Leading, Not Ruling

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the occupational hazards of hanging around a seminary too long is that you become exposed to a lot of different philosophies of leadership.  Protestant churches on the whole are very strange political entities.  Though Roman Catholicism has a fairly strict hierarchical structure refined by years of tradition and experience, the politics of a local Protestant church may vary wildly from church to church, and are almost entirely situational.  Today I mean to address this subject, perhaps not in order to present a strict thesis, but in the hopes of addressing certain issues and pitfalls and possibly wrapping my mind around the complex and broken nature of leadership.

Continue reading

Image

Sentimentality, Subtlety, Subjectivity, and Chappie

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

At the time of writing, I am only some short time removed from enjoying the heck out of Chappie, and have spent some time examining the reviews on metacritic, which have the curiously distinguishing characteristic of demonstrating serious disagreement between critics and the public reviews: the critics being loudly against the film (avg. score on metacritic is 40, at time of writing) and the public being largely sympathetic to it (7.5/10).  What criticisms I’ve investigated more deeply betray that critics are largely divided along a certain ground of believability: most critics who find the character of Chappie annoying pan the movie as a whole while critics who embrace the character embrace the movie as well.  As someone who came out of the theater thinking that Chappie was finally Blomkamp’s masterpiece, I’m left reevaluating my opinions and reflecting on the rather strange set of circumstances surrounding this interesting little film.

Continue reading

Over-Interpretation and Notes From Underground

Tags

, , ,

I have a tradition: every year, for spring break, I read Dostoevsky.  I started in high school and have followed the tradition religiously since then, as a measure both to return frequently to my favorite author, and to prevent myself from spending the whole year reading his work (I probably would, otherwise, and never get anything else done).  I love Dostoevsky.  I think he’s one of the most insightful, compassionate, intelligent, and powerful novelists who ever lived, if not THE most insightful, compassionate, etc., etc.  And after two months of beating my head against the wall that is Derridean scholarship and deconstructionism, I find it appropriate to turn my attention to Dostoevsky, who is as plain-speaking and direct as Derrida is obtuse and circumlocutory, but who is as complex and intricate to interact with as any other writer I’ve encountered.  Like Derrida, Dostoevsky admits of no simple cut-and-dry interpretations, because he interacts with the world in so many dimensions simultaneously.  So let’s put on our criticism hats and talk about that most characteristically direct and multilayered Dostoevsky story: Notes From Underground.

Continue reading

Random Things I’ve Been Enjoying Lately: February

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Between my rants about Christianity’s failings, my ongoing posts about Derrida, and various other gripes I’ve voiced on this page over the past month or two, I think it’s long past time I took a break and discussed some more positive experiences I’ve been having lately.  So without further ado, here are some things I’ve been enjoying lately:

Continue reading

Zeke v. Derrida, Part Four: Contentions

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Now that we’ve discussed Derrida’s philosophy at length, and provided a proper defense of the points I find compelling, it’s time to turn our attention to the opposition: how the academic world at large has contended against his philosophy and where these counter-arguments fall short.

Continue reading

The Death of God and the End of Personal Authority

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Talking about Derrida brings up a lot of ancillary issues in philosophy, many of which I have passed over in silence, but I would like to discuss one element of post-modernism that I believe is crucial to its proliferation, one of the most powerful forces contributing to its authority, and perhaps one of the most dangerous elements in its constitution.  Not, as you may suspect, relativism and nihilism – the dangers of these positions are fairly self-defeating.  My concern today, is with the end personal authority.

Continue reading

Zeke v. Derrida, Part Three: Concessions

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I ended my last post with some concessions to Derridean thought, with the intention of leaving it at that and going on to address counter-arguments and conclusions.  But the more that I’ve thought about the subject in the meantime, the more I feel obligated to discuss what exactly Derrida gets right and why he seems so compelling.  In part because I think the greatest danger Derrida poses is not so much his argumentation and contribution to philosophy – I think he’s probably the greatest philosopher of our time – but the ways in which he is misunderstood, or rejected without serious consideration.  So let’s go ahead and don our deconstructionist hat for today and talk about the subjective side of language.

Continue reading

Christianity’s Sexual Identity Crisis

Tags

, , , ,

I respect and admire a lot of conservative Christians.  I am often impressed by their faith, their theology, the strength of their convictions, and their devotion to the Lord.  But Christianity, and conservative Christianity especially, has a gigantic problem.  Namely, that the Biblical understanding of sex is based on a cultural outlook miles away from our own.  And the way that Christians apply the Biblical teaching to our own culture is, as a result, extremely erratic and often nonsensical.  Often times when I discuss theology with an evangelistic bent, to my friends or other people, I find that Christianity’s poor treatment of sex is at the forefront of their objections to the faith.  So let’s talk about it.

Continue reading

Zeke v. Derrida, Part Two: Presuppositions

I have held frequently that the most profitable kind of argument, whether philosophical or otherwise, usually begins with an attempt to identify and understand each others’ presuppositions.  The trouble with Derrida is that his method of deconstructionism is not so much a philosophical system, laden as they normally are with a system of carefully-orchestrated presuppositions, as a supposedly-presuppositionless method of examining, defusing, and restructuring the presuppositions of other philosophers and texts.  Deconstructionists, like Hume in his day, claim that they have no ground to defend, and therefore may freely assail (and raze) the ground of others.  Is Derrida immune, then, to this sort of examination?

Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers