What we got here is a failure to communicate

Benedict XVI

2005-04-20T00:59:00.000-05:00

I have a theory that the Catholic church just may be the only relevant Christian body today. The choicce of this Ratzinger for pope confirms this for me. During the dying and death of JPII I (unfortunately) watched a fair amount of FOXNews. Thursday after his death, Steve Long, my theology prof said that he thought it was the end of protestantism. His reasoning was that the Archbishop of Canterbury chose to attend the Pope's funeral overagainst the royal wedding.

However, what I saw was what I thought to be the end of Catholicism. Everyone on Fox News it seemed was co opting the Pope. The Pope was the proponent of freedom and a great moral figure according to the Bush squad. But we all know what those terms mean for that troupe. Catholicism was quickly becoming mainstream conservatism, or so it appeared. But let us remember that JPII was not for either Middle East war.

JPII was conservative, let's admit it. In light of this many (including me to some degree) were pulling for a more progressive Papa. One that would revitalize the church, bring it up to speed on issues, and preferably come from the Two-Thirds world. Many on the progressive end wanted to see the church come to them as well. Maybe not such a bad thing, but let's take a look at what Benedict XVI could mean.

The new Pope is a chance for the Catholic church to stand out, to not mold itself into protestantism (conservative or liberal). We can see where a conservative protestantism takes us (rabid capitalism and sponsored empire) but we can also see some of the mess that liberal/progressive protestantism has gotten itself into (look at the difficulty the Anglican communion is having between North America and the rest of the church). The Catholic Church knows where it is in the world (it may not be the ideal place, but it knows its place). I do not think that this is the end of hopes for a political cooperation between communism and Christianity. I think that these two are not ready to cooperate (as we can see from the debate over at the Weblog, the two are not yet as conversant as they need to be).

As of now, we still have two dialogue partners and I think this is ok. The Catholic communion has not been melted into another protestant denomination (as I thought was happening) and I think this is a good thing. So let's watch carefully over the next few months. Let us see what a church that has not been taken over by protestants--the ones who have managed to screw things up--can do with a Pope who knows what a Catholic is right now. The end of Catholicism this is not. It is probably not the end of protestantism either. What it does ensure is that the dialogue partner for the Communist-Christian conversation has not disappeared.

Paul in the Context of Empire

2005-03-08T15:10:00.000-06:00

Upon finishing Badiou's book and preparing to read K.K. Yeo's book on Romans a lot of thoughts are sparking in my mind. In theory this should present a new flurry of activity over here at the failure to communicate. But for now, I have class to attend. The future will bring thoughts on Paul and our present situation.

A Review of a Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am pretty sure McLaren is an evangelical + protestant + should be ok with it

2004-12-22T11:12:00.000-06:00

(This is long, I'm sorry. If you're not an evangelical or interested in the Emergent Church stuff you can probably skip it all)

I have adapted a certain strategy when entering into new relationships with people (especially girls) in the last couple of years. Instead of being a mystery to the other person, a mystery that is ultimately a disappointment, I try to put all my junk on the table in the first 15 or 20 minutes of a good conversation. I have a lot of emotional baggage. I am not particularly well versed in loving other people. I have hurt many, and don’t know why or how to not do it again. I am selfish and unable to understand or empathize with others. Surprisingly, many times people hang around through this and still become friends with me. At some point, later in the friendship, I end up being a tool bag and hurting them or something about me becomes a problem. The beauty of the first 15 or 20 minutes of the friendship is that they were warned ahead of time and can’t hold it against me. I told them this would happen and they still entered into the relationship so what else did they expect?

Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy made me rethink the moral accountability that comes with this practice in whatever form. The question, in general, is whether or not someone can be held morally accountable (in my case) or criticized (in McLaren’s) for something they told you they were going to do. Can those people consider me an jerk when I told them that I would probably be a jerk? Can I criticize McLaren for being naïve and over sympathetic to other Christian traditions (35-36), not dealing seriously with scholarship openly and seriously on these issues (34), not having a historical focus that deals with how orthodoxy has come about (29), and ultimately coming off as arrogant, defensive, tortured, complex, and anxious (38) when in chapter 0 he warned us of all of these things and told us not to read the book?

The answer, ultimately, has to be yes. And so I do so here, briefly but seriously. Brian, you would have done us all a favor by being more engaged with the Christian traditions you seek to understand or perhaps allowing a critical voice in each tradition a few paragraphs in each chapter as you do in some. You would have also done us a favor by situating your orthodoxy within the historical neighbors that you speak of in your catholic chapter. And you would have done yourself a favor by having a critical reader point out where you are arrogant, defensive, tortured, complex, and anxious and changing the parts that are pointed out to you. Sometimes not doing this makes for a better book but if often does not. But you knew all that anyway.

When it comes to a constructive response to McLaren I would start with a brief explanation of my own perspective and then attempt a response to McLaren’s work that is hopefully helpful to McLaren and all the Emergent folk. I am coming to this text as a Protestant theologian/student. Specifically, I am Anabaptist. I am a part of an urban Mennonite community consisting of my neighbors who have either lived in the neighborhood for most of their lives or who felt being faithful to the call of Jesus Christ meant allowing Jesus to decide where you live and that this often means living with the poor and unloved. In this sense, I guess I am missional, incarnational, and biblical. I read this text (as well as McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian) primarily because my brother is a pastor sorting through the Emergent stuff and seeing how it gets played out in mainline Evangelical churches. Also, I refuse to dismiss McLaren or anyone else who seek to do theology because they have not had as much theological education as myself or those who I normally read (although often they probably should).

For those who seek to engage this text, there is a warning that I would give as a preface to McLaren’s warnings. Just keep reading past the first two chapters (introduction and chapter 0). McLaren appears to have accepted the common "post-modern" strategy of being as obtuse as possible when it comes to identifying your presuppositions. Also, he employs an annoying presentation style that puts the word post-before just about every word and unnecessarily footnotes every paragraph in the introduction to show that the text is conscious of itself and in dialogue with itself. This style, which often sacrifices clarity for style, is thankfully left off for most of the book and it allows the content to be the issue up for discussion.

