Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« March 2024 »
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Entries by Topic
All topics
Art and Aesthetics
General Theology  «
Life in Particular
Rants
Reflections
Theology and Johnny Cash
Home
IndieFaith
You are not logged in. Log in
IndieFaith Blog
Wednesday, 7 December 2005
Public Sex, Private Religion
Topic: General Theology
It is not an uncommon observation to say that our society has emphasized the privatization of religion. Religion can serve the needs of the individual, but should be monitored as to its social or political influence. It is perhaps even more common to observe the sexualized nature of popular culture. Sex is utilized as a tool for attention based primarily on consumerist goals. Sex then is not only a tool but a type of energy that fuses our desires with a particular product, or object of consumption. To make love to the product.

These observations deserve reflection and response in their own right. However, can the two be related in any significant way? Can these two movements may be seen as a type of inversion? Was the driving of religion into the bedroom the forcing of sex into the public square? Sex and religion of course have a long history. My surface knowledge of Hinduism and ancient Greek religion certainly do not deny this relationship. In the Jewish-Christian tradition the Song of Songs is saturated with mixed images of holy communion and sexual consummation. This leads me to ask whether there is analogy between dynamics of personal sexual intimacy and social sexual intimacy. I am sure this also is not a unique question (if anyone knows of any literature let me know). If this is the case it should transform knee jerk religious responses of repression? Has this repression contributed to our excessive sexual\consumeristic context? Is there something to a fully public expression of religion (and I am thinking particularly of Christianity) which can development a context for the fulfillment our personal and social desires? How does this affect our notions of church and community?


To add a further comment. The obverse of the above depiction of urban ‘secular’ society may be the conservative religious rural community which thrusts religion into every nook of the public sphere and attempts to drive sexuality into its most private expression. The standing joke of my Mennonite community is whether a woman has shamefully shown ‘a little ankle’. As stories of incest and abuse emerge, this attempted privatization of sex can have disastrous consequences.

Posted by indie/faith at 11:08 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Tuesday, 22 November 2005
Aesthetics
Topic: General Theology
For anyone interested. I have posted my conceptual analysis of aesthetics in the 'formal' section of IndieFaith. This includes my image developed below.

Posted by indie/faith at 8:37 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Monday, 21 November 2005
Return of the Priest
Topic: General Theology
I have recently been fascinated by the role of 'priest' in the OT. These were people called to interpret the created order and understand how to facilitate appropriate relationships in light of a holy God. There remains a notion of the 'social construction of reality'. However, unlike the closed system of social theory these priests were required to be accountable to the above mentioned holiness. They were playing with fire and sometimes got burned (Lev 10).
I am currently reading Graham Ward's Cities of God and he speaks of urban planners as the new priesthood as they structure society in order to facilitate particular ideological goals.
Perhaps there is space to recover the once good name of the priest after sex scandals and protestant scholarship have so defiled it.
Many recent post in 'formal' expands on this thinking.

Posted by indie/faith at 12:47 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Friday, 18 November 2005
Aesthetics
Topic: General Theology
My brief and recent experience in aesthetics has proved frustrating. Its coherence as a discipline remains quite vague. Perhaps this is part of its inherent resistence to abstraction. I have worked out one image regarding beauty's relationship to aesthetics. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

Beauty is, of course, a notoriously elusive term. This, however, does not diminish our ability to say something about it. Beauty implies judgment and judgment implies content and interpretation. This is a value laden, subject-object relationship. Beauty relates not only to judgment (perhaps better referred to as recognition) but also desire. Beauty evokes. What does this imply? This implies that the subject-object relationship is not one way. The object of aesthetic attention is neither passive nor neutral. This also assumes that the subject is able to receive from the object. This is a question of boundaries. How the subject positions the object determines the potential of the relationship. A doctor anaesthetizing his or her patient greatly affects the influence of mutual effect between them. The object of beauty then can be imaged as the beast, or more particularly in this account, the bull. There are many levels at which a bull may be appreciated. These levels indicate the boundaries in which the subject his access to it. First, someone may wear or eat the bull. In this case, the life of the bull has ended. However, the feel of the leather and the taste of meat may evoke an appreciation of the animal and what it has to offer. In this instance the relationship is largely predictable, almost scientific. Feed and care for the bull in the appropriate way and it will consistently produce the type of effect desired. The relationship is determined by the subject. Second, the subject may attend a rodeo. Here the majesty of the bull can be witnessed in its irreducible of form and movement. Its dense energy almost visible emerging outside its skin. The subject can, undoubtedly, appreciate and even be moved by the beauty of such a display. However, the subject remains one side of the fence with the bull on the other. Mental conflict or joy may result but the subject remains in control of the object’s proximity. Finally, the subject may climb over the fence and stand inside the ring with bull. The subject sees nothing new in the creature, but perceives its presence in an entirely different manner. Something happened in the crossing of the fence. The presence of the object fills mental senses in a way that the prior removed object could not. What the bull does has a direct effect upon the subject and, just as importantly, what the subject does has an effect on the bull. However, in contrast to scientific assumptions, the subject cannot control the procedures. The subject must understand how to relate. In this way we can begin to understand the terror of beauty and its uncontrollable nature. However, there are those who work with bulls and then learn better and worse ways to relate. Growing up on the farm I found that to turn and run was one of the worst.

This image was evoked to demonstrate one key point regarding the role of aesthetics. The various levels of relationship between the bull and the onlooker demonstrate that there are legitimate and accessible sources of knowledge that cannot conform to rigorous scientific methodology. This does not negate science, but it attempts to appropriately position it. Perhaps it is possible then to locate aesthetics alongside natural science and philosophical reason as legitimate sources of knowledge. These should not be taken as compartmentalized, but as mutually informing. How then does aesthetics cohere as a discipline?

Posted by indie/faith at 2:07 PM EST
Updated: Friday, 18 November 2005 3:54 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older