Ktismatics

8 June 2007

Joining the Sorry Parade

Filed under: Ktismata — ktismatics @ 10:39 pm

At Church and Postmodern Culture, Dr. Carl put up a post about Deleuze and Globochrist. Dominic Fox was the first to comment, calling the post “a sorry parade of solecisms.” Now that I’ve submitted to Dominic’s stern discipline, now that I’ve naughtily whispered the blasphemy (“Badiou is a PoMo heeheehee”) without getting caught, I think maybe it’s safe for me to come out from under the covers.

I’m looking at the article that Dominic tossed in before slamming the door behind him (“and don’t make me have to come back in here…”), where Badiou sets up a contrast between himself and Deleuze with respect to THE EVENT. I’m not wondering about whether Badiou is a disciple of Deleuze or whether Badiou is “taking Deleuze from behind,” producing a monstrous offspring that is no longer purely Deleuzian. I’m not even yet prepared to decide whether Deleuze or Badiou is right, or which position I agree with more. I’m wondering about the question they’re asking and why it’s important.

Here is Deleuze’s Axiom 1: Unlimited becoming becomes the event itself.

In contrast, here is Badiou’s Axiom 1: An event is never the concentration of a vital continuity, or the immanent intensification of a becoming. It is never coextensive with becoming. It is, on the contrary, on the side of a pure break with the becoming of an object of the world, through the auto-apparition of this object. Correlatively, it is the supplementation of apparition by the emergence of a trace: what formerly inexisted becomes intense existence.

By staking out his position Badiou answers a prior question: is an “event” continuous or discontinuous with the conditions that precede and lead up to it? I ask whether this question is interesting to me. What is an “event”? I don’t mean the “Christ event,” or even Biblical events more broadly, but events in contemporary life. If every event is an outgrowth of the conditions that led up to it, does this imply a continual and deterministic unfolding of whatever was present “in the beginning”? If, on the other hand, an event is a “pure break,” does it imply that every event is something like a miracle?

In contemplating human creation I wonder whether the creative act is natural “from the ground up,” an eventual manifestation of nature transforming itself, or whether the creator has to transform nature by some other power. If it’s the former, can we really call it creation; if the latter, is it still strictly human?

I’m also interested in psychological practice. In unblocking the passage between inside and outside, between desire and fulfillment, does the self become so thin as virtually to disappear? On the other hand, if the self transforms everything, both inside and outside, does the self become a “pure break,” something radically other than nature?

Even though I’m not well-read in Deleuze or Badiou, the question they ask about THE EVENT and the contrasting answers they offer are directly relevant to my ongoing projects of creation and therapy. It’s possible to conduct a broad and aimless survey, but at some point you have to have something of which you’re trying to make sense. Having this question of meaning puts you in collaboration with others who also are trying to make sense of the same thing.

Th emerging Christians have recruited the PoMos in their critique of Modernism and in exploring new Biblical hermeneutics. Sometimes it seems that the Christians merely want to plug these thinkers into predetermined slots — Badiou sees event as pure break, Badiou sees the Christ Event as paradigmatic, therefore Badiou supports the Christian story. That approach seems like a distortion and a waste of time — the Christians ought to be able to mount their own cultural critique and their own apologetics. But if the Christians can think about the questions that are being asked and decide whether these are also questions a Christian might ask, then these writers become colleagues in the search for an answer, or at least for a trajectory. Is THE EVENT immanent or transcendent — not just the Christ event but any event, regardless of its religious significance or whether Christians are involved in it? If this is an interesting question to Christians, then it should be possible to mount a project and a series of focused readings. The PoMo engagement becomes something more substantial and meaningful.

Advertisements

48 Comments »

  1. Ktismatic, Dominic Fox often falls into the syntaxic grid together with Antigram, so would you care to explicate what exactly the subject of the post (and the discussion) was?

    Like

    Comment by parodycenter — 9 June 2007 @ 12:25 am

  2. Somehow, these categories, particularly ‘immanence-transcendence’ seem to miss the point and may be leading us down a false path. God is definitely ‘other’ and in that sense S/He is certainly in some sense transcendent, but without God the creation could not continue for, at the same time, the creation is dependent upon God’s continuing involvement though I don’t think mechanically so. The sustenance is organic but natural and also regular and predictable so that studying the creation yields science and physical laws.

    PoMo thinking by the emerging church do seem to lean very heavily on the work of very secular philosophers. Perhaps it is a necessary first step as the bastion of conservatism could not have been cracked by the sort of casual fideistic thinking that most of us Christians seem to be limited to.

    Now that philosophically the battles have been waged against modernism and with some degree of success, one could hope that emerging christendom may produce something a bit more original.

    Getting back to the event. I really should not be even commenting here as I have very little familiarity with either Badiou or Deleuze. But for some reason (perhaps I am just not ‘getting it’) I didn’t find either construction of ‘event’ very satisfying.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 9 June 2007 @ 10:10 am

  3. dejan –

    Church and PoMo is a collective blog for the “emerging church” or the “post-evangelicals”. It’s hard to say quite what Dr. Carl intended with his post — it seems to be a general introduction to a book he’s written rather than a coherent thesis. In the post Dr. Carl makes various overgeneralizations and misstatements about various recent and contemporary continental philosophers, and Dominic took him to task for it. I was going to put my post up as a comment there, but I regard myself as an outsider to the club that meets there. I thought Dominic was generally on target with his (rather abrasive) remarks.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 4:50 pm

  4. Sam –

    the Judeo-Christian tradition asserts both immanence and transcendence for God. Deleuze and Badiou aren’t directly speaking about God, though, which is part of my suggestion. Do emerging Christians have interests in secular topics? If so, then the secular philosophers might be of help. It would be fascinating to see a distinctly Christian perspective on “the event” that didn’t even invoke the Bible stories.

    There is, I think, something almost corrupt about distorting the secular thinkers to buttress distinctly theological positions on topics like the Creation or God’s immanence/transcendence. But as you say, it seems hard for the emerging people to offer radical critiques of the conservatives from inside the Church. Maybe the idea is to present the secularists as extreme, so that the emergings can position themselves as a reasonable middle ground “to the left” of the status quo.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 9 June 2007 @ 5:02 pm

  5. I guess the mental laziness is sort of the rule rather than the exception. The conservative modernists had thousands of years of similar thinking to lean on from the centuries of Christian domination of philosophy. The emerging crowd has zilch to refer themselves to so they plumbed for those of the PoMo philosophers that were not too obviously anti Christian. I think Foucault in particular is much ignored by the emerging cohorts because of his very visible antagonism to ‘Christian’ sexual ethics. Yet, without acknowledgment, Foucaultian thinking is expressed.

    If you look hard enough at Christian modernism, it relies rather heavily on two ancient and prechristian strands, logic and Platonism. There have been abortive attempts to bring in Aristotle but these have failed. Platonism is still entrenched in Christian theology because of the mighty influence of Augustine.

    I think the emerging gang acknowledge this and their response has been to try to make Augustine (and Paul too) a sort of proto PoMo thinker.

    The majority of the philosophical effort is to try to soften and Christianise (or at least make digestible to the fence sitters) whatever PoMo philosophy is out there and that’s what folks like your friend K.A. Smith seem to have taken as their mandate.

    On the level of hermeneutics, there seems to me to be a particular dearth. Let’s deconstruct this and see what falls out, is not what one expects to hear in the bible study group! But then i remember that I have always been dissatisfied with the conservative approach to exegesis, in spite of there being a plethora of books written on “how to understand the bible”.

    Getting back to your previous subject, when thinking in terms of culture, or environment, the individual is a player but also somewhat helpless when looked at from the standpoint of the totality. This surely sets up a conflict, and a pretty fundamental one at that. We are not ourselves events, but we are a part of the system that processes events. Yet, the system can disregard or even disavow us and our contributions even though we are a part of the system itself.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 9 June 2007 @ 9:36 pm

  6. Sam –

    A lot of postmodernists critique empiricism and materialism, which seem like the two main enemies of the emerging church. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, so to speak. I don’t have problems with that; I too think materialism is a big problem, and am pleased to ally with the Christians in fighting it.

    For most purposes the continental philosophers aren’t critiquing Christian theology; it’s just not their main concern. Psychotherapy isn’t their main concern either (except for Lacan), but I think they may offer insights if I can ask the right questions. Where it gets dicey is when you try to “proof text” Derrida and Deleuze and company to support positions you already hold. E.g., Deleuze leaves room for some sort of animating spirit in the universe, but that doesn’t mean he endorses God as Creator. I think the emerging church people have tendencies to do this sort of “softening” as you call it. The danger comes when someone who really knows the texts comes along and tells you you’ve got it all wrong. It’s like Dawkins or Sam Harris broadly criticize religion without really knowing very much about it.

    “Let’s deconstruct this and see what falls out.”

    This enthusiasm for deconstructive hermeneutic is one of the big questions at Church and PoMo, and I’m not sure I understand the answer. Is there a hermeneutical problem that deconstruction can help address? If so, good; if not, why go around looking for ways to “apply the technique”? What I think would be more interesting, though, would be if Christians starting thinking about reading texts other than the Bible in some interesting way. Derrida was a literary critic whose hermeneutical ideas have relevance to the Bible. But hermeneutics and lit crit originally came out of Biblical scholarship. Don’t the Christian hermeneuticians have anything to say about Moby Dick or David Lynch films other than to critique the Christian-ness or lack thereof of the content?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 4:39 pm

  7. Traditionally, conservative Christians are reactionary rather than proactive. I guess that’s part of why they think themselves ‘conservative’ in the first place.

    The emerging movement does seem to be anti-empiricist and antimaterialist by and large, though there are interestingly other standpoints from folks like our friend virgil from OST and Michael Kruse, a frequent commentator on jesuscreed (especially on egalitarian issues). An interesting link-up is also taking place somewhere below-the-horizon politically between the ‘evangelical’ left (Sojourners – Wallis) and the emerging crowd.

    I think one can expect better things generally from the emerging crowd as far as art goes, for the level of openness and involvement with all forms of art is much better and more acceptable too. Hopefully this also includes the literary realm and once these PoMo popularisers fade out I think there may be some real interaction with philosophy too on a broader scale than we have seen before. Jonathan probably knows more about this than either of us would…

    One thing that is definitely good is that there is a sense of openness and different ideas are given a hearing. There is also greater affirmation of difference itself and with this amount of openness analysis and art should both be able to thrive, but it’s early days yet and i guess we will have to wait and see.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 10 June 2007 @ 7:17 pm

  8. You’re right, Sam, about the conservatism. I’m surprised there is anything like an emerging branch of evangelicalism, especially faced with such a strong “slippery slope” contingent warning against godlessness and liberalism. Virgil I couldn’t quite get a handle on — he seemed to be pushing a specific conservative doctrinal variant. Andrew is an anomaly to me — he too seems to have staked out a territory and wants to assert its dominance over other emerging trends — as if the emerging theology has arrived and he’s here to declare it. Either that or he’s obsessing over his latest book, which would be understandable. The whole development is fascinating.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 10 June 2007 @ 9:13 pm

  9. Well, I guess if I hadn’t myself come from an evangelical background, I might be as surprised. The fact is that there are large segments of evangelicalism that are very quietly dissatisfied with their religion and it is from thse ranks that the emerging movement has been getting its adherents. The last count I saw was something over 25 million in the U.S. and that was a bit dated. The slippery slope is a crowded place these days.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 10 June 2007 @ 11:28 pm

  10. The Big Other has found you…

    Like

    Comment by Dominic Fox — 12 June 2007 @ 2:45 pm

  11. “Sometimes it seems that the Christians merely want to plug these thinkers into predetermined slots…That approach seems like a distortion and a waste of time”

    Um, yes.

    “Derrida was a literary critic”

    Um, no.

    I used to get annoyed at Don Cupitt for sweeping up everything post-Nietzsche into one great antidogmatic eschaton-immanentizing free-fer-all, and now I’m getting annoyed at Dr Raschke for – as far as I can tell – doing much the same thing.