This response will not be a summary of the book, for this you will have to read it yourself. McLaren identifies his audience as the Christian, regardless of their type, that is thinking about leaving the church for the issues raised in this book or for the seeker who wants to know who Jesus is but doesn’t want the church that they see (39). Reading between the lines, this book is by and for frustrated Evangelicals (or evangelicals). Although McLaren seeks to go beyond this, I believe that ultimately it is an evangelical voice, a much needed one at that. McLaren seems to want to be more than evangelical, as the book lists this as only alongside many other types of Christianity in describing who McLaren is. And yet he is honest about his evangelical roots. Because I am coming out of an evangelical context myself, I can relate to and accept most of McLaren’s content. Ultimately, Evangelicalism needs to loosen up its orthodoxy and orthopraxy, learn from the rest of Christianity, and seek to be truly evangelical in its acceptance of those outside the group.

If McLaren would have stated that as the intention of the book, and the Emergent movement, than I would support the movement whole-heartedly, albeit as one outside the movement. But instead, McLaren appears to be suggesting a sort of Christianity that is beyond all of the parts. A Generous Orthodoxy, for McLaren, would be a synthesis of the good in the traditions of Christianity, the catholic church, that learns from each other and presents itself to a desperately needy post-modern world that wants the real church and not the Churches that are in their cities and towns. It is this type of church, the Synthesis Church, that appears to be McLaren’s vision for the Emergent movement.

McLaren often relies on an image of a great feast where every part of the Christian tradition brings the best it has to offer to the table and everyone enjoys the feast together. This is what a Generous Orthodoxy looks like. Because a Generous Orthodoxy is the goal of the Emergent Movement, apparently this is the vision for where it is going. Further, when describing the term Emergent, McLaren relies on a number of analogies that are insightful. One, coined by Steven Johnson, suggests that a higher intelligence can emerge from a well functioning community where each part of the community is doing their part and their interaction gives birth to something greater than the parts (276).

McLaren’s narrative of Emergent goes on to describe it as an almost irresistible force that pulls us out of one stagnant form of Christianity and into another form (perhaps a theologically difficult concept that borders on determinism). Although McLaren says the emergent form is no better than the previous, it is understood throughout the text that to remain in the previous form would be a lack of development and a deformity. Although the Emergent church is not the ultimate form of Christianity, it is what is necessary, the only/best answer to the current context of Christians (globally or only in NA? This is never examined).

McLaren’s narrative of another form of church emerging from the great feast of the traditions is the basis of my response to McLaren and the Emergence movement. Although rejecting the static dream of an abstract moment when humanity makes the world perfect (286), McLaren has offered a way of church that is indeed an abstract concept. There is no church that is the Generous Orthodoxy promoted here. The contradiction between the Church as ideal and the actual churches that are around us all has been an issue in theology at least since Augustine. The best work that has been done has been helping the particular churches that are still flawed move along toward the ideal of the body of Christ. Ultimately, this would be an eschatological act of God (eschatology is separate issue that I wish McLaren would work on, it would perhaps better ground his work).

How, then, can the vision of the great banquet of the Christian tradition be made a reality so this higher intelligence of Christianity can be actualized? I think the path to such an end is not found in starting new churches, finding ways to be more post-modern in our worship, or ransacking the houses of Christianity for their treasures, taking them off to our new housing development and then leaving them to rot. If a community that is the truly catholic Church is going to be beautified to something that people would actually be interested in moving into, it can only happen by everyone working on fixing up their own house, painting the siding, mowing the lawn, fixing the plumbing, and making over the interiors.

Brian, I appreciate your vision for where Christianity can go. I think there is a lot to learn from such optimism and a desire to interact with and learn from all Christians. This is the process for the church to undergo. But I think what you have to offer the conversation is not the synthesis itself. Instead, the conversation needs thoughtful Evangelicals. Your book is mostly a conversation with those who are evangelical but don’t like Evangelicals. You are protestant and evangelical before you are catholic and anabaptist. And that is just fine. Instead of trying to be more than what you are, focus in on this tradition and make it what it could be, then bring that family to the table to eat with everyone else and allow whatever is going to emerge from that to happen on its own. We, unfortunately, cannot create the Emergent church, it can only happen when all of the parts of the church are dining together. The city doesn’t need another housing development, what it needs is for the Evangelical mansion and the Catholic duplex and the Anabaptist apartments to fix themselves up and create a nice neighborhood that everyone will want to move into.

For those out there who consider themselves Emergent or postmodern, I suggest you pursue one of three options. The first is to reclaim your particular tradition. Probably this is evangelicalism in some form. What have you grown up in, how have you known God? Take a hold of this tradition, criticize the tradition, and work it out. Fight for decent music in the church or a better missions program. Point out the planks and pry them out, replacing them with fine timbers.

The second option is join up with the Catholics or Orthodox. They will survive the end of modernity because they came before it and aren’t, at the core, modernized. If what you’re looking for is the historical tradition or a mystical form of worship, this is where it is happening. Sign up, get in the middle of it, enjoy it, and then realize the remodeling needed here. Help sweep up the porch to start but be ready to refinish the basement.

Finally, the third option is to join the Anabaptists (Mennonites or Church of Brethren or something along these lines). They, like the Catholics and Orthodox, were non-modern, taking a critical stance against most of the cultural norms while seeking to bear witness to the truth of the Gospel. The negative here is that they will, or should, be non-post-modern as well, all the while embracing the good that is going on in culture but not assimilating. If you are seeking a truly missional, incarnational church then join up here. Because they are newer than most of the rest there is plenty of construction to be done, something that Anabaptists do well but take a long time at.

At my church we have amazing potlucks because many in the church are coming from different backgrounds. What makes the potluck a success is that the Cambodians make their food and bring it, the Italians do the same, as do the Vegetarians. The dishes are all brought from these homes and placed together at a table, then we all benefit from the synthesis of a meal that is formed. If everyone from my church all crammed into one kitchen and tried to create a dish that was the synthesis of all of these dishes it would be terrible and disgusting. A relative generous orthodoxy must be developed within each part of the Christian family and the greater General Orthodoxy will be the synthesis of these, that sort of just happens, but cannot be crafted or manipulated.

Suicide, Murder, and The Gospel in the Chicago Tribune

2004-12-21T21:21:00.000-06:00

Murder, Suicide, and the Gospel: the Chicago Tribune covers Christianity
There are certain things that make conservative evangelicals say, "See, I told you there was a liberal media ballance." As a whole, I tend to cringe when I hear this, for several reasons. But a day like, in the Chicago Tribune, makes media coverage of religion a blast to follow. Here's a summary of the front page of the website.

"Minister Dies After Alter Attack" In the category "Religious People Are Crazy," this article leads the list. "A 72-year-old minister died Tuesday, two days after being attacked and choked in front of the altar by a man who called him "the devil," police said." This is coming from Whiteland, IN, where Rev. Bill McElroy of Missionary Baptist was attacked sunday morning while people were arriving for church. How David Cooper will be tried is still being decided as Cooper swore he did not commit murder: ""I choked him until I knew he was not breathing. I couldn't kill a human being. I was killing the devil."

Immediately under this report is "Priest questioned in doublt murder hangs self in church" which fits under the "religious leaders are ultimately evil" or "strict authority masks perversity". Here we have a priest who was known for being a traditionalist (did the mass in latin and encouraged people to go to confession) who cracked down on gum chewing in his congregation. But of course lurking behind every traditional minded priest is a dark side and if it is not sex with kids it is double murder, allegedly. The priest, seemingly avoiding the investigation, hangs himself in the hallway between the church and the rectory.

If this were all there was in the Tribune today than the conservative case would be confirmed, the media is aiming to snuff religion out. But then you turn to an article by Charlie Madigan, the Rambling Gleaner, and his report, "Jesus and the Losers". Although a little heavy on identifying authentic Christianity with having no qualms about homsexual behavior, Madigan summarizes his visit to a church that he thinks gets Christianity right, Epiphany United Church of Christ. Apparently a "in practice" review of the Still Speaking campaign and the amazing new UCC commercial where bouncers are waiting outside a church to turn away anyone that is not white, male, and in a terrible suit.

Madigan's report, though, is less about the black/latino/gay/lesbian people at Epiphany UCC but instead about the wonderful christmas pagent he saw and the nature of the gospel, asking "What kind of a savior connected to God his father is born in such a humble place and surrounds himself with such humble people (except for the wise guys, of course)? And what kind of a savior turns to fishermen and harlots and tax collectors and other despised underclass types to gather a following?"Surely a media bias that was out to destroy Christianity would never publish an article that had a better grasp on the truth of the Gospel than Christianity Today or World magazine.

But here it is, in plain black and white, at least the beginning of the amazing story of Jesus:"These days if you need a place to connect with God, as an individual or as a couple, gay, straight, dubious, whatever, maybe that whole old Jesus thing is still going on. Maybe he's still looking for outcasts of every stripe.It's a compelling thought, a religion constructed on a savior's collection of dedicated losers. Troublemakers. Sinners of all kinds. Confused, lost people looking for a warm place in a cold world."

Kudos to the Tribune for publishing the truth of the Gospel. In light of the last article the first two are seen as the perfect confirmation that the church is being faithful, opening itself up to all sorts of losers; the mentally ill who kill their pastor who is now satan, priests who are so focused on doing things right that they botch up the whole thing, homosexuals and the heterosexuals that hate them.

"This is my body, broken for you...."

Recent Reading: "Running with Scissors" by Augusten Burroughs

2004-12-15T15:30:00.000-06:00

As opposed to not posting at all, I thought I'd occasionally post a quick review of something I'm reading in preperation for the forthcoming lengthy, multi-part reviews of competing visions for the future of evangelical Christianity in the Emergent Church theology text Generous Orthodoxy and Bill Hybels more recent thoughts. These projects will unfold through the rest of december and into January during my bi-annual celebration of "too much time". For now, here are a few thoughts on what many consider one of the best current memoirs written.

First, a brief summary of the work, this time borrowed directly from the publisher's account:"Running with Scissors is the true story of a boy whose mother (a poet with delusions of Anne Sexton) gave him away to be raised by her unorthodox psychiatrist who bore a striking resemblance to Santa Claus. So at the age of twelve, Burroughs found himself amidst Victorian squalor living with the doctor’s bizarre family, and befriending a pedophile who resided in the backyard shed. The story of an outlaw childhood where rules were unheard of, and the Christmas tree stayed up all year round, where Valium was consumed like candy, and if things got dull an electroshock- therapy machine could provide entertainment. The funny, harrowing and bestselling account of an ordinary boy’s survival under the most extraordinary circumstances."

With that background in mind, I was expecting something in line with either Dave Eggers Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius or David Sedaris Naked. This presuppostion was partly based on the summary I read but also on the fact that people recommend this work if you like Sedaris or Eggers. If you come into this book because someone told you to read because you already know you like David Sedaris or because you have read Dave Eggers than you will be confused, dissapointed, and disturbed throughout this work.Burroughs experiences are far more tragic than that of Sedaris. Although he attempts to craft these experiences in a comic light, the observant reader may ultimately find the tragic underlying overcoming the comedic presentation. In this sense, Burroughs comedy is darker than Sedaris (if this is possible). Those who appreciate Eggers style of confronting suffering and sorting through it openly in his writing may feel as though Burroughs has masked his experience of suffering with a smile and has yet to fully disclose the effect of the experiences on his young mind. This becomes most evident in the entirely unfunny journal excerpts included in the account.

Overall, because I read the text with these two other texts in mind, I am unable to identify my response to the text. Either it did not take suffering seriously enough, is not really that funny, or has created a spot between Sedaris and Eggers of a unique brilliance. On amazon.com I rated the book a three with the understanding that if I ever conclude that Burroughs simply is not as funny as Sedaris or not as reflective and revealing as Eggers it would receive a 1 or 2 and if I determine ultimately that Burroughs has offered a new way to present suffering it would receive a 4 or 5. Either way, recommended reading if you ultimately find the suffering of others amusing, have never read about homosexual sexual experiences, or need to be reminded that someone has suffered worse than you and has survived. Not recommended if you are offended by mildly explicit homosexual sexual experiences, believe that ultimately everything is ok in the world, or that God allows suffering for the greater good of humanity.

Have you read this book? How far off am I? have I really lost my sense of humor?

It was inevitable

2004-12-08T15:52:00.000-06:00

It had to happen. Sooner or later, once I started riding the CTA consistently, I knew that I would have a dream about it. This dream occured yesterday while I was napping. I seemed to be in a very overly crowed car that was stopped at the South Blvd. station on the purple line. I do not remember what the hold up was but I remember feeling a need to leave the train. So I did.

