Pirates Part II - Land Ahoy?

Following my last post on Piracy and Heresy, Pete Rollins has posted a substantive response here. It's worth stating before I engage with the counter-critique that the blogworld can very easily alienate people and create more distance between people than there might otherwise be. If Pete, Kester and I lived nearby, I'd certainly appreciate a long friendly chat over malt whisky with mutually searching and enriching questions (you're always welcome to repeat your stay in Birmingham Pete!). So for readers of these blogs, from my point of view, let's try and hold the conversation together rather than default to camps.

I embarked on my critique of some of Kester and Pete's writings with some diffidence because when the "unorthodox", "heretical", "piratical" are espoused as virtues against an errant church, it's exceedingly difficult to avoid disagreeing without being cast in the role of the "orthodox", "established" and "reactionary". Pete senses me wanting to "rein him in" that i feel he has gone "too far". Well, I'm sure he doesn't believe writings such as "the orthodox heretic" brook no discussion or objection, (one of the problems with the motifs proferred by Kester and Pete is in fact that they foreclose any exchange that avoids playing into caricature!). Anyway, I'll try and respond to the main points as I see Pete presenting them:

1. "it seems we are being relegated to that horrible place of domestication" - I'm not convinced that any of us should mind being put in that place so long as we don't domesticate God. Again, setting oneself up as the prophetic/lone/contrary/heretical voice of hope is a dangerous thing to arrogate.
2. "the Law itself is a transgression" - I recognise the "Hegelian move" but refuse it for philosophical and theological reasons. I'll leave the unpacking of that for a late evening and a Macallan, Pete. But I'd want to assert that seeing law (.....moral imperatives, social constraints, law of the land, international justice etc etc) is God-given and necessary and need not negate the structural critique of our complicity in sin that you outline.
3. "Sudworth's apolitical" response - I have to admit I bristled at this! The point i was making was not that the West does not bear some responsibility for the actions of Somali pirates because of unjust trade. My point was to focus attention on the most vulnerable party to the scenario: "the widow and the orphan" in Somalia itself (and knowing folk working in Somalia I do understand that glamorising the Somali pirates and warlords is more than a tad offensive to those widows and orphans). The essence of my objection is a thoroughly political one: that when the grammar of the debate is framed around a dialectic with church, our language loses any coherent moral significance and becomes atomised and individualistic. The sense that ideas are used "magpie-like" is that there is, on the one hand, a philosophical critique of the use of language (of knowledge and belief) coupled with a structural reflection (who holds power? where are we complicit in justice?). The place (the "situatedness" that i'm essentially wanting to uncover) with which you and Kester are asking these questions is not alongside the orphan and the widow. Putting myself in the Christian story, that would seem to be an imperative for assessing the "faithfulness" of God's people (a la Micah). My impression of confusion is because the motif of heretic/pirate/trickster is situated in relation to church ie. "we are the voice that will revitalise church". Those motifs are not situated to stand alongside the poor and the marginalised...the poor and the marginalised are only co-opted as pawns to make a point about "our" marginalisation. It's a line of argument that some might argue is offensive in the light of the massive social capital of the Western (!) emerging church movement. So, i'll critique the structures of global capitalism quite gladly...but I'll not do that in the service of espousing my position in relation to the inherited church.
4.  "again, "when Kester mentions the shift from ‘pirate radio to BBC’ and ‘Napster to Spotify’", this is not a mere individual ‘romance of the new’ as Sudworth claims, but a properly philosophical insight that pirate radio and Napster, in different ways, did not merely transgress the law but showed how the legal system itself was exploitive." I think you make your point well Pete and I concede that my critique that Kester "romances the new" in his argument does not correspond to what he is saying. Kester: apologies that I made that point without sufficient foundation.
5. I can't apologise for stating that i believe that "there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition’. I know it can sound ever so reactionary (does this make me a heretic in the emerging church movement now? if so, am i perhaps a voice from the margins challenging the decadent mainstream?). It intrigues me that as I talk to Christians from a liberal tradition, so many are wanting to recover a more tradition-centred, communitarian and moral-ethical vision. For so many academic liberal theologians as well as those in pastoral ministry, the "religionless Christianity" that was popularised in the 1960's by John Robinson is just redundant, vacuous and didn't work. Particularly for the sake of the widow and orphan, it means nothing. So the work of MacIntyre and the like is not part of a wave of conservative evangelicals getting all doctrinaire on us. As someone working in a poor borough of the inner city, in a multicultural church, involved in dialogue and community action with Muslims, (and as a dad trying to bring children up!): if my discourse cannot talk about good and evil, right and wrong, belief and unbelief... i will actually not be listened to and have (in their view) nothing to offer.

