Archive - July, 2008

Proximal.

Some comments, e-mails, and conversations centering on the concept of community have caused me to be quite preoccupied with the idea of "place."

Is it my "place" to speak if my engagement in a community is dislocated, temporary, or vitual?

Is one’s "place" in a community determined by his/her physical and/or geographical proximity?

Does proximity mean that a person is really in one’s community?

I could live on campus (as I do) at MVNU and technically consider myself part of that community but never really engage in the life or mission of the people here. Does that still make me part of the community? Am I just a disfunctional part of that community? How should others here confront my disfunctionality? Should I be physically displaced? Or is my disfunction an integral part of the community? Could my withdrawn presence be a healthy element for others to learn how to live with my seperatedness?

I’ll leave it there for now and see what everyone has to say (assuming of course that we are in community with one another even though we may be quite proximally separated).

You can call me…

…Travis.

That is what you can call me.

I was talking with some friends and family this week about the coming academic year and future doctoral plans. If I do proceed with a doctoral education I am currently most interested in post-reformation European history and pre-colonial, western church history. I have also considered work in psychology, sociology, and higher education. This year I will be finishing my graduate courses at NNU and also teaching an introductory course for freshmen students at MVNU.  A few comments were tossed up by some friends calling me "doctor" and "professor." It was all in good humor. They knew it would get under my skin 1) because I am neither a doctor nor a professor and 2) because if I were I would rather just be called Travis. That is who I am. I do not quite understand all the elitist titles that are meant to distinguish one person from another. While I have witnessed some Ph.D.s handle their achievements with humility I have seen others affected quite negatively by the possession of a "title."

Why do we classify people?

Can letters behind one’s name be used for good?

Do titles produce arrogance or humility?

Is it beneficial for a community to have a classification system?

SGA on the Web.

The Student Government Association of MVNU launched their new website. I commend John-Paul Kemmenoe for his outstanding initiative in creative design. Check out the site: www.mvnu.edu/sga . So why didn’t anyone other then Nate put www.subversiveREFORMATION.com as one of their favorite websites? Where’s the love?

Thought Beyond Mine [A Mentor Comments on Community].

An extremely valuable response to the concept of community came to me via e-mail (many responses actually are via e-mail or phone calls from friends). A friend and mentor who shall remain nameless for the time being granted me the permission to use his response to my question, "What is community?" in any way that is "helpful to the conversation." He included the following concepts which I have adapted for consistent language and clarity. In my attempt at revision I was able to process to a greater degree what I hope to be interpreting correctly as the genuine thought of my teacher.

// Story ::

Stories preserve wisdom, share meaningful traditions, warn of impending problems, and create the back-narrative for moments which are "rights of passage.” Without stories community is unattainable.

// Place ::

Even nomadic communities have a place. A place is a physical area with which to be concerned and for which a community is responsible. Followers of Jesus might understand the birthright and inheritance of responsibility (not to be confused with “ownership”) for place as “stewardship.” If a community loses its responsibility for place then it sacrifices that which keeps it “grounded” both literally and metaphorically.

// Connectedness ::

Community is relational thereby requiring purposed connection.

// Values ::

It is not necessary for those living in community to agree completely on an assorted number of issues; however, basic values are needed to retain trust in one another. A good question to ask is, “What are the values of the community concerning economic development?”

DISCLAIMER: The language of “values” may be burdensome for some as it carries negative perceptions and connotations due in large part to the tainting by political rhetoric.

// Conversation ::

Honest and open dialogue of a spiritual, political, academic, agricultural, and/or economic nature is critical to community.

// Commitment ::

Longevity in a place and with a people provides the fertile ground in which community can grow.

Now we feel it: Iranian Missiles.

I thought for this post that I was going to have to take a break from my posts on the subject of community. Then I realized this post has everything to do with community — the global community. After finishing my viewing of So You Think You Can Dance? (Wednesdays @ 8 EST; Thursdays @ 9 EST on FOX) last night I flipped the channel over to CNN to find much attention being given to the recent missile testing conducted by Iran. My initial reaction was, “Oh, no, Iran is dangerous.” While that thought might be true my mind quickly shifted to the feelings of fear invoked by the United States due to its threating presence over many other nations. Why is it that the United States finds it acceptable for itself to possess weapons of mass destruction and have an oppressive militant presence all over the world (well, at  least where there is oil)? Doesn’t the U.S. test bombs rather regularly? If there was a militant threat on “our” land would there not be a massive increase in homeland security and missile defense programs (please reference 9/11)? Why does the U.S. think that it should have the right to all violent military power in the world? Is there any hope in wandering if the U.S. ceased its violence that many other nations would not feel the need to defend themselves? Though Iran is not “turning the other cheek” the U.S. is the one slapping the cheek in the first place. Or at least, it is continuing the very vicious cycle of vengeance.