    It seems to be a standing temptation for people emerging from an epistemologically conservative religious viewpoint to rush out and binge on all the sweeties in the store, without even pausing to notice that some of them are in fact olives and others are worming pills…

    Like

    Comment by Dominic Fox — 12 June 2007 @ 3:06 pm

  12. Dominic –

    (I knew if I waited long enough he would visit me…)

    There’s a tendency to conflate postmodernity the social condition with postmodernism the whatever-it-is that characterizes a certain set of ideas. The worming cure for the social disease seems more of a return to Romanticism. American Protestantism missed out on Romanticism the first time around, being immersed in a Great Awakening and a vast economic expansion at the time.

    The olives are hermeneutical mostly, offering a way out of Biblical literalism that doesn’t slip into progressive revelation. Gadamer is the star of this show; Derrida also gets in the door as a kind of “bad boy” who still reads texts very carefully. It seems that very few people at Church and PoMo have actually read the primary sources — sometimes this even includes the writers of the posts. Curiously, I have yet to see the emerging people stray very far from evangelical orthodoxy, except for some very vague invocations of “true myth” for texts like Genesis 1-11. Rather than directly saying that Paul made some mistakes, the emergings take a more general stance in favor of “narrative” versus “propositional” truth, which roughly translates as Gospels versus Epistles.

    I presume you know more about the emergings than I do since, based on your post at an und fer sich, I presume you characterize yourself as Christian. Dr. Carl I intend to look up when I move to Colorado in a couple of weeks. Though I’m not looking for a job I expect I’ll be ingratiating anyway. After all, Dr. Carl is now pointing out his Marxist and Maoist credentials, so his personal testimony is more dramatic than mine.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 12 June 2007 @ 8:56 pm

  13. Rather than directly saying that Paul made some mistakes may be a matter of bread and butter. After all, it’s a numbers game, and it just wouldn’t do to alienate all the folks who might otherwise take a peesk at the new pig in the poke.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 12 June 2007 @ 10:04 pm

  14. peeek

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 12 June 2007 @ 10:04 pm

  15. I admit – confess – it was not Christian of me to snarl and spit so at Carl Raschke. I will have to make reparation – he wrote an article on Caputo and “weak messianism” that is a good deal more interesting and deserves a serious (and less over-the-top antagonistic) response.

    What is it that so gets to me so about the guy’s writing, though? I googled around, and found that – OK, 17 years ago…! – he’d written a rather bad book on occultism, full of generalisations, misrepresentations, the sort of stuff you can only get away with if you’re writing about a subculture for an audience who don’t really know all that much about it and are maybe a bit afraid of it. I wondered why he thought I was having a go at his “credentials” – well, that was the line of attack taken by a lot of the people he insulted and aggravated back then: “what does this guy really know about LaVey? He can’t even get the most basic things right!” Not that I hold any brief for the satanists…

    Carl gets to position himself as a “safe” source of knowledge about the scary “PoMo” stuff, and the “emerging” guys take his word for it – but he plays very fast and loose with the material, and I think has this underlying attitude that it isn’t really worthy of serious attention – certainly there’s no point in paying attention to the internal differences between one “pomo” thinker and another, since what really matters is the master discourse (always Christian/evangelical) that gets to read them all as Signs of the Times.

    I think this sells Christianity short intellectually – why shouldn’t someone used to Bible study and dealing with theological language and concepts be able to read and wrangle with the likes of Badiou on their own terms? I owe my facility, such as it is, with philosophical texts very largely to my early training in hermeneutics, my exposure to a culture of scriptural interpretation. In the course of which, I’ve seen some good preachers, who opened out texts and drew people in and made them think, and I’ve seen some bad ones, who gave a “safe” reading of their texts and kept people out of the inner sanctum, and I’m afraid I felt that Carl’s essay reminded me of the latter variety: sanitizing, patronising and dishonest.

    Like

    Comment by Dominic Fox — 12 June 2007 @ 10:53 pm

  16. Dominic,

    How do you approach Christianity intellectually? Its a question I have asked people repeatedly throughout my life. Down here, we had a rather intelligent politician that was also a Catholic. This guy was like Einstein! He remarked in an interview once that he had to compartmentalise the two subjects in different parts of his brain in order to hold onto his Christianity. How do you deal with it yourself ? I am always very interested in how people rationalise it to themselves and have it make sense.

    Like

    Comment by Ivan — 13 June 2007 @ 8:16 am

  17. Not too lond ago in a thread at OST there was a discussion with a very conservative Christian who was seeking to discombobulate us with a few well thought through logical and apologetic sallies.

    S/He quoted from an article (I think by Smith) that summarised some PoMo tinking and also mentioned the importance of deconstruction. This person went on to equate deconstruction with how satan tempted Eve. It was actually quite a cute comparison though I took it positively, which my interlocutor did not apparently appreciate.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 13 June 2007 @ 10:24 am

  18. Dominic –

    Dejan recently exposed me to a more vituperative style of virtual discourse among a bunch of very clever people who seem to piss each other off regularly but who nevertheless seem to stay in touch with one another. I’ve wondered whether the Christians who participate aggressively in these exchanges are pointedly moving beyond politesse as a weak force of the big Other, keeping people chatting amiably after the service so they don’t plot revolution.

    One of Dr Carl’s grad students previously posted on Deleuze and Guattari. Though I had sworn off of Church and PoMo, I ended up responding to a comment in which Dr. Carl asserted that D&G’s schizoanalysis was descriptive, not prescriptive. I quoted and summarized big chunks from Anti-Oedipus that were explicitly prescriptive (“destroy, destroy…”). Well, said Dr. Carl, I suppose one could look at it that way, but I’m thinking more about the rest of Deleuze’s work, etc. Kind of annoying, but it drew me back to the D&G for more detailed reading. For the emergings really to explore schizoanalysis might prove very stimulating if they could table the question of whether D&G are heretical or how far to let this deterritorialization go before drawing the line.

    A couple of emerging guys who comment regularly here also participate at Church and PoMo. Why they haven’t put in their two cents’ worth on this “sorry” post I’m not quite sure.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 13 June 2007 @ 12:46 pm

  19. Sam –

    I haven’t been as regular a visitor to Open Source Theology lately. You mention Smith — I presume that’s JKA Smith of Church and PoMo. Several commenters felt that Smith was taming Derrida, rolling him in with Gadamer as an implicit supporter of traditional hermeneutical communities. I’m glad others can see the satanic influence behind this attempt to sanitize Derrida.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 13 June 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  20. Dejan recently exposed me to a more vituperative style of virtual discourse among a bunch of very clever people who seem to piss each other off regularly but who nevertheless seem to stay in touch with one another.

