Knowtown…

Our trip started out just like we expected. Spring in the Colorado Rockies can be pretty unpredictable. The first day at the lake was mild and gusty. The wind made it hard to fish but it wasn’t too bad. We didn’t have any luck fishing. Later, everyone came to our cabin to eat dinner, make smores and play cards. It was a pretty good day.

Day two started out a little better. The sun was out more and it was not as windy. We fished for a while in the morning and early afternoon. Still no luck for our family, though others were catching some pretty nice fish. A group of us, including my kids, Matt and Teryn set out on a hike, while my sister and law and her crew rented a boat and hit the lake. Our hiking troop was attempting to reach the top of a hill across the lake. About an our in we realized we made a wrong turn and so we had to turn around if we wanted to reach the top. Teryn decided to head back to the lake with Curtis and baby Carl. Me, Matt, and my brother-in-law Jack started the climb. It was pretty steep so we did not make it as far as we hoped and decided to turn back.

We got back to the inlet of the lake and had about a quarter of a mile walk back to the cabin when we noticed the weather was starting to turn sour. We feel the strong wind at our backs and a look over our shoulder showed the rains quickly coming down the mountain. The lake was a series of whitecaps. Ahead, I saw Jarod run out of the lodge and start heading for our cabin, a short 200 yards away. He was quickly (the heavy winds and rain came in less than a minute) overtaken by a huge dust cloud caused by the wind. The rain was now falling pretty good. I made it to the lodge in time to see Teryn getting out of the boat she was in and fighting against the wind to get into the lodge. I was so glad that she was safely on shore as the winds and the waves were increasing significantly.

This is when we realized that Janell’s sister, Nichole was still out in the lake with her fiancé, Craig, and his two daughters. Craig was rowing hard but it was obvious by now that he was not going to make the dock. The wind, the waves, and the natural current of the lake were driving them straight for the spillway of the dam! Everyone waved for them to row for the other side of the lake so they could go with the wind and the current instead of against it. Grandpa Carl, Grandma, Jack and Janell, as well as other guests of the resort ran to the other side of the lake to help them get the boat to shore when it got there. They were about 50 yards away from the dam when it became apparent they were not going to make it to the opposite shore either. The wind, waves and current were too strong. The boat was drifting towards the spillway. This was when everyone realized the situation was much more serious than we thought.

From my vantage point across the lake I could see everyone running along the shore trying to be ready to grab the boat if it came close enough. There were plenty of people to help but the boat was getting closer and closer to the spillway. Janell dropped the video camera and began to run and I dropped my camera and began to run after her. As there were several people at the spillway I ran down to the bottom side, just in case. From here I could no longer see what was happening but I heard the account from everyone else. Carl was trying to get situated on a stump and a rock to grab the boat but was not close enough. They were only 20 feet from the spillway and the current was strong and the waves were as big as a small lake can get. It had started to hail. Carl Jumped in and called for the girls to jump. Nichole told them both to jump when they boat got even with the rocks and they did great. Carl caught one and lifted her up to grandma on the shore, while Jack grabbed the other. By this point Janell had waded out into the lake to help her sister to shore. Nichole was almost to Janell but turned back to get Craig, who is not a good swimmer. She finally grabbed him and reached Janell and everyone was safely on shore, wet, cold and in shock.

I was at the bottom of the spillway when I saw an oar come tumbling over the top and come swiftly down the flume. When I saw that oar I did not know what to think. I was about ready to jump into the creek to be ready in case anyone came tumbling down when another guest from the lodge ran to the top and gave me the universal “thumbs up” signal. We gathered everyone together and walked through the wind and the hail back to our cabin where Janell helped everyone into some warm dry clothes and blankets. There were plenty of scrapes and bruises from rocks but everyone was safe!

An hour later the storm had moved through and the lake was as still as glass. The girls were still a little upset and the adrenaline of those who were in the lake for those long tense seconds was going pretty strong. In the end the only losses were the digital camera, two fishing poles and an oar. It could have been a lot worse! Nichole, Craig, and the girls were brilliant and courageous throughout and Janell and Carl were heroes. I am sure none of them will forget this trip anytime soon. I will flickr the story soon…

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

I am so looking forward to this weekend. Our first stop is going to be the Rainbow Lake Resort. This place holds wonderful memories for me. Janell’s family would go here every year when she was growing up. When we were still dating I was invited along one year. They celebrated my birthday that year with a German Chocolate Cake. It was a great time of connecting with her family. After we got married and started our family we decided to revive this tradition. One of my favorite trips here was the last time we went with Janell’s father before he passed away. We have some great pictures of him at the lake with the our kids when they were little. Then there was the trip I mentioned on my old blog a couple of years ago when we went fishing with sticks.

I do not know what this year holds but I am anticipating a lot of reading, writing, reflecting, hiking and, of course, fishing.