So, my persistent question remains, "where" is the unorthodox heretic/pirate located? It still seems to be located contra church. I wonder whether there is a sectarian DNA that betrays the evangelical-charismatic roots of the "project" that is genuinely helpful for evangelicals bruised by ecclesial certainties and authoritarianism (evangelicals coming late in the day to an exhausted and fruitless line of argument long since vacated by liberal sections of the church?). Many other people, and certainly the poor and the marginalised of this world, are looking for something rather more substantial from the church.

Comments

[Ric]

Thanks for this discussion. I have found both Pete and Kester's ideas very fruitful for my own spirituality and faith development and have a lot of sympathy for their position.

You're thoughtful critique is a very helpful counterpoint and much appreciated in helping me understand my own position.

[Ben Edson]

thanks again Richard - I've pondered all this dialogue so far and made my response: http://benedson.blogs.com/

I think that I too have a concern about the most marginalized within all this talk on piracy. I'm not quite convinced by napster though...

[Jonathan Evens]

Thanks for starting the debate, Richard.

My thoughts on a particular aspect of Kester and Peter's thinking - the use of dual narratives - can be found at: http://joninbetween.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-orthodox-heretics-pirates.html.

I conclude that: "The reality of dual narratives in our lives and practices is, it seems to me, something that we are often fearful of admitting within the Church. Instead we often speak and act as though there is only one story, one interpretation of scripture, and one 'pure' motivation for our actions and practices. Brewin and Rollins are among those challenging the naivity and, sometime, hypocrises of this position and, therefore, they receive flak from those with vested interests to defend."

[wondering]

Wow a complete breath of fresh air to what has all too easily become a painfully self indulgent debate. There’s a certain subtle but I think deeply manipulative move to much of Rollins work, namely that to question it is to somehow fuel it while ostracising yourself as merely simplistic or nieave, the critics simply don’t fully understand the challenge of complex philosophers. Pete clearly delights in being on the margins, although I would have massive questions about just how far on the margins he really is. Much of IKON comes to me as a piece of painful middle class navel gazing. The construct of many of his conversations, leaves the listener powerless for fear of neglecting the margin while those who read his work often spend much of their lives not only inhabiting this margin but loving those who travel with them . The curious observation I cannot escape is that much of Rollins work and the IKON project of which he is a pivotal part feeds on the very thing it aims to critique and stand apart from while offering few signs of hope to those whose journey has not been blessed by such riches. I recall Pyro-theology at this year’s greenbelt, in which the audience (because we certainly were not a congregation or communion of any meaningful description) were invited to burn the works of church history. I found myself holding a few lines from Barth, a man who had lived through the horror of Nazi occupation a movement which quite literally burnt the voices of history. How could I burn the faithful witness of one who had given his life to the glory of God. I sat and stared at images of an old Methodist Church burning as if I was supposed to bask in the glory of this triumph, while no one dared mention how this church was and is one of the few places within that struggling community which has consistently welcomed the voices of the poorest and weakest from within its midst. While Sectarianism sacrificed its children to hatred and bigotry, while secularism sacrificed its children to consumption and greed these few saintly people, baptised children and had the audacity to believe that they came always as a gift from God, a sign of God’s hope for humanity. And we were supposed to delight in the burning of this place! There is much about the church which I struggle with, but in its frailty and brokenness which is but an extension of my own frailty and brokenness, these are people formed in traditions of hope, love and joy. Maybe that’s Rollins real problem, that simply to love and be loved by this messed up yet faithful body would require a profound loss of ego, it would require the humility to serve and the graciousness to say that in this broken body God is strangely and wonderfully here. I am glad that there are those who will contend the complicated yet frequently ill conceived theological and philosophical nuances of the orthodox heretic, I am glad that there are those who will continue to invite it’s voice, I am glad that tonight I will open the doors of an old orthodox church, that a few random pensioners whose history speaks of hope against slavery will love small neglected children, that they will sing songs of faith and hope and that they will have no idea how some have grown the audacity to scorn their faithfulness in favour of nothing absolutely nothing. I am glad that amongst the mess there are and always have been an abundance of people simply captivated by a God whose love will not let them go. It is not that Pete has gone a step too far, more simply that he has failed to notice the faithful runners all around him without whom this project would be lost.