    And you liked it, too, cause you kept coming back for more!

    Like

    Comment by dejan — 13 June 2007 @ 1:20 pm

  21. How do you approach Christianity intellectually?

    The glib answer is that Christianity is always already there in my intellectual approach, being a formative influence and so on. But I basically regard it as this mad, untranslatable excess that I have to keep failing to translate into more philosophically stable terms.

    Like

    Comment by Dominic Fox — 13 June 2007 @ 1:48 pm

  22. How do you approach Christianity intellectually?

    I hope you all don’t mind if I snatch this question out of midair and apply it to my own experiences. In short, I think that a vast majority of Christian thinkers throughout the history of Christian thought (the good, the bad, and the ugly) tend to over-state the essential Christian intellectual commitments. In terms of the intellect I think that Scripture presents a directive to engage the mind in light of God’s contemporary workings. There seem to me that Scripture does not really impress all that much upon us in terms of specific intellectual beliefs.

    As far as I see it (at this point in my thinking) the core of the faith is to connect by faith with the God of faith. This is personal encounter. Experiential. Existential, if you will. After the encounter the intellect is a matter of improvisation. Rigorous, to be sure – there’s no excuse for not deeply invetigating the world and applying our minds with vigor to all questions that press upon us. However, I think that much of the faith is a matter of recontextualizing the encounter and God’s previous work in history in such a way that makes sense in the contemporary context. In this regard, much of Christian intellectualization remains unwritten, as of yet. It is a script to be written. A work in progress.

    Far too often it seems as though false dichotomies are drawn. This blog, Ktismatics, was started to resolve a perceived impass on the reading of Genesis. A suppossed conflict between faith and reason. I never really felt the tension. This is not to take away from John’s work or contribution. From some of my previous comments it is evident how much I appreciate his originality. However, I never really perceived the tension, and I do not consider myself to be anti-intellectual in any way.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 13 June 2007 @ 5:33 pm

  23. Jonathan –

    I see that you’ve gone to witnessing.

    “A couple of emerging guys who comment regularly here also participate at Church and PoMo. Why they haven’t put in their two cents’ worth on this “sorry” post I’m not quite sure.”

    You were one of those guys I had in mind. Do you think that the emergings ought to get more specific about what questions they’re asking of contemporary continental philosophy? Or do you think that this project might be reaching an impasse, as Adrian frequently exhorts the gang at Church and PoMo? Do you think that the guys who run that blog are pushing too far into the philosophical deep water rather than focusing on ecclesiology in a postmodern culture?

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 13 June 2007 @ 5:45 pm

  24. I think that when Christians discuss Continental philosophy it gets very confused and people talk past themselves because the majority of it is based on partial readings or relative unfamiliarity. Or familiarity with one aspect of Continental thought, but lack of appreciation for the whole or the context that produced it. I don’t comment too often at Church and PoMo, and when I do I try to stick with topics that I’m fairly well versed on…..Hence, I don’t comment too often!

    In one sense I think we are talking about simulacrum. There was Continental philosophy done on the Continent. Then there was Anglo-American versions and interpretations of that philosophy. Then there were American Christians appropriating that interpretation. Could it be that we are dealing with a copy of a copy of a copy? And when does the regress end? One might question whether or not there ever was an original. Does Continental philosophy even exist?

    Perhaps only Baudrillard can trully appreciate our situation.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 13 June 2007 @ 6:31 pm

  25. Speaking of Anlgo-American versions, I see on Church and PoMo that Richard Rorty died. He was teaching in the English Department at Univ. of Virginia while I was working on my doctorate in psychology. He did a colloquium in our department, which like all psych depts in America was very empirical. It was like Rorty was speaking an entirely different language. His seminar on Freud was the only Freud lecture I heard the whole time I was in grad school.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 13 June 2007 @ 7:19 pm

  26. Somehow, i missed Rorty’s passing on, which is odd as he is (was) a seminal thinker and one who helped to balance out some of the extremes that were on the table when he got into it.

    In tune with what we are talking about, I have not read anough of Rorty, nor any of his recent stuff at all, to be commenting on him, but what I did read, back then, was very good.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 13 June 2007 @ 9:55 pm

  27. “A couple of emerging guys who comment regularly here also participate at Church and PoMo. Why they haven’t put in their two cents’ worth on this ‘sorry’ post I’m not quite sure.”

    Don’t make me get vituperative on you, now. Honestly, though…I think the Anti-Creeds thing…although it ended up being very healthy…scared the living pooh out of me…when it comes to a post like this. What do I mean: “like this?”

    “If this is an interesting question to Christians, then it should be possible to mount a project and a series of focused readings. The PoMo engagement becomes something more substantial and meaningful.”

    I’m fairly certain, though, that that’s my own isolation talking. As well as my lack of knowledge of Deleuze and Badiou.

    What I do know, though…Johnathan’s “Scripture does not really impress all that much upon us in terms of specific intellectual beliefs” is pretty interesting. Here I think you have to realize that all intellectual positions have some relationship to praxis…even if its a utopian position and the relation to praxis is a lack thereof.

    This is why I’ve been trying to figure out Badiou’s political schenanigans. I haven’t yet had a chance to read the interview/link with Badiou that seems to get into that…which Dominic provided either here or at churchandpomo (I don’t remember which).

    Anyway, though…although this will probably sound like a gross mis/over-generalization…I think Deleuze feeds off of the 60’s idea of freedom. And freedom is always political. And the 60’s notion of freedom, so far as I know, isn’t “Christian.”

    I recently posted about this less-than-easy lesson in my own life:
    http://jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2007/06/chasing-phantoms.html

    Lazer all…

    Jason

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 13 June 2007 @ 11:22 pm

  28. I have a feeling this would apply to me:

    “You were one of those guys I had in mind. Do you think that the emergings ought to get more specific about what questions they’re asking of contemporary continental philosophy? Or do you think that this project might be reaching an impasse, as Adrian frequently exhorts the gang at Church and PoMo? Do you think that the guys who run that blog are pushing too far into the philosophical deep water rather than focusing on ecclesiology in a postmodern culture?”