Friend and Co-blogger Jake Sikora was also at the stop. I do not remember much but I do remember him leaping (on the strength of the absurd) into a moving Green Line train. This was a move on the strength of the absurd because, as anyone knows who is familiar with the South Blvd. stop on the purple line, the Green line is nowhere near this stop! It is halfway across the city!

Anyway, that is all I remember, but I needed a break from writing about Job, and I told Jake I would post about the dream. Feel free, anyone, to offer interpretations of this dream.

If you didn't see this...

2004-11-11T11:24:00.000-06:00

Here's something from therevealer.org that is can't miss. This is a classic case of people embracing criticism that they shouldn't. "You say we're like the Roman Empire, you're right. We are! Look at our togas and chariots!" Unreal....

Just What Have "We" "Accomplished"?

2004-11-10T00:31:00.000-06:00

I wish it had been Rumsfeld. One can only hope. But evidently this eagle has soared into early retirement. Good riddance to bad rubbish. But I wonder just what it is that John Ashcroft is so excited about. U.S. troops even now are engaged in the heaviest combat in months in Fallujah and somehow the objective of protecting Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The situation in Iraq is far from being even remotely "achieved." Oh, he must me Americans are protected from "terror[ism]"- from the "real" terrorists not the diversional ones. People like Osama Bin Laden. That objective has been achiev—didn't we just see that guy on a video the other day. That's right, he is still free and plotting...you guessed it "terrorist acts!"

But the U.S. has achieved the objectives, God bless 'em. Perhaps he is referring to his pet project the Patriot Act. Perhaps indeed. Well, if the objective was securing Americans by making them fearful to go outside and live their lives then I say: mission accomplished. Let me offer my heartfelt congratulations on a job well done. Terrorism is at an all time high, everyone except for Great Britain (for some reason) dislikes the U.S., and the man responsible for planes crashing into the towers is coming back for more. Nobody does it better than John Ashcroft.

This resignation does not offer any hope of change. The general counsel at PepsiCo is a rumored successor. So, big business continues its ruthless reign. Now that John Ashcroft has secured Americans from terror and crime he can resign and let the criminals replace him. The commodification of EVERYTHING marches on. Would you like your Ford Mustang in Pepsi blue or Coca-Cola red, sir?

Blogger Disappearances

2004-10-27T19:27:00.000-05:00

There has been a strange phenomenon lately of blogger personalities just vanishing (without a trace?). Have they been abducted by aliens? Should we call the Unsolved Mysteries guy? I have been away of late but can readily testify that I have not been abducted (not this time at least). But where is A Gauche? Where is Geoff Holdsclaw? Tara is back at the Weblog after a lengthy but completely understandable absence.

But in all seriousness, I really intend to post soon. Not that anyone is really waiting for me to or will care a whole lot when I do. But besides being hit by fast moving pickup trucks in Michigan and weathering the imminent death of my grandfather things have been quite busy and stressful. Lots of Derrida on my mind of late and I intend to reflect that (maybe only implicitly) in the next barrage of writing. So, this is a promise to write, if not later tonight, tomorrow.

"The Theology of George W. Bush"

2004-10-08T16:13:00.000-05:00

See "The Theology of G.W. Bush" by Bruce Lincoln

I found this article to be very insightful and a full work in an area where most people are only offering half assed assesments. Instead of simply saying that he thinks Bush invokes religious rhetoric in troubling ways, Bruce Lincoln goes through the more difficult task of assembling a structure to Bush's beliefs and providing a charitable interpretation of Bush's relationship to these beliefs, while clearly coming from a vantage point that sees Bush's language as a mistake. One thing I found curious is Bush's 5 main theological presuppositions and wondered how many American Christians would share these presuppositions. While many people want to say that Bush's random use of religious language is a signal to evangelical Christians that they thoughtlessly agree with, I think that this systematic approach to Bush's theology makes it possible to see real, deep links between the President and his constituency.

Here is what Lincoln summarizes:
"All of these texts convey a sophisticated theology of history that rests on five propositions: 1) God desires freedom for all humanity; 2) This desire manifests itself in history; 3) America is called by history (and thus, implicitly by God) to take action on behalf of this cause; 4) Insofar as America responds with courage and determination, God’s purpose is served and freedom’s advance is inevitable; 5) With the triumph of freedom, God’s will is accomplished and history comes to an end."

He goes on to say:
"As we have seen, it follows several earlier systems, each of which had its own force, rationale, and moment. These include an Evangelical theology of “born again” conversion; a theology of American exceptionalism as grounded in the virtue of compassion; a Calvinist theology of vocation; and a Manichaean dualism of good and evil in conflict. "

He goes on to identify the conflict between evangelical freedom for salvation theology and calvanist determinism:
"Thus, in his theology of history, salvation is an impersonal and inevitable process of gradual world-perfection, in which the Creator’s goals are achieved through the collective actions of a chosen nation. In the sharpest possible contrast, his evangelical faith makes salvation individual and by no means inevitable. Rather, it comes in a blazing moment of faith and decision, when a lost soul accepts Jesus as personal savior. If the theology of the early Bush is Pauline, his more recent stance is Hegelian, but without the dialectic and with America, not Prussia, in history’s starring role. It is hard to imagine how one man can hold both doctrines."

Yet this conflict is common experience for those of us familiar with evangelical theology in the last 25 years! It is in this moment where I see the necessity of those on the left to acknowledge the deep similarities that Bush and the conservative evangelical church share, whether they are right are wrong. Conservative evangelicals are not simply following they person that sounds the most like them in a stupid manner, but rather are following their deepest theological commitments. The reason that so many main-line liberal Christians hate Bush more than any politician in recent memory may have less to do with his foreign policy, as bad as it is, and may rather have more to do with his theology that is the very thing that makes evangelical Christianity so abhorant to most liberal Christians.

Decision 2004: "postmodernism" vs. neo-modernism; what do Americans really think about certainty?

2004-10-01T11:07:00.000-05:00

Watching the debate last night reminded me of some larger issues that are being collectively decided with this election. While the last 25 years or so have seen elections being a choice between two characters or personalities, this election is, in many ways, a selection between two worldviews. While this has been falsely identified by some as being a campaign that gets back to 'policy' or 'the issues', this cannot be the case sense both camps have failed to articulate their policies and differences in regards to central issues like peace in Iraq.

