissiness:

    http://thefirstpremise.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/christian-prissiness/

    ReplyDelete
  44. It does not matter who said it, you are right. What matters is that no matter my short-comings, no matter my prissiness, no matter my goodiness, no matter my annoyance factor, I am called to what I am called, if a mother to be a mother, if a pastor to be a pastor, and to repent every day. And apologize, too. It is not at all a waste of time or energy. If you value the relationship you try to get to the bottom of things and apologize.

    I was reading last night about the unapologetic Islamic radicalism suppressing the people of Gaza, right now. Men are whipped for their haircuts and styling and the way they are wearing their pants. It is in part a refreshing departure from demeaning women for external matters, but still the "unapologetic" is what caught my eye. "Unapologetic" is not right, even if I have to continue my work as an imperfect mother with some kind of confidence.

    "Unapologetic" is not "good". And as I said yesterday love is not, not kind. So whatever "prissy" is, the right way is also not "unapologetic" or "unkind".

    The pastor, the mother, the professor, the father who can't be better than he or she is, still has to deal with it in the light of law and gospel. No way around it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. When did the notion "apology" get introduced into this? Just now, I think. The word used to mean an explanation (apo - open; logos--word) It shifted to "I'm sorry" at some point. Most in the world would probably not frame their daily effort to be GOOD (if not a goodie) and in tune with the terms of the "light of law and gospel--no way around it." That's how you talk: your conviction
    and understanding--testimony, witness.
    . .

    ReplyDelete
  46. The damned moral sense. How can you keep it out of things. Why should it be kept out? Things need evaluating. And those who try to make themselves feel better by wearing distinctive clothing and pointing at others re: their clothing have taken the moral sense to a pretty low level. There is a judgement for you. Unapologetic anarchists with a poor moral sense.

    On another note, we have an interesting conference "The Social Sciences and the Christian Faith", this week. (The website could have more info. I am thinking the organizer could use a little secretarial support. I know him. A very fine man, religion and current world view stuff, PHD from Scotland.)

    http://ccscf.concordia.ab.ca/

    ReplyDelete
  47. Here is another entry:

    http://www.ipsa.org/news/event/2nd-annual-conference-%E2%80%9C-social-sciences-and-christian-faith%E2%80%9D

    ReplyDelete
  48. "That damned moral sense" was Twain's description of the pathteic human nature--it's curse of good&evil which accompanied its "fall" from the garden. Who's leaving it out? And how did we jump to the moral sense? And apology? And distinctive clothing. Thoreau was an unapologetic (I'm sorry) anarchist who actually explained (apologia) his anarchy in terms of obeying a higher law.(which might be called "gospel" though he wouldn't have characterized it that way.) ‘The orator should strive to please God alone.’ Are you clear on what-it-is that divides us and generates this ongoing apologia?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Your love of gaps and disagreement and false dichotomies.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Tell me about my false dichotomies? I'm holding on to the tail of the elephant: it' s like a whisk broom. You've got a hold of the trunk: a fire hose. Of course we disagree. How else do justice to the whole.Gaps? Abyss. Inadequacies? Reductions. Important to me not to deny and cover-up the truth of our limits. I'm not going to agree with anyone except superficially, socially. . Our relationship is adversarial--("satanic"_)--accusatory. And so there's no likelihood of agreement generating--ever. As Whitman says, "Neither logic nor sermons convince" and he's right. It's of a "higher order" and not the battle of devilish details that the war persists.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Our relationship is adversarial--("satanic"_)--accusatory. And so there's no likelihood of agreement generating--ever. As Whitman says, "Neither logic nor sermons convince" and he's right. It's of a "higher order" and not the battle of devilish details that the war persists.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The proverbial elephant. Deus ex machina, yes. Are we reading this with Dialogue and Dialectics 101?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not connecting the elephant with deus ex machina, I 'm afraid. Spell it out for me. Dialectic is a practice that puts the opposition in play--letting neither position win or lose, and anticipating a higher synthesis that shows the complementary relationship.As with Science and Religion for example, a practice that looks to do no injustice to the values of either--but reveal their complementarity.
    We may be practicing dialectic, but not consciously. The adversarial/accusatory spirit dominates.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Adversarial Accusation: 101 (All law: no Gospel)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Shoot'em all them goodies. Listening to God. Part of the elephant. Watch the 7 min. video belonging to the National Post, posted today.


    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/01/canadian-jihadists-video-may-have-been-inspired-boston-bombings/

    ReplyDelete
  56. "We need only Allah’s help and he does not leave us, his servants. We have food, we have someone to make that food and there are other brothers who perform their duties and this will be rewarded."

    ReplyDelete
  57. We are having a nice Social Sciences and Faith conference with twenty scholars presenting as well as student contributions. -- I wish you were here.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The first presentation today is "Genesis and the formation of disfunctional and maladaptive families." (Genesis is a tell-all book showing warts and all.) In the afternoon there is a two hour symposium on love and affection. Some students are presenting on prayer and anger management and some other self-regulatory behavior...

    ReplyDelete
  59. For those not in love, there’s LAW

    to rule, to regulate, to rectify.

    (Wm Gass)

    ReplyDelete
  60. You said it. There are only so many options, wonderful new synthesese notwithstanding.

    People's search for significance leads them down a myriad, yet predictable and classifiable paths, the road to blowing up infidels with the support of Allah or other gods being one of them.

    Search for meaning, purpose and significance can also lead you to love and altruism, or just seeking to do your duty in home, wider circle or work.

    In our conference the topics connected to social and environmental activism presented a conundrum. It seemed widely unacceptable in society that religious people speak on such subjects and yet it seems wrong to acquiesce. Also, where northern liberals often try to influence globally, the people on the ground are often local churches and Christians active in secular organizations, so that in essence a lot of the work and impact is effected through religious people.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Might want to shift comments to some other post. This one is off the page.
    e.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I don't know where to put it, since I have defriended you again. What I want to write about is some kind of summary of the conference but I've put my back out and am in considerable pain doing anything, including sitting at the computer.

    ReplyDelete