    You could probably tell from that churchandpomo discussion that I was kind of with Adrian. But as I hinted at my most recent/last comment there…I’m really not sure…practically…what Carl R. is asking of me with that post.

    And the following is really interesting: “He did a colloquium in our department, which like all psych depts in America was very empirical. It was like Rorty was speaking an entirely different language. His seminar on Freud was the only Freud lecture I heard the whole time I was in grad school.” Makes me wanna go “argh.”

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 13 June 2007 @ 11:28 pm

  29. “I was kind of with Adrian.” I mean, like Dominic said: with his event talk, Badiou isn’t talking about God.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 13 June 2007 @ 11:43 pm

  30. “a bunch of very clever people who seem to piss each other off regularly but who nevertheless seem to stay in touch with one another. I’ve wondered whether the Christians who participate aggressively in these exchanges are pointedly moving beyond politesse as a weak force of the big Other, keeping people chatting amiably after the service so they don’t plot revolution.”

    First of all, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the pissy folks at Dejan’s blog weren’t a bit more emotionally healthy than most of the folks who frequent church on Sunday morning. Or at least more emotionally honest. Same goes for their cleverness. But the main point I have to make here is that I don’t think the “politeness” has a whole heck of a lot to do with the truth of Christ’s message (although I think that those very church goers THINK that it does). I think it has more to do with: a) isolation that comes from not taking things to Jesus, and b) a translatedly (through time and history) Roman kind of “pruning,” as discussed in the comments to the last post. Rome blows.

    Jason

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 14 June 2007 @ 12:04 am

  31. “How do you approach Christianity intellectually? Its a question I have asked people repeatedly throughout my life. Down here, we had a rather intelligent politician that was also a Catholic. This guy was like Einstein! He remarked in an interview once that he had to compartmentalise the two subjects in different parts of his brain in order to hold onto his Christianity. How do you deal with it yourself ? I am always very interested in how people rationalise it to themselves and have it make sense.”

    I’m no genius, but this makes no sense to me. I wonder if this Cathoic politician genius guy believes that the spiritual/intellectual actually has substance. I suspect the answer to be “no.” That’s the only way I can fathom his thinking that he has to compartmentalize the two subjects (faith and reason) in different parts of his brain.

    I’m with Aquinas. God is Being is Love…and is the author of both theological and “scientific” truth. In fact, it makes me uncomfortable to even separate the two like that; for me I do so simply for communicatitive purposes. But “materialism,” as it gets pigeonholed I think, does seem to place intelligent thought in a substanceless vacume.

    For me that is very much not the case…so my position on the “substance” of the spiritual and intellectual in itself these days would be termed “mystical” (and contrary to reason); but before modern science, this stuff about “substance” wouldn’t in and of itself have been termed mystical. For Aquinas, rational discourse, like everything else, occurs in the substantial Being of God…in whom we live and move and have our being.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 14 June 2007 @ 12:28 am

  32. Jonathan –

    “This blog, Ktismatics, was started to resolve a perceived impass on the reading of Genesis. A suppossed conflict between faith and reason.”

    Not so. My interest in Genesis 1 was to the explore historical origins of Judeo-Christian creativity. That’s also my convergence with Derrida, Deleuze et al: creation as a force in the world, not reducible to adaptation or economic gain or imitation. When I first heard about the emergings, after I’d finished my book, I was curious and enthusiastic. I thought the PoMo connection had to do with exploring different ways for Christians to engage the world. Few enough people in the secular world are concerned about things like truth, beauty, goodness, difference. I thought maybe the emergings were going there. But now I think it’s more about a kind of missional renewal inside the church — a convergence on the historical Christian tradition, a united position against modernism in science and in fundamentalism, an intellectual cultural critique of postmodernity. So I’m thinking there’s less common cause than I thought.

    “Could it be that we are dealing with a copy of a copy of a copy? And when does the regress end?”

    If the emerging church is only simulating an engagement with postmodern philosophy, maybe it’s time to quit and get back to doing its own internal philosophizing. Let the secularists go their way; build the distinctive post-evangelical worldview. Maybe that’s the real intent behind the Christian simulacrum: it’s an experimental engagement that might stimulate some authentic Christian thinking that would stand in stark contrast with secular philosophy. A kind of postmodern high medievalism might ensue, rather than a second-rate modernism that is the emergings’ view of evangelicalism.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 3:03 am

  33. Jason –

    “I think the Anti-Creeds thing…although it ended up being very healthy…scared the living pooh out of me.”

    That post was a kind of turning point in an unanticipated way. It was my trying to explore implications of deconstruction and deterritorialization, listening at what’s said to infer what isn’t said, so to speak. My interest was psychological — what thoughts do we suppress or repress on the way to saying what we say. The Creeds seemed to me a good illustration of the concept. My interest wasn’t in debunking the Creeds or in getting anyone else to do so — they were familiar territory to us all, with an acknowledged historical suppression of contrary positions that got excluded from Christian orthodoxy. So when you and Jonathan commented about theological issues, I kept trying to turn it back to psychology: what are you and I not saying to each other in our comments, and why aren’t we saying them? It wasn’t about why you guys believe the Creed. In retrospect maybe I should have used some example other than the Creeds to illustrate the idea. But maybe the choice was apropos after all, because it illustrates how tough it is for a secularist like me to critique Christian stuff, even if it’s just hypothetical.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 3:17 am

  34. “I think Deleuze feeds off of the 60’s idea of freedom. And freedom is always political. And the 60’s notion of freedom, so far as I know, isn’t “Christian.””

    This is your consistent position. If something isn’t Christian, why bother? There’s nothing really in common. Maybe you can learn some things that you can bring back inside the church, but engagement on the outside isn’t really in view. Clearly Deleuze, Badiou, Derrida and all the rest didn’t regard themselves as Christians. So maybe you look for some content that can be Christianized, then let the rest go. And if the thinker isn’t Christian, maybe you let all of it go.