Before delving right into the debate, I want to point you all to a rare moment of insight from someone who I'm sure most readers of this blog will no doubt reject outright. In the December issues of conservative Christian magazine Christianity Today, Charles Colson suggested that postmodernism was on 'life support'. Appealing to what he considers an accurate gauge of American sentiment, Colson points out that 'Soccer Moms' and high-school students are rejecting positions like pro-choice and gay rights as a sign of the crumbling of "the philosophy that claims there is no transcendent truth". What is the source of this destruction? The power of God? The Truth of the Gospel?

Try 9-11. 9-11 forced PM individuals to reject the concept that there is no moral absolute, instead they must accept the presence of evil (read: Al-Queda) and good (read: American worldview). While Colson seems to suggest that objectivity is back in the light of 9-11, I think he actually reinforces the belief that he claims is central to PM; "that all you can do is try to impose your preferences on others before they impose theirs on you." Indeed, the post 9-11 American is less concerned about issues, positions, etc. as Colson quotes one "soccer mom" saying; "All I want in a President is a person who is strong." I think it is fair to interpret this quote and Colson's article as suggesting that what people are looking for after 9-11 is not objective good and evil but rather a force that will win the 'worldview war', instituting our team in a position of power. If Colson's suggestion was correct, and Americans post 9-11 were rejecting Postmodernism and were again seeking objective truth, the process would necessarily begin with an examination of one's own presuppositions (see Descartes). Instead, what we have is a reinforcement of our own principles and a gathering resolve of the American worldview.

As the election approaches, it appears that these issues are still at the front of people's minds. What we have are two contestants who are presenting (mildly) different worldviews. First, there is Bush who represents Colson's perspective perfectly. If prior to 9-11 Bush ever considered the possibility that there is no objective good (America) and evil (everyone else?), after 9-11 this became impossible to accept. The debate last night displayed this attitude from Bush. His continuous criticism of 'sending mixed messages' and the need to be steadfast, resolute, and strong. What does America (and the world) need? It is to be solidified in the American worldview. How does one respond to 'bad evidence'? By holding to your core values and principles, not allowing anything to shake them. Because this is what the terrorists want, after all. For Americans to even consider that there may be some aspects of the American worldview that are incorrect is for American's to give into the 'evilones'.

The other option in the election is what could be considered a mainstream form of postmodernism. This came out of Kerry most clear when the two contestants began discussing the topic of certainty. Bush defined this character trait of Kerry as sending mixed messages and wilting, Kerry embraces as a doing credit to the evidence and allowing our positions to change. Kerry said; "It's one thing to be certain and be wrong. It's another to be certain and be right, or be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right."

Bush understands any lack of certainty as a weakness. He accuses Kerry of "change[ing] his positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts is right in Iraq." This sort of uncertainty does not work in running the world. While Kerry proposes a higher intellectual nobility in allowing one's beliefs to be shaped by new evidence, sort of having a 'loose hold' on one's worldview, Bush understands any shifting as a weakness and based on political pressure. Kerry offers a different option, emphasizing 'consistence' instead of certainty, but none the less agreeing that at times one's positions must be open to change.

Colson is the preface to this post because if the polls are any indication, he is right. Americans are not looking for someone who is open to criticism, willing to re-evaluate their position based on 'new evidence'. Instead, they are looking for people who will hold strong to their beliefs and convictions, central among them that America is good and all opponents to America are evil. If Colson was wrong and a critical-realist position is the common trait amongst Americans, then they would have run Bush into the ground and out of office when the issues of bad intelligence and later the detailed prison abuse evidence were raised. Instead, Americans have rejected the critical-realist position for some other, possibly fidiest position, where one's beliefs are held to, no matter what.

It must be clear that Colson is wrong for suggesting that America has returned to a pre-post-modern worldview where certainty is derived from basic principles like the enlightenment philosophy suggested. Instead of classical certainty, a sense of consistency and resolve are what is meant by certainty (which is confusing sense Kerry describes himself as consistent and not certain). Ultimately, Colson's position and the current status of key PM presuppositions amongst Americans will be determined by the results of the election. If America elects Kerry then it will show a desire amongst Americans to embrace self-criticism, even if only to a very very small degree and reject the notion that America is always absolutely right. If American's re-elect Bush (which it appears they will), then Colson's analysis of what Americans actually believe is accurate. They are not interested in self criticism but rather self-preservation. In the wake of 9-11 Americans abandoned 'gray areas' for the sake of embracing security. And in an intellectual situation, security is what Bush and his version of certainty offer. You know what Bush is going to say before he says it. He repeated himself constantly in the debate. Certainty is predictability, is resolve, is security, is attractive to the American majority.

William Saletan rightly identifies this certainty as the interpretive motif in which Bush examines evidence. It doesn't matter if something comes out to the contrary, what matters is resolve because this is what keeps America strong. America is not strong based on being rightly related to truth, but rather because of the strength of will. Saletan goes on to criticize Kerry for basically having the same resolve and openly being inconsistent in his use of evidence for the sake of believing what he wants to believe. While this is true, the average American will not be concerned with this. Instead, what will be cast as the choice from now until November will be this difference in character, as Bush described it. One contestant will stick to his guns, choosing to be certain. The other contestant will be 'consistent' while not certain, because he ultimately doesn't believe in certainty. Who America chooses will reflect what America believes about certainty, and the polls show that Bush is winning on this issue, perhaps the fundamental difference between the contestants.

A Story About Haiti

2004-09-23T02:17:00.000-05:00

The latest in the succession of the "swirling weather patterns of the wrath of God" is now past Haiti. Of course, the hurricane never really hit the country; it just gave it a glancing blow. There are 700 dead and counting in that nation tonight. But this is not a story about hurricanes, or death tolls (neccesarily). This is, however, a story about Haiti—and about capitalism and colonization.