The second chapter of The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory is an essay by Jeff Coulter titled Human practices and the observability of the ‘macro-social’. This is a fascinating chapter that deals with the relationships between people and institutions and the complex role practices play in this. I was interested in the exploration of the blurry line that one crosses when they operate in this social macro.

bq. Because many of our macro-social concepts designate institutions which are linked to geographical/architectural structures (e.g., cities, banks, universities, hospitals, police departments, etc.), an ambiguity can readily arise concerning the ways in which such macro-social phenomena are actually observable in the world of everyday life. There is one sense, of course, in which one may ’see’ a city (e.g., by flying over it), a college, a bank, or a hospital (by walking around or through its grounds and inspecting its building[s]) but, sociologically speaking, the social institutions of cities or colleges, companies, or consulates (etc.), are clearly not observable in this way. The tendency has been to envisage macro-social phenomena linked to identifiable material structures as ‘contained’ by or within such material structures. Once this move is made, however, puzzles arise. For example, in what sense is the ’social institution’ itself visible within such material domains as geographical areas and/or architectural structures? What we locate there, after all, are people saying and doing a great variety of things, not all of which remotely instantiate ‘city-ness,’ ‘bank-ness,’ or ‘university-ness.’ It can readily appear as though the symbolic interactionists and methodological individualist are correct to propose that such social structures are abstractions from human interactions of specific sorts, and have no genuinely ‘independent existence’ as such. This move, however, is made too quickly. Changing the example, for a moment, one can actually observe ‘crowds,’ ‘riots,’ ‘demonstrations,’ ‘armies’ on the march, ‘platoons’ on the attack, etc., and these are surely no ‘abstractions’ from things that people are collectively engaged in. What is it then for a ‘nation,’ a ‘religious order,’ a ‘city,’ a ‘university’ or a ‘bank’ to do something.

Coulter cites examples, such as the president of the United States speaking for Americans, or the pope speaking for the church or…

bq. When the telephone rings and the caller says, “This is Bay Bank. Are you interested in our new money market account?”, the person calling may be Jane Doe, but it is not Jane Doe calling. Although Jane Doe is clearly operating as its representative, it is Bay Bank calling.

This reminds me of the great line, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. (Galatians 2:20) As ecclesial beings, what is our relationship to the ‘macro-social’ structures of ‘church’ and how do we make our social relationships to it ‘visible?’

The author presents an argument for ‘occasional relevance.’

bq. Collectivities have their life in through their praxiological instantiations, and especially through the occasions that make relevant the instantiating membership categories. Thus, it really isn’t ‘Jane Doe’ calling ‘Jeff Coulter’ when it is ‘Bay Bank’ calling me, just as it really isn’t ‘Karol Woytyla’ qua private citizen who instantiates Catholicism on those occasions when the enunciations are formally produced. Jane Doe, and Karol Woytyla, may say and do a host of things in their lives, but only on occasions bounded by specific sorts of rules do their sayings/doings make relevant those categories such as to instantiate the actions of the collectivity. Armies can plan coups d’etat, companies can fix prices, governments can declare wars, and so forth, only insofar as the practices and praxis-relevant identities of persons, sometimes few and occasionally many, are recognizably invovable.

Finally, Coulter distinguishes between practices that are ‘categorically-bound’ and those that are ‘categorically-open’ and points out that:

bq. …it is reasonably clear that many practices are quite simply institutional practices, presupposing and/or instantiating the operations of macro-social phenomena, whilst others (most others, in fact) are not. I refer to this as the phenomenon of the ‘occasional relevance’ of the macro-social level to our everyday lives, and offer it as a sharp contrast to perspectives and modes of theorizing which insist upon the omnirelevance of a macrosociological ‘contextualization’ for everything we do.

As should be very evident, there is too much in this chapter to comment on sufficiently here. But I must admit that Coulter’s argument is confirming my belief that until we are willing to question/decontruct/challenge the existing ecclesial paradigms we may not create contexts to develop relevant faithful practices. But that’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

It seems that every so often I feel the sting and loss associated to the events surrounding my last church. Every time I think it will be the last time and that I am finally “over it.” But each time that monkey raises his head he seems to be stronger and bigger than the last time. Over the past week I have felt as though I have been following in the footsteps of Sisyphus.

Last week I met a few people after work to talk about ecclesial dreams and I could not believe how inadequate I felt just sitting at the table. I have had some Fierce Conversations with myself and my wife over the past several days that make me wonder if I am more a delusional dreamer than an ecclesial one. I have read a lot of things recently that normally would be encouraging to me but instead they leave me feeling frustrated, discouraged and drained.

Next week my family is heading for a much needed break in the beautiful Colorado Rockies. I am looking forward to reading, hiking, fishing, and sitting around camp fires. There is no better cure for my current mood than standing knee deep in a trout stream with a fly rod. I love playing hide and seek with God in the great outdoors. I can’t wait.