    That’s fine, but I would think it makes it hard to engage any of these writers seriously. Though I can’t speak for Dominic, I suspect part of his frustration is that he does take them seriously on their own terms, and not for how bits of them can be Christianized. Dr. Carl wasn’t just sloppy in his post; he seemed to be pursuing an agenda: Globochrist as he toward whom the PoMo philosophers are pointing, putting Derrida and Deleuze and company through the post-evangelical filter to bring out the useful bits for emerging church people. It’s not a going out toward these ideas for their own sakes, seeing where they lead; it’s a systematic managerial effort to bring some of the ideas inside the church, making them conform to a priori commitments that must remain untouched. So it’s probably enough for this purpose to let the Christian thinkers do the initial processing of the secular ideas, then discuss whether they’re of value to the church or not, rather than actually reading the original sources. But the original ideas become more vulnerable to distortion and manipulation by the “Christianizers,” as do the people who listen to them — this I think was Dominic’s objection to Dr. Carl’s post. It’s my objection anyhow.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 3:41 am

  35. “I mean, like Dominic said: with his event talk, Badiou isn’t talking about God.”

    This is exactly my point. Unless a philosopher is talking about God, and a God that an evangelical might recognize as God, then he’s not interesting. The event, the self, difference, economics, territorialization — none of this is of interest for its own sake, but only with reference to God. Here again it seems like maybe it really is a waste of time to read these guys. Leave it to the professional Christian philosophers to pick out the good parts.

    I think there’s an ongoing tension at Church and PoMo. Some of the people who post are or aspire to being professional Christianizers of secular philosophy. A lot of people who read the blog are probably people who want practical implications of these Christianized ideas for liturgy, mission, exegesis, etc. So maybe expecting anyone to read original sources other than (hopefully) the writers of the posts is asking too much. If someone like Dr. Carl can give the emergings a reason to incorporate into the faith some piece of Badiou’s thoughts on the event, then that’s what matters, not whether Dr. Carl’s Christianized version is true to Badiou or not. It’s an activity of the church pulling things into itself rather than extending itself outward.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 3:56 am

  36. On the 60s and ‘freedom’ as a theme, that was a meld that I as a teenager got in at the very end of. What i think i found was a very genuine interaction of centrally human concepts such as love, freedom, and justice, breaking through the ordinary cultural barriers of mores reinforced by religion. The heart that had gone out of true religion was sought and being made to beat again and this included Christianity in a unique way.

    If you look at the Beatles e.g. they espoused both Marxian thinking (from Lennon) with very Christian ideals from all of them as coming from Christian culture and then brought in one form of Hinduism (mostly Harrison).

    But a binding thread of the entire Hippy Movement was most definitely the gospel and in that stood out Jesus teaching on authentic living particularly as it is found in the Sermon on the Mount.

    Like

    Comment by samlcarr — 14 June 2007 @ 4:20 am

  37. Ktismatics:
    My interest in Genesis 1 was to the explore historical origins of Judeo-Christian creativity. That’s also my convergence with Derrida, Deleuze et al: creation as a force in the world, not reducible to adaptation or economic gain or imitation.

    Fair enough. Good clarification. I still think, based on my conversations with you that resolving faith/reason tensions played a primary role in your research and writing. But I’ll have to pull out some emails and look at some of your past posts for ammo!

    When I first heard about the emergings, after I’d finished my book, I was curious and enthusiastic. I thought the PoMo connection had to do with exploring different ways for Christians to engage the world. Few enough people in the secular world are concerned about things like truth, beauty, goodness, difference. I thought maybe the emergings were going there. But now I think it’s more about a kind of missional renewal inside the church — a convergence on the historical Christian tradition, a united position against modernism in science and in fundamentalism, an intellectual cultural critique of postmodernity. So I’m thinking there’s less common cause than I thought.

    I, for one, am very much occupied with investigating the four pillars you mention above: truth, beauty, goodness, and difference. I would add to that meaning.

    If the emerging church is only simulating an engagement with postmodern philosophy, maybe it’s time to quit and get back to doing its own internal philosophizing. Let the secularists go their way; build the distinctive post-evangelical worldview. Maybe that’s the real intent behind the Christian simulacrum: it’s an experimental engagement that might stimulate some authentic Christian thinking that would stand in stark contrast with secular philosophy.

    Agreed. Very insightful thoughts.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 14 June 2007 @ 4:16 pm

  38. K:
    So when you and Jonathan commented about theological issues, I kept trying to turn it back to psychology: what are you and I not saying to each other in our comments, and why aren’t we saying them? It wasn’t about why you guys believe the Creed.

    As I recall, my approach was more philosophical and hermeneutical. I wasn’t so much interested in the legitimacy of the creeds as much as I was interested in exploring whether or not we can/should establish creeds and whether or not we can/should avoid them. More specifically, whether or not it is fair to exclude the Other. This would apply to any and all fields/groups/clubs/etc. In other words, any time any organization or establishment says, “We believe…” or “We do not believe….” or even, “This is right/wrong….”

    Regardless, we did seem to be missing each other b/c, as you say, your interest was psychology.

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 14 June 2007 @ 4:21 pm

  39. Sam –

    I became a “Jesus Freak” in that era. To an extent it was a reaction against sex, drugs, and rock n roll, but the Jesus movement itself couldn’t have been imagined outside of that larger cultural context of hippiedom. So to an extent the peace and freedom themes of the secular culture became dominant themes of the evangelical movement that paralleled it. This parallelism is also true of emergings in the postmodern secular era.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 6:30 pm

  40. Jonathan –

    “I still think, based on my conversations with you that resolving faith/reason tensions played a primary role in your research and writing.”

    This was an unintended and fortuitous consequence of my exegesis: the possibility of resolving Genesis 1 with inerrancy, and also the possibility of seeing a “weak God” even in the very naturalized treatment I offer of the creation narrative. I put forward these ideas as a kind of peace offering to the believers, looking to achieve common purpose in truth/beauty/justice/creation that might either transcend or sidestep the faith/reason dichotomy. But the original impetus for the work was to look for creational ideas within the ancient text.

    “I, for one, am very much occupied with investigating the four pillars you mention above: truth, beauty, goodness, and difference. I would add to that meaning.”

    It’s one of the things I appreciate about your blog and your comments, this commitment. While we don’t usually start or end at the same point, we share common concerns that I suspect most other people do not. And as you know, I’m down with meaning too.