Once a colony of France, Haiti gained independennce in 1804. Two hundred years of a nation steeped in poverty. Once a mountainous, wooded country it has now become one big mudslide. The reason? Deforestation has ravaged the countryside because many of the poor cut down trees to sell as fuel so that they can feed their children. The trees that used to acnhor the soil in place on the mountains are no longer in existence. Their existence as a part of the Two-Thirds world has made a natural weather phenomenon and national disaster. In the neighboring Domincan Republic 18 were killed. Eighteen! Three were killed in Puerto Rico. So how is it that the country that gets side swiped by the hurricane loses the most? Capital. The poverty of the nation triggers a failure in right use of the earth which triggers the death of 3000 people with the rains of May. As Anthony and I have discussed on more than one occasion, who will be there to stand in the way of the totalizing consumption of capitalism?

N. T. Wright has stated that the main Christian agenda cannot be abortion and the right to life (see the illustration of the cigarette). This is merely a way of not facing the bigger problem. The bigger problem is that there are poor, hungry, and homeless people in the Two-Thirds world. So whoever you vote for, remember this: the poor you will always have with you. Not a derogatory remark about the ever present reality of poverty, but a statement pointing to what Jesus intended for the church. They are to welcome the neighbour in. The poor will always be with the church because the church is to extend hospitality. How can the church even justify its existence when half of the town of Gonaives is now homeless; a town of 200,000 where 100,000 will be sleeping without shelter, cooking without utensils.

To quote Michael Lodahl from his September 22, 2004 sermon: "The Christian idea of housing is that...well, it is that nobody should be homeless."

This Winter, while sitting in church I had a vision in which every member of the church stood up once the sermon was finished and left the sanctuary. They filed out in a orderly fashion, went to the airport, boarded planes to Haiti and put their bodies in the way of all the violence that was happening in those days. The story continues, what will the ending be?

Ghosts

2004-09-20T02:24:00.000-05:00

"I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks."

Tonight has been haunted. I just received an e-mail telling me that "Ghosts are real." Earlier tonight I was listening to Sleeping at Last's album, entitled Ghosts. Earlier, while taking that God damned test Anthony referred to, I was asked whether or not I believed that the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. the Holy Ghost) really exists. All this while preparing to order Derrida's Specters of Marx. One more creepy occurence tonight: a ghost from China's communist past has resigned control of the military. It will be very interesting to see where this move takes China. Since reading this book and having its author as my advisor I have taken a recent interest in the affairs of China.

One final note, I would like to officially welcome Jake Sikora to A Failure to Communicate. He is my friend and colleague at Garrett and I am glad to have him contributing here. If you have not taken the time to read his initial post please do it, it is the most charming story I have heard about something that really matters.

My Conversion: Pacifism to Peace Acts

2004-09-16T14:16:00.000-05:00

This is my first contribution to the Failure to Communicate blog and I write hoping to discredit the name of the blog while I expect to confirm it. If the title of the blog was "What we got here is someone who uses too many words to express himself" then I would always fulfill the title. As such, I will always make bold what I consider the most important paragraphs and you can select accordingly.

For those of you interested, I plan to write a series of posts dealing with my particular experience of transition that characterizes my current place in the world. To begin, however, a brief paragraph is necessary for background. Please endure these paragraphs for the 'valuable' insights below about gang activity and lemonade.

Where I'm Coming From
I am white. I am a male. I am around 22. I was born in Wyoming, lived in suburban Dallas TX for 10 years lived in Northwest OH for about 10 more. I most recently am coming from Huntington IN where I attended Huntington College, a conservative Evangelical Liberal Arts College. I double majored in Philosophy and Theology. My Philosophy professors are all analytic. Huntington College is in many ways the home base of Open Theim, a particular theological development trying to engage evangelicals in the possibilities of God changing, not knowing the future, and entering into a "risky" relationship with humans. My parents make enough money that they recently built a new house that cost somewhere around $300,000. My time at Huntington was one of intellectual development that immediately challenged my background. I read liberation theology, studied the suffering of the world, and was moved by the idea of a God who suffers with creation. I wrote papers about how the role of the Church is to be in the midst of the suffering of the world. I went to 3 different churches a combined 50 percent of the Sundays that I was in college.

Where I am now
Seeking to continue my intellectual development I am attending Garrett-Evangelical Seminary at Northwestern University in Evanston IL. I am doing a 2 year Masters of Theological Studies degree. Coming here was a conflict between feeling compelled to be with those who are suffering most severely in the world (read: not graduate school) and 'optimizing' the 'gifts' God has given me. Having decided to go to school for two more years I was constantly depressed by how nice (read: expensive) Evanston was. I did not want to live in what has to be considered one of the most affluent neighborhoods of the Midwest even if it is multi-cultural, a step beyond my background.

Looking into the concept of conversion, I have become convinced that a radical following of Jesus begins first and foremost with the most basic, commonplace aspects of our lives. That being said, nothing is more basic to living then where we live. In addition to location, the biblical model shows vocation and relations as the most basics aspects of living. Jesus calls the first disciples out of their jobs and into the unemployment line. God called Abram away from his homeland and family. Paul was put on the road without a wife for the sake of the Gospel. Although my evangelical background tells me that conversion is a change of heart or mind in favor of Christ, I have become convinced that this sort of internal conversion only happens through an external conversion, a radical turning of our lifestyle. While this has often been interpreted as a call away from drugs and sex and movies and dancing, in my life the call was away from money, security, suburbs, white-only communities.

I moved into the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago almost three weeks ago now. This is traditionally one of the more 'dangerous' communities in the city while it is also the most diverse, both economically and culturally, in the US. While faced with the issue of gentrification like the rest of Chicago, Rogers Park appears to be nearly in the middle of the issue with some development but a lot of 'cultural' limitations. I will write more about this in other sections.

I have began communing with a church, Living Water Community Church. LWCC seems to have become a gathering of Christians from diverse denominational backgrounds who don't fit in most places anymore yet seek to fellowship in honest christian community while actively relating to people who the church has often forgotten. That being said, there appears to be a mild disdain for overtly evangelical activity, even though a number of members of the fellowship come from evangelical backgrounds. Out of this disdain, no one is interested in handing out tracts or 'breaking into' people's home with money or other material to evangelize. Instead, we are living in the neighborhood, trying to be a presence while also trying to figure out who we are.

Through my short time here I've begun to see how certain critical intellectual stances I have taken over the past few years are challenged and integrated into my lifestyle. This happens almost automatically out of my environment. While I study and develop at school, I am forced to see how these play out in the simple practice of living in Rogers Park. As I continue to seek a convergence of orthodoxy as well as orthopraxis I will try to share some insights with you all.