Hey, all you Skype users, I can now be skyped at “knowtown”.

For all you Tiger users, the Biblegateway widget is now available.

I am still working my way through Miroslav Volf’s great book, After Our Likeness: The Church As the Image of the Trinity (Sacra Doctrina) again and really do want to blog some more reflections on it but something else has currently captured my attention. I just got a copy of The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory and am enjoying it very much.

This is a book that attempts to define and defend the role of “practice.” Here is a blurb from the back cover.

bq. It is through action and interaction within practices that mind, rationality and knowledge are constituted and social life is organized, reproduced and transformed. During the past two decades, practice theory has emerged as a potent challenger to prevalent ways of thinking about human life and sociality, which have until now focused on individual minds and actions or social structures, systems a discourses. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory is the first volume to bring together philosophers, sociologist and scholars of science to explore the significance of practices in human life.

Scott (who first directed my attention to practices via Alasdair MacIntyre) has pointed out to me before that most good, non-denominational Christians do not know what “practices” are unless you are talking about the worship band practice. It is the truth of that statement that makes it so unfortunately humorous. As a good, non-denominationalist myself, I can admit that in my last church that was indeed the case. But what exactly is a “practice?” And just how do they “organize, reproduce, and transform” social life? These are important questions for ecclesial dreamers. (Furtunately for me, this is an introductory volume.)

In the opening essay, “Practice as collective action”, Barry Barnes draws on work by Stephen Turner and asks the question, if there are shared practices, then what is it that is shared? Is a “practice” an object tha can be possessed, or is it an aggregate of separate, individual elements? Barnes uses some interesting examples (vegetarianism, acupuncture, and cavalry) to show how this dilemma creates a tension between the “individualistic” verses the “structuralist” understanding of practices. When a cavalry troop participates in the practice of riding in formation is it the structure determining the practice or are the individual members contributing to it? As most oppositions of this type prove, the tension is removed the moment we learn to rephrase the question and see it in a new light. In a move that reminds me very much of Volf’s articulation of perichoresis, Barnes points towards a new way to see this question:

bq. Turner’s argument merits detailed attention because it articulates a very widely held conception of the basic difference between individualist/psychological and collectivist/sociological approaches to social activity. The former speaks of aggregates of separate individuals and individual actions; the latter refers to unitary collective entities. A standard exemplification of the difference is the contrast between rational choice theory and theories of societies as systems of social norms. Indeed many theorists are likely to think of this contrast when they read Turner, and see the horns of his dilemma as akin to these two alternative forms of theory. But this very widely held conception is in truth a misconception, which fails to grasp the nature of a properly sociological approach to social life. The horns of Turner’s dilemma are merely alternative espressions of a fundamentally individualistic mode of thought. In the explicitly individualistic view of practice as diversity, there are so many independent individuals moved by habits. In the alternative allegedly ‘collectivist’ view of practice as a unity there are so many independent individuals moved by a single object or essence. Neither view can throw light on a simple collective routine like riding in formation. What is required to understand a practice of this kind is not individuals oriented primarily by their own habits, nor is it individuals oriented by the same collective object; rather it is human beings oriented to each other. Human beings can ride in formation, not because they are independent individuals who possess the same habits, but because they are interdependent social agents, linked by a profound mutual susceptibility, who constantly modify their habituated individual responses as they interact with others, in order to sustain a shared practice. (emphasis mine)

Following this, Barnes sums up:

bq. Shared practices are the accomplishments of competent members of collectives. They are accomplishments readily achieved by, and routinely to be expected of members acting together, but they nonetheless have to be generated on every occasion, by agents concerned all the time to retain coordination and alignment with each other in order to bring them about.

Here is an excerpt from the webpage of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians concerning the CU professor Ward Churchill:

bq. The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term “Indian” refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a “pedigree” and compares enrollment to “dogs” and “Nazi policies.” Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called “dog pedigree.”

bq. All of Churchill’s past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah ‘enrollment’ written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so.

bq. The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill’s assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

While I completely agree that Churchill is entitled to his rights to free speech, I do not think he is still free to claim to be a Native American and a member of this tribe. I still find this whole story to be completely fascinating.

This has been a long week of waiting and anticipation for Sunday. Now that this day is over, I am feeling a bit of a let down on multiple levels. I was chatting with FT and told him that I had the post-ecclesial blues.

There are a couple of things that are troubling me as I head off to bed tonight but I don’t think I can articulate them very clearly in this venue just yet. Some of them are deeply personal and creating a fair amount of tension. As an internal processor it will take me a few days and several conversations to work through my thoughts.

This morning I was ready to charge the gates of hell with a squirt gun. Tonight I have lost that sense of undaunted courage and am feeling inadequate, small and overwhelmed. Maybe I am just overly tired. Tomorrow is a new day and I fully expect new blessings.