DISCLAIMER: Please excuse the fact that the above writing is not well ordered. I simply wrote (as quickly as possible) what was on my mind and chose to post in that manner for the sake of revealing my initial reactions and rather “ranting” response to the United States’ approach to foreign relations. I am looking forward to the comments of Tom Joad.

Community Living.

Before I post of series of thoughts on “community” I must cease my individual limitations of understanding and compose posts with those who hope to be in the communal process of collaborative thought. Rather than adhering to my presuppositions and personal bias I hope to gather input on two fundamental questions:

1) What is community? and (if your thought here is distinguishable from the first question);

2) What does it mean to “live in community?”

Dependence Day.

I’ll be honest. I’m not a fan of Independence Day. I’m trying to sort through whether that opinion is fueled by the despicable taste in in my mouth when I see red, white, and blue waving as a symbol of national allegiance and empire worship or simply by my struggle to intellectually and philosophically value independence. Freedom is good and necessary but cannot exist through the supposed provision of an earthly empire. Freedom is in the person of Jesus Christ and is quite different from that with which it is quite often confused, “rights.”

My reading on July 3rd proved to be rather timely for the upcoming day celebrated by most citizens of the United States. From Free of Charge by Miroslav Volf:

“Here is roughly how sin works in relation to God the giver. All things are from God and through God, and yet we want to be independent of God, standing on our own two feet, claiming God’s gifts as our own achievement. The young Karl Marx, barely twenty-six years old, put this sentiment as boldly as possible. In a text that remained unpublished during his lifetime, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,’ he gave an expression to the heart of his rebellion against God:

‘A being only counts itself as independent when it stands on its own feet and it stands on its own feet as long as it owes its existence to itself. A man who lives by grace of another considers himself a dependent being. But I live completely by grace of another when I owe him not only the maintenance of my life but when he has also created my life, when he is the source of my life. And my life has necessarily such a ground outside itself if it is not my own creation.’

Marx held firmly to human independence. It almost seemed to him a value that lies at the bottom of all values. Because the reality of God as creator is incompatible with human independence, he denied the existence of God.

Most of us, especially the believers among us, won’t deny God’s existence in order to secure our independence. Instead, we thing that we can have it both ways. We believe that we can stand on our own two feet, independent of God, and still affirm that God is the creator of everything. But that doesn’t make sense. We can be both dependent on God and free; dependence on God is the source of our being, and therefore, our freedom. But we can’t be created by God and independent; God sustains creatures in being and in freedom. When we assert our independence, when we ascribe to ourselves what comes from God, we wrong God – at least as much as I would wrong an author whose ideas I would peddle as my own. That’s our main sin against God the giver. If, like Raleigh Hays, we see ourselves as more or less honest, hardworking citizens, we may believe that we deserve what we have, and even a bit more because an evil world is cheating us of our proper reward. We might not feel particularly grateful for what we have because we think that, rather than receiving it, we earned it. And we want to dispose of our hard-earned goods the way we please; they become not so much gifts given to us to enjoy and pass on, but rather our exclusive possessions.

Assertion of independence, pride of achievement, sense of entitlement, and absolute right to dispose with our goods – these are the ways in which we live in contradiction to who we actually are in relation to God. And in these ways, we, decent citizens, live as inveterate sinners. To live in sync with who we truly are means to recognize that we are dependent on God for our very breath and are graced with many good things; it means to be grateful to the giver and attentive to the purpose for which the gifts are given.” //

// Miroslav Volf. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. pp. 35-6.

Back to Blogging.

I’ve gone in Myrtle Beach for the week with my family. Our internet access was sketchy at best. After a week long absence I now have many posts coming. I have many notes still to share from the Envision Conference along with thoughts and reflections from vacation and about 8 other posts that I are in my head so be checking back often.

Peace.