A Story About lemonade
Across the street from my apartment building is a store front that has a Laundromat, a convenience store, and an open store front in the process of renovation. The tenants of this store front are Living Water Community Church. The renovation has just begun and appears to have a short three month life span to it. Around the corner are two schools, one elementary and one high school. Last week was the first week of school. As the students convene and the church begins meeting in this new home, the history of the corner is remembered.

Several of the buildings in the area used to be public housing and then were abandoned, serving as a haven for the homeless but mostly for drug/gang/prostitution. As the renovation of Chicago began 5-8 years ago, these buildings were rehabbed, one into a Russian Retirement home, one into a low-income co-op and one into my apartment building (still not that nice). Meanwhile, the Latin Kings and Gangster Disciples, two prominent Chicago gangs, have battled out for turf control in the neighborhood. Last summer there were several shootings on the corner, one which drew the children in LWCC to call the church to prayer and meeting on the corner. This was the motivation for purchasing and preparing the store front as our home.

School started on Tuesday last week because of Labor Day. The elementary school lets out at 2.30 and the high school at 2.45-3.00 to allow the younger children to get home before the high school kids get out. Tuesday was my first experience with school letting out in my neighborhood. It was somewhat chaotic as a couple of hundred kids are released from the controls of school and are once again free. What originally seemed like joyful exuberance quickly turned into conflict. A group of students behind my apartment building started yelling at each other but dispersed. A few minutes later the same group was coming in front of the store front across the street from my apartment. As the voices escalated, the police van that was positioned at this street to prevent violence spoke forth, commanding the high schoolers to go home. Needless to say, no one cared. The two groups began throwing a few glass bottles but no one was hurt. Another police car came up the street, drove onto the sidewalk to 'scare' some the kids home. As the cop got out of the car he/we realized he hadn't put the car in park, which he quickly did before anyone got hit. As the students scattered, the sound of glass breaking was heard, and quickly the police followed the students away.

I went outside and met two of my neighbors who also go to LWCC. Three of the large glass windows of our church had been broken by a thrown rock. After sweeping up the glass, we talked with the convenience store manager for a while and were further drawn into our community. From other students we learned that the conflict was gang related as tensions are high due a death on the south side. While I was at school the next day, several of the neighbors decided to make a presence in the neighborhood by standing on the corner when school let out the next day. As they waited for a police presence to show up, school let out. A student was beaten nearly to death a few feet from the church. No police were in sight.

The following day, we gathered again on the corner, only this time we came armed. After what had happened the past two days we knew it was not safe for us to be out on the corner unprotected. So we came out fully loaded with several pitchers of cold lemonade. We were greeted not only by hundreds of happy, thirsty children (what do they feed/do to these kids at school anyway?) but also by somewhere around 25-30 cops within a block or two. While there were many more people outside than this and the students, everyone made it home without incident. And many went home without thirst thanks to the lemonade!

While both elementary students, Gangster Disciples and maybe a few Latin Kings enjoyed the lemonade, the police did not. Seeing us as an armed threat, they sent one of their more aggressive soldiers over to inquire into our presence. This is the conversation I heard him report to his partners:
Cop 1: They're handing out lemonade for free.
Cop 2: What?
Cop 1: Yeah, for free. They don't get it. These freaking liberals don't realize that someone is going to get shot.
Cop 2: yeah.
Cop 1: I mean, they're only going to create a crowd and give someone a reason to get hurt.

Since this cops efforts were not enough, someone higher in rank than him came by a few minutes later inquiring into our presence. Upon realizing that we were simply gathering on property that we owned and handing out lemonade, he began to 'reason' with us off the presuppositions of the police. Our presence was encouring elementary students to stand on the corner, even if only for a minute. Rocks and bottles and bullets often fly around this corner. These children, enjoying a glass of lemonade, were in danger for their lives and when (not if) someone got killed we would obviously be responsible. We began reasoning from our presuppositions. No child waited more than 15 seconds for a second cup before going on their way. The elementary students let out 30 minutes earlier and are mostly home when high school lets out. lemonade is freaking good. By the end of the conversation no one was happy: the cop wasn't happy because we weren't leaving and we weren't happy because he wouldn't drink any lemonade.

Since then, the after school celebration has expanded with one church member playing jazz piano on the corner, several people sweeping and weeding the sidewalk and a few people painting our sidewall for an hour or two everyday. No violence has broken out after school this week. By no means am I implying that our presence has anything to do with that. Likewise, the police come and go, but they never take our lemonade. Children and high school students, however, as well as other random people that I think are coming by just for the lemonade are happy.

Although a somewhat fun story, there is a very serious and important issue being explored and experienced here. First, the violence of our neighborhood is extremely serious and is becoming personal to myself as well as my neighbors at LWCC. While no one in our church has been assaulted in anyway, as the neighborhood becomes a part of my heart, I suffer with the violence, regardless of if it is a broken window, beaten young person, homeless widow, renovated housing project, racist police act, or abused/neglected child. I can only hope to further be affected in this way.

Here is what the internet encyclopedia of philosophy has to say about pacifism:
The best place to begin an analysis of pacifism is with the absolutist argument that all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. The proposed ideal is that social intercourse should be completely non-violent and peaceful, and conflicts which may arise should be dealt with through arbitration and compromise rather than with recourse to violent means. Absolutist pacifism asserts that peace is intrinsically a good to be upheld either as a duty or on the consequentialist grounds that it is more conducive to human welfare than any use of violence or force.

Pacifism is ultimately an intellectual position taken against the philosophical positions that validate violence throughout the world. It is a position to be accepted, postured, and employed when talking with your father/pastor/aunt/neighbor who suggests that war is just and should be supported by Christians or anyone else. I accepted the position of pacifism sometime in the last four years.

The strongest argument against pacifism is that it is not practical. I have spent much time trying to debunk this argument amongst friends the past few years. What I realize now is that they are correct. Pacifism will not save my neighborhood nor will it stop the conflict in the world as a whole. Because of its abstract, intellectual orientation, pacifism is entirely irrelevant in all circumstances. I cannot use it to stop my neighbors from killing each other.