    As for the Anticreed post, I agree: your focus was on truth rather than creeds. I kept trying to identify territorial markings in your comments, but it came across as theoretical and personal critique rather than exemplifying a psychological praxis. It’s my own obsession with getting to a kind of psychology that I can live with, which has motivated most of my posts for the last 3 months or so. Clearly I’ll have to refine my online schizoanalytic technique. Oh well.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 6:43 pm

  41. The Doyle,

    On your Anti-Creeds post: “That post was a kind of turning point in an unanticipated way. It was my trying to explore implications of deconstruction and deterritorialization, listening at what’s said to infer what isn’t said, so to speak. My interest was psychological — what thoughts do we suppress or repress on the way to saying what we say. The Creeds seemed to me a good illustration of the concept. My interest wasn’t in debunking the Creeds or in getting anyone else to do so — they were familiar territory to us all, with an acknowledged historical suppression of contrary positions that got excluded from Christian orthodoxy.”

    Just to clarify, when I said that the discussion on that post scared the pooh out of me, I was referring to your psychological reaction. I have next to zero interest in Christian “apologetics.” What I mean is that in this post, like in the Anti-Creeds discussion, you seem to express an interest in a kind of group project or study of various PoMo issues.

    So then there are a couple of things going on in me in response to that. For one, I fear the same kind of reaction here as the one that you had there (you got pretty mad…from your end, justifiably so, I think). Call me emotionally unhealthy, but I do fear that.

    Secondly, I’m not even sure what I think about the idea of engaging in the kind of collaborative project that you either hope for or have in mind. There are a bunch of competing things going on in my soul in response to that. For one, I already read too much, in general, than is good for my soul. For another, I would love to read Deleuze directly, but simply don’t have time…and probably won’t for quite some time (months/years, not just days/weeks). And when I say “I don’t have time,” its because what I AM spending my time reading “directly” is directly pertinent to the struggles/persuits/quests of my life right now…about which I’ve shared openly with you.

    Additionally, just the thought of such a collaborative project sounds wonderful and interesting, in and of itself. In other words, then, I really like the idea, but I have reservations…and they aren’t really just because the collaboration would be about “engaging” with “secular” thinkers. Although MAYBE its because my life right now dictates that I “engage” with non-secular thinkers…just in terms of the struggle that I’m trying to work through in my life right now.

    As for my consistent position on Badiou, Derrida, and Deleuze and co…I don’t think of it the way you have portrayed it, I don’t think. I don’t think of it as “why bother?” AND on top of that, generally…I find that there are a lot more Christian thinkers that piss me off a whole heck of a lot more than the referenced “secular” ones. I am filled with less anxiety and deep turmoil if I consider the prospect of reading Derrida than if I consider reading Protestant Liberal Right Wind Political Propoganda…which fills me with utter fury.

    As far as the idea of manegerial splicing of fragmented secular thoughts into the Christian mosaic…uummm…no. My problem is precisely that I haven’t read Deleuze and Badiou directly, or not much of either. If I had, I would probably be coming to the same conclusion as you and Dominic (if that is Dominic’s conclusion) on Dr. Carl. I got that sense ANYWAY – that he had such an agenda – and I haven’t even read Deleuze and Badiou directly. In fact, I think that was precisely Adrian’s point…that you can’t just take some of the percievedly applicable “secular” thoughts of the secular thinkers and puzzle-place them into the Christian iconic image of reality.

    I don’t think you can do that either, and I did get the sense that Carl was doing that. But I wasn’t definitive on my thought there in regards to the un-Fromal “Dr. Carl”…precisely becasue I’m less of an expert on all those PoMo guys than what I’d like to be. But I DO think, strongly, that they have to be taken on their own terms.

    “This is exactly my point. Unless a philosopher is talking about God, and a God that an evangelical might recognize as God, then he’s not interesting.”

    I don’t think Badiou is uninteresting. I just think that you can’t plug “God” into Badiou’s Void or Truth or whathaveyou.

    “The event, the self, difference, economics, territorialization — none of this is of interest for its own sake, but only with reference to God. Here again it seems like maybe it really is a waste of time to read these guys.”

    “…of interest FOR ITS OWN SAKE” seems to raise another issue altogether, though. If in fact I am to take Badiou/Deleuze “on their own terms,” which I would much prefer…that doesn’t mean that they aren’t “interesting” to me, but it does mean that they aren’t going to be as helpful to me in my current struggle (referenced above, which you know about) as the stuff I AM reading…ALTHOUGH I do find some annoying Protestant Liberal (liberal in this case being in reference to an epistemology rather than a politics) sounding stuff in the helpful stuff that I am reading…which I try to filter through.

    “If someone like Dr. Carl can give the emergings a reason to incorporate into the faith some piece of Badiou’s thoughts on the event, then that’s what matters, not whether Dr. Carl’s Christianized version is true to Badiou or not.”

    I think both are important, and will be interrelated. But I need to read more Badiou. And in my own mind I am not prevented from reading Badiou simply because I am only interested in the practical implications of Badiou on my Christian life, which presumably Dr. Carl can figure out for me. Frankly, I just like reading and learning, and Badiou sounds really darned interesting to me. But I won’t get to read much of him any time soon, I don’t think.

    This might just be unfruitful bait, I don’t know, but I have a question on the following: “I put forward these ideas as a kind of peace offering to the believers, looking to achieve common purpose in truth/beauty/justice/creation that might either transcend or sidestep the faith/reason dichotomy.” Might that just be the opposite side of the coin of what Dr. Carl appears to be doing? The implication of my question might be the impossibility of your hoped for project, but that’s not what I hope or expect to convey.

    So far as the Beatles, Christianity and Marxism go, that was what I maent by a “tektonified eschaton” in the comments to the last post. “Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try.” In and of itself, I like the idea. Most Christians focus too much on heaven, and in the meantime, they live like zombies. But I just can’t fully accept the Beatle’s message for myself…if I “take it on its own terms.”

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 14 June 2007 @ 7:53 pm

  42. “I am filled with less anxiety and deep turmoil if I consider the prospect of reading Derrida than if I consider reading Protestant Liberal Right Wing Political Propoganda…which fills me with utter fury.”