[Francis]

AMEN to the 'wondering' words - many of the reflections and critiques of the alt/emerging movement have recently left me cold, wet, elitist and unsure - many a moon ago when postmodernity/emerging/postevan etc was first been discussed in christian circles John Smith (God Squad) in answer to a question on postmodernity and what the church should do about it said - 'postmodernity is the bastard son of modernity i wont tell us anything new or show us anything new - it will just keep telling us how bad the parents were'
Sadly nothing seems to have moved on in this movement and what we are seeing is frustrated screams of an adolescent - fine but its time to grow up guys.
The church is waiting for the adult to emerge - if it turns up wearing a patch, a parrot on its shoulder and sounding like Jonny Depp - this period of re newing for the church will be all for nothing

[Robin]

I posted this to the last blog entry but i feel it's more appropriate here:
It's good and healthy to read a considered and thoughtful criticism to Pete and Kester's stuff - thank you. I'm reminded of the Ikon service at Greenbelt this year where the suggestion was that whatever we establish as our idea or form of god will always fall short and needs to be burnt to the ground to let something else grow in its place (at least that was my interpretation). I would say that Pete would be all too aware of his position becoming the very thing he is warning us about. I'd like to think he'd be the first to reach for the matches to light his own pyre.

[matybigfro]

just as an aside 'spotify' is no pirate messiah it is very much complicit and somewhat sold out to the injustice and corporate strangle hold of the music industry. It may be great for consumers in terms of getting what you want but it doesn't in anyway solve the injustices of the music industry and is now simply making it's money from them.
-
Richard I really appreciate you piece as to really do justice to any new idea there needs to be thoughtful, gracious and honest push back and I think you have done all three. Rather than an enemy to the new idea or vice versa its all surely part of us understanding better. Unfortunately it does also feel like there are many all too quick to jump on the band wagon (which i really didn't feel was ever your intention to create) to decry the whole project as void rather than seeking to enter dialog where hopefully each can learn from the other.
-
Here's to understanding each other better, being open to criticism from good hearts and learning together rather than apart

[Caroline Too]

I guess that the more I think about this, I reckon that the real pirates are the guys who sell mortgages to people who can't afford them, the guys who run corrupt businesses using accounting slights of hands to hide their theft, the guys who create trading regulations that allow the wealthy to 'steal' resources from the poor.

these are pirates

tragically, as Brewin and rollins point out, they're pirates sanctioned by law.

and I really don't want the christian church to adopt a 'brand' of such people.

[Simon]

Have you had a look at this?

http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2009/10/german-postmodern-christianity.html

V Interesting perspective - keep reading to at least this point:

But the result of this anti-authoritarian and anti-fundamentalist revolution, or "reformation", even in the churches, was a pure rootless and largely contentless subjectivity that could be sustained only by endless variations (including "spiritual" versions) of the old Romantic idea of limitless freedom and the inexhaustible possibilities of "personal liberation" and lifestyle choices, which back in the 1980s were dubbed "New Age;
American postmodern Christianity, while it seeks nowadays to be "socially engaged" and "missional-minded" in current parlance, has always been a form of "me-Christianity," a sophisticated Christian-tinted personal experientialism.