On the other hand, the argument is incorrect when it suggests that justified violence is anymore effective. Instead, what is necessary is something pro-active, even pre-emptive as suggested in ever new ways by the pro-violent amongst us. What must be cultivated are Peace Acts. Born from being compelled to act, to do anything to protect my neighbors, loved ones, and strangers in Rogers Park and around the world, I must leave behind my white, male, suburban ideology of pacifism and instead allow creativity to guide me and my neighbors into the always unknown realm of Peace Acts. Here, instead of deciding that violence is always wrong, we attempt to act in such a way that violence is overcome and replaced. Peace Acts force us to begin before the violence by identifying causes of violent behavior (poverty, racism, oppression, lack of identity, etc.) and doing things to element these causes. Peace Acts forces us to respond to where violence has occurred by doing things to ease the suffering of those who are victims while confronting those who are victimizers with the truth for the sake of delivering them from their status as victimizers. Often times this process begins with the active evaluation of ourselves as victims or victimizers. How is violence a part of our own lives? What acts of violence am I causing on my neighborhood?

I have seen that my old conceptions of violence were wrong because violence is not a concept but rather an action. Because violence is always in the form of an act, a position against violence must also always be in the form of an act. As such, I seek to learn and develop in the area of Peace Acts, whether that be serving lemonade, befriending the young children of my neighborhood who will one day be the gang members of my neighborhood, or encouraging my friends to join me in learning discernment so that we can determine when any regime has become oppressive and act against it, whether that be George Bush, John Kerry, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, the Gap, or the church. When violence occurs we must counter-act. This crucial lesson is being taught to me by my neighborhood and my neighbors as well as the biblical model of Jesus Christ.

A Few Bad Apples

2004-09-06T22:33:00.000-05:00

I fell asleep this afternoon while listening to the news on Chicago Public Radio. When I awoke I was jarred by a disturbing report on rape and the military. Immediately my mind rushed back to this essay by Slavoj Zizek. Indeed, the reports released about Abu Graib were a precursor, a prolegomena to the quietly released Air Force report. As Zizek points out, the photos of torture give viewers a prime(time) example of what American culture stands for and is about. The torture at Abu Graib has become a symbol or an ikon. These photos point beyond themselves to the deeper "David Lynchian" unconscious of our nation.

Humiliation, rape, and death are in the images and texts that we see and read in Abu Graib. But according to the immediate damage control efforts and even the more comprehensive reports of late, these incidents were the results of "a few bad apples," though responsibility could be traced all the way up the line of command. I suggest that the problem is not up the line of command but down the trunk of the apple tree to the very roots of global capitalism and empire. This is our way of life, this is how people within a specific American social body treat each other. When American women soldiers in the safest place in Baghdad are told not to go out at night to avoid rape by their male American counterparts the problem is not with the apples but with the whole system. We have essentially denied life to these women in saying that they would be safer in enemy territory than in the "Green Zone." What a tragedy that the safest place for a female soldier to be with a male soldier is where bullets and bombs are flying.

Jürgen Moltmann has asserted that a nation that uses torture as a means of gathering information is an illegitimate nation. I wonder what he would consider a nation that uses torture tactics on itself.

You Haven't Listened to Radiohead...

2004-09-03T20:22:00.000-05:00

...until you have heard Kid A on two 10" vinyls. Today I spent more than I would like to admit on it but after the first listen I can testify that it was well worth it. There is something about listening to digitally created music on analog equipment that gives pure pleasure.

There is something very interesiting that happens with the vinyl that does not occur on the CD. The end of "Motion Picture Soundtrack" is an ascending progression of chords that has been described as "very resurrection," a fitting ending to an album with death all over it. However, at the end of the first movement to this song the needle drops into an infinite groove in the record: the turntable keeps spinning but no progress is made. One may never just progress from the end of the one part to the resurrection ending; there is an infinte space between. The listener can await the eschaton of the album forever. This feature alone was worth the price of the LP.

I mean, this album is a liturgy—it requires work to listen to it. The first 10" must be flipped over after only the second song. One cannot passively take in the music but must be always alert (a similar experience to finding the page in a high church mass). Truly a gift: it is a beautiful interplay between creator and listener. Jared, if you are reading, this is incentive for you to come up and visit.

Prayer at the Shrine of an Unknown Saint

2004-08-26T17:28:00.000-05:00

"What might engage us in the face of a woman who stretches out her hand?" Craig Keen

Her body is all beauty. One hand grasps at her garment in a futile effort to conceal her nakedness. The garment slips to reveal bare breast; the chiseled cloth falls down her back. But the other hand, the left hand does not know (or care about) what the right hand is doing. It is outstretched to an absence, to a not-yet. It is a risky reach. Now exposed, the body is in a precarious position. She stands naked before the void.

Her fingertips extend to their utmost capacity and still they lack. She is waiting. It is as if all of her body—all of her being—were contained in those unfolded little pieces of flesh. That nothing is coming causes her to reach and wait for its arrival. And here in this moment she is unconcealed, revealed, true.

Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

2004-07-30T13:47:00.000-05:00

Contemporary American discourse is a discourse of power. At present there is (and hasn't there always been?) a religiosity belonging to the public way of existence. God has become "god" in every sense of its french meaning: a pleasure tool for the powerful. Those who would resist, who would see and partcipate in the revolution are routinely silenced. The ones who hold the cards in this discourse give to those who do not limited choices (which are no "choices" at all, "You Decide 2004" is a joke).

Moreover, the very encouragement to "de-cide" is a power play in and of itself. Through the use of this language we are told that to choose one of our two given options is to live, to avoid death. But when death still follows the choice (even when one has chosen with the winner) dissent is gagged. Those who would choose not to decide are in effect given no oppurtunity to do so. There are those who are holding the cards and those who have been dealt a very bad hand indeed (both foreign and domestic).

St. Paul speaks to this very issue when writing his first letter to the Corinthians:

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise according to the flesh, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But YHWH chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; YHWH chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; YHWH chose what is low and despised [proletariat and base, even] things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast before the face of YHWH.

Fully realizing that we hold nothing, and indeed are nothing we must still speak. Therefore, this blog is but a small attempt to fail to communicate with such discourse. My hope is that it will be a resource and open space for people to learn a new regional dialect. A place where we can dance when they raise the Terror Alert level, where we can give when they encourage investment, where we can weep (like the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures) when they proclaim victory, where even our death witnesses to their defeat.

The First Post...

2004-07-27T02:19:00.000-05:00

...the non-event.