    Actually I don’t have any fear or anxiety over reading Derrida and Co. For the sake of clarity.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 14 June 2007 @ 8:56 pm

  43. Jason –

    “For one, I fear the same kind of reaction here as the one that you had there (you got pretty mad…from your end, justifiably so, I think).”

    Maybe my rage is ordinarily cranked up so high I don’t even recognize it when it’s turned down low — which I thought it was in Anticreeds and Another Post that followed. Either that or maybe you were projecting your own rage onto me? No, I won’t get all psychological on your ass. How about Dominic’s comment to Dr. Carl — rage or arrogance, or something else? Anyhow, I’m quite pissed off pretty often. I’d say I’m less capable of restraining myself face to face than in a blog situation, where I don’t have to react immediately. For example…

    We’re at dinner the other night. The host, an American, immediately greets us — “Are there any Bible scholars here? I’ve got a simple question for you.” Turned out he was a reader for church the next day. He wanted to know how you pronounce Melchizedek. I said MelKIzedek, with a hard K sound. “MelCHizedek,” intoned the English dude — CH as in cheese. His wife repeats the pronunciation. I reiterated my view. I had two years of Hebrew, I told him; definitely a K, of with the Hebrew clearing of the throat sound added. “I don’t want to sound Hebrew,” said the guy asking the question; “I want to sound…” I knew what he wanted — to sound British. I didn’t have to listen to his reading at church the next day to know how he (mis)pronounced Melchizedek. Now this pissed me off at the time, but by the next day I was incensed. Why? It was a trivial thing. But there are times when my anger level is high and very close to the threshold kicking me over the top. The “Sorry Parade” remark by Dominic coincided with this high-anger phase, triggered by my going back to America mostly (with lots of baggage, both physical and emotional). So I kind of dug Dominic’s tone, and his slapdown directed at Dr. Carl (just why does he feel the need to put his title with his name? like “Father” so-and-so or “Pastor” so-and-so — “Doctor” is the academic equivalent claim of authority). So you’re probably right in the end — this post could have amped up the anger. However, silence in response to the post also ticked me off. So I guess you can’t win for losing. Anyhow, the boxes are on the truck and I managed to write another post, so perhaps the crisis is passing.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 9:39 pm

  44. “If in fact I am to take Badiou/Deleuze “on their own terms,” which I would much prefer…that doesn’t mean that they aren’t “interesting” to me, but it does mean that they aren’t going to be as helpful to me in my current struggle (referenced above, which you know about) as the stuff I AM reading.”

    That’s fair enough. Sometimes I’m surprised that anyone reads Badiou or Deleuze, or regards them as personally relevant. I’m amazed that I do, at least sometimes. For me it’s an issue of vocation — trying to piece together some kind of psychological practice — but if I can get that to work out I suspect my anger will abate also.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 June 2007 @ 9:47 pm

  45. K:
    But the original impetus for the work was to look for creational ideas within the ancient text.

    Are you now assuming that your “original impetus” was, in fact, the product of your conscious thought?!?! What if it was the result of undetected forces of the subconscious or cultural conditioning that you did not consciously perceive? What if I am recognizing the forces that shaped the author’s text even better than the author himself????

    Like

    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 15 June 2007 @ 1:14 pm

  46. You The Doylomania,

    “Either that or maybe you were projecting your own rage onto me? No, I won’t get all psychological on your ass.” A Zizekian move? Lol.

    How about Dominic’s comment to Dr. Carl — rage or arrogance, or something else?” Not sure. His “confession” here at this very post sort of knocked arrogance off the shelf, if you ask me. But I couldn’t really realate to that partiucar rage, as I explained in my last comment(s) here. Which just left me kind of confused. But who knows what’s in the human heart!?

    “Anyhow, I’m quite pissed off pretty often.” Welcome to the club. You know, they say, “Better to pissed off than pissed on,” but I’ve never liked that turn of phrase. Usually we’re pissed OFF BECAUSE we’re pissed ON. I have both “argh” and “lol” in my soul this moment.

    “I’d say I’m less capable of restraining myself face to face than in a blog situation, where I don’t have to react immediately.” Fortunate for me, lol. No, but really, I’m in the middle of a conversation with Thomisticguy on “restraint.” I think it might relate to your Johnathan Edwards enjoyment:
    http://simplegodstuff.blogstream.com/v1/pid/229856.html?CP=
    “You’ve heard me say elsewhere that “restraint” of bodily passions is not a good “prescription” to our current sickness, if in fact the problem is the “irrelevance” of the body in a global environment, if in fact man has no rational relationsihp to the globe, and if in fact the globe yet sets the field of play of our lives….’Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united…’ reminds me of Catholic sacramentality…as opposed to the more Protestant sermon/word/thought-centered image of the self.”

    Your Johnathan Edwards concern is with the will. The conversation there is about the body. Anyway…I’m not preaching. I just saw a connection between the that conversation and this…maybe a loose one…I don’t know. But the point at that one…in relation to this one…is that anger is a bodily emotion. Why “self-restraint”? Why not “self-transformation”?
    :)

    And MelCHeezedeck sounds sounds CHeezy. Makes me giggle (sorry, not exactly helpful…since you’re angry about it).

    “So you’re probably right in the end — this post could have amped up the anger.” FYI I don’t view you as the blogging equivalent to Timothy McVeigh.

    “However, silence in response to the post also ticked me off. So I guess you can’t win for losing.” But maybe I should, lol.

    “Anyhow, the boxes are on the truck and I managed to write another post, so perhaps the crisis is passing.” Perhaps. But I know what happens to me when I don’t change something about myself and I think that a particular crisis (you know which one) is passing. Like a tall snake it comes up and bits me in the ass.

    “For me it’s an issue of vocation — trying to piece together some kind of psychological practice — but if I can get that to work out I suspect my anger will abate also.” I can certainly understand that.

    Jason

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 June 2007 @ 5:54 pm

  47. Last night I read your recent posts related to vocation and Proverbs. I can relate — I’ll get back over there and comment pretty soon.

    Like

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 June 2007 @ 8:53 pm

  48. Sweet. Look foward to it.

    Like

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 June 2007 @ 11:32 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: