"But pure or unconditioned hospitality does not consist in such an invitation ("I invite you, I welcome you into my home, on the condition that you adapt to the laws and norms of my territory, according to my language, tradition, memory, and so on"). Pure and unconditional hospitality, hospitality itself, opens or is in advance open to someone who is neither expected nor invited, to whomever arrives as an absolutely foreign visitor, as a new arrival, nonidentifiable and unforeseeable, in short, wholly other." -Derrida (Philosophy in a Time of Terror, edited by Giovanna Borradori, p. 17)
What are the implications of this for the church today?
{ 20 comments }
…someone who is neither expected nor invited, to whomever arrives as an absolutely foreign visitor, as a new arrival, nonidentifiable and unforeseeable…
It’s a question of whether the church can receive Christ, whether its Eucharistic celebrations are acts of faith or violence, and whether my neighbor needs to become me in order to be my neighbor.
Next question…what relationship does hospitality have to caritas?
Like most postmodern thought, it’s still pretty self-centered. The person may not have been invited nor expected, but the person is still coming onto my turf. I can still control the interaction to a great extent. I am in my comfort zone.
I don’t think we have a hope or a prayer of knowing how to be hospitable in this “pure” sense because we have no clue of what it’s like to be a stranger.
Let’s look back at the diversity/”post-emergent” discussion that happened as of late. Rich, white boys have no clue how to be hospitable to those from a differing context. It has surely been thought, if not said, “but we want to include you - add your voice.” But that’s not hospitality - that’s controlling the conversation on comfortable terms.
What would it be for us to go and actively seek divergent views, experiences, etc. and engage them on someone else’s turf? What are the implications of that for the church today?
I don’t see this quote at all as self centered. No matter where we are at, whether we are coming or going, or whether people are coming to us or we are coming to them, this is about how we accept them into our world.
In fact, this view of hospitality is very selfless, letting go of one’s comfort an allowing people to just be who they are, not who we want them to be.
Plus, who says it’s ok to be bigotted against rich, white boys? What? they can’t be hospitable? The Gosepl is possibel for everyone, except rich, white boys?
What are the implications for accepting everyone with generosity without terms, even rich, white boys?
Calm down, Joe. I’m a rich white boy.
I afraid I have not been clear.
You wrote:
“this is about how we accept them into our world.” (emphasis mine…obviously)
My point is not that we are rude or demand that they be like us. I applaud anyone who gets over the notion that they can dictate to others that they assimilate. What I intended to point out was that, while this my be a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough, and, ultimately, will not accomplish what I will assume you hope that it will.
There is little to no discussion about going onto to someone else’s turf - only what do we do when they come onto ours. Yes, it questions our modes of ideation. Yes, it demands of us that we act as the Benedictines do and accept all as Christ. But this is also a classic tactic used by those in power and those that are used to controlling a situation.
Let’s be honest, what good is it to be this “hospitable” when those that need what this so-called hospitality are those that would never step foot onto your turf. My complaint is with the passivity of the statement, not its intention to not assert itself over/against someone else.
Back to your critique of my “rich white boys” statement.
Firstly, you took it out of context - I never said word one about the gospel, even implicitly. But I’ll say it now: God plays favorites, and the beatitudes show us who they are. And please read Luke’s. Most of us white folk love Matthew’s cause it says pretty things like “poor in spirit” rather than just plan “poor.”
Secondly, read back through the various blogs and comments dealing with the “diversity/post-emergent” issue and you will see that what is implied (as I read them) is that a group of persons have been left out. Another group says “You were free to come along and you didn’t” and the First group responds with “Yeah, but you wanted me to come along to where you wanted to go. No one asked us where we wanted to go.”
Being open (hospitable) is fine, but not when it’s rendered moot by the fact that we are not actively seeking participation from and empowering a group that has received little in the way of either.
“Ya’ll don’t know what it’s like/being male, middle class, and white.” Rock out.
emergent church : evangelicals (protestants) :: liberation theology : Catholicism
= Marxism
emergent will follow the same path as Lib. Theo and eventually lose traction as it becomes boring
Landon,
finally someone like you speaks truth and realizes that emergent is not postmodern at all. It does not turn to “the other,” but is only intersted in controling the conversation - and that is NOT postmodern
I just want to share the ‘Celtic rune of hospitality’
We saw a stranger yesterday,
We put food in the eating place,
Drink in the drinking place,
Music in the listening place,
And, with the sacred name of the triune God,
He blessed us and our house,
Our cattle and our dear ones.
As the lark says in her song:
Often, often, often, goes Christ in the stranger’s guise.
>”rich white boys”
How about POOR white boys. Rednecks. White trash, i.e., a lot of the people who vote Republican! Can God play favorites with them? Or only with us brownies.
>>>>>”rich white boys”
How about POOR white boys. Rednecks. White trash, i.e., a lot of the people who vote Republican! Can God play favorites with them? Or only with us brownies.
What you say is true. But I think that you overstate the case when speaking of God playing favorites. In other words, I ask myself whether God will judge a white boy any harsher for “systematic” racism than He’ll judge a brownie for his own personal racism. Here on this earth, men will make those judgments. White boy will be judged for systematic racism– even though he is not personally responsible. You may not say it out loud when you judge him, but it will be in your thoughts. But brownie will get a pass for his personal racism! That calculus strikes me as worldly, not of God. Why? Because God sees us– and judges us– as individuals, not as members of a class. He is a personal God, after all. My soul will be saved, or doomed, all by its lonesome. I won’t go to heaven on the coattails of my race or class.
Be calm, Juan. Take a deep breath. We can have the racism discussion some other time. If we continue it here, Cleave’s likely to impose his comment policy and shut us down for being off topic (point 3,c).
Again, perhaps I’ve been unclear. I’m not talking about sin and salvation here. I have tried very hard to not cloak my thoughts in pretty sounding church words. I have been intentional about not making my point in an abstract fashion. I’m talking about a concrete reality of the difference between someone coming onto your turf vs. you going onto their turf, and which one, in the end, is really more “hospitable.”
My case (and this is the last time I’m going to say it) is that “being open” to persons of all shades and stripes is good and fine, but it is not good enough. It is not good enough because it still leaves you in a position of power and control, whereas it forces the other to a subordinate position because they must “accept your hospitality.”
Secondly, it is not good enough because it assumes that persons with whom you share very little will actually come into your space. The logic then follows-> “I’m open to whom ever comes” and then you wait. And wait. And wait. We were told to “go into all the world” not “wait for all the world to come to you.”
In essence, this “waiting” or “being open” is a mask for narcissism. It justifies to a person that if they are simply open then that is all that is required of them. But that is not what our story says.
Let me bring it to a close this way: I’m a fairly well off white guy. I have a masters degree, I am ordained, and I work in a sector of my community where I have access to the rich and powerful. Not to mention I can talk real pretty, I’m tall, have dark hair, and a strong jaw line. In short, I have a goodly deal of privilege and advantage because I “represent” successful.
Now, I could take the advantage and privilege that is afforded to me and use it for my own betterment. I could even move to a nice part of town and buy a big-ish house, and try to appease my soul by saying that it’s open for anyone and everyone. I could say the same for my church, and on and on.
But I didn’t do that. I bought a modest house in the poorest neighborhood in town, which as you know, means that it is the African-American side of town. I was completely out of my element, but we have spent the last year trying to be good neighbors and it has radically changed the notion of hospitality for me.
In the last three months I have probably given 45 rides on cold mornings. It’s not that I wasn’t willing before. It’s that I was on my turf, and ain’t nobody gonna come on my turf and ask me for a ride no matter how open I am.
Jesus went to the least of these. He didn’t expect the least of these to come to him.
>Be calm, Juan. Take a deep breath.
That reminds me of that movie Anger Management where Ben Stiller is calmly talking to the air hostess and she keeps telling him to “calm down, sir” and he keeps telling her he is calm (and he is), and eventually the air marshall zaps him with a taser. Guess what, bro. I am calm.
I agree with you 100% that waiting around for others to help themselves to our hospitality is not the message of the Gospels. I only disagree with you that the message of the Beatitudes is that God plays favorites based on race/class. The Beatitudes is how WE should treat each other, because it is WE who play favorites based on race/class. And apparently we continue to do so– but in reverse!
Sorry, Adam, if this is too off topic. I’m only commenting on other comments.
I think the term “god plays favorites” is not properly used in referrence to salvation, and since I do not see God’s only role in creation as the salvation of souls, I have no problem saying that God plays favorites in His pursuit of justice. God consistantly has a heart for the poor, and when we follow the sermon on the mount we are at work with God to bring about His kingdom. however, Jesus makes it clear
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Jesus never suggests that God does not wish for the salvation of the rich man, nor will He turn his back on the rich white man (white for me just being a mark of priveledge and not an actual objective reality), and that with God, those of us who are priveledged (like americans in general when compared to much of the world) are not beyond salvation. However, that does not mean that God does not have a heart for the poor.
>>>24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Jesus said it, then it must be true. But rich dude’s non-salvation results from his being too concerned with his stock options to seek God’s salvation– not from any lack of favor God has for him.
God does have a heart for the poor, because the poor suffer more. But he has a heart for all people who suffer– equally– regardless of race. If poor white dude is suffering, God favors him equally with poor brownie who is suffering.
The “systematic” racism distinctions you make are earthbound distinctions that men use to further their agendas. It may be a valid agenda (correcting past wrongs), but that’s worldly politics and we should acknowledge that.
“What are the implications of this for the church today?”
Well, the implications of this statement by Derrida for the church are that the church should pay attention to the words of Jesus. It seems to me that Derrida has only begun to plumb the depth of his take on the matter.
Juan
I’m interested in your use of the terms “worldly”, “earthbound”, “man’s agenda” (BTW - we should at least try to be cognizant that the ladies play a rather large role in humanity), and why you feel the need to bring everything back to the individual nature of salvation, a reality I’m not sure actually exists.
And for the love of God, please stop using the word “brownie”. Liam is right that “white” is an ontological, not a biological, term when it’s used in discussions of race.
Landon,
I use the term “whitey” for white folks too when the topic is racism. So “brownie” is for us “people of color.” I’ll stop now if it bothers you. “Mankind” includes the ladies. Sorry if that bothers you, I’m not about to start saying “personkind”.
If “white” is just ontological code for “privilege”, then just SAY privilege. Suffering white dude doesn’t feel any better in his suffering just because of some intellectual distinction between personal and systematic racism. He still suffers, and God favors him, period. “Worldly” and “earthbound” refers to things that we desire in our flesh but confuse for God’s will (like hoping God favors me because I’m a person of color).
Same applies to class. Who does God favor more, suffering person born into the upper classes? or happy as a junebug poor person? Not so clear, is it. That’s why race/class distinctions are inadequate. God favors those who suffer– period. The race/class bit is just Liberal politics. That doesn’t make it per se wrong in my opinion, but let’s just acknowlege it for what it really is.
I’ll honor our discussion by offering one more set of comments, but then I’m through as I can see we are in disagreement. I’ll allow you the last word if you wish to take it.
It’s “humanity,” not “personkind.” And I don’t believe you are sorry that it’s bothersome to a whole host of folks. I think you’re being cheeky.
I don’t say “privilege” for the very same reason you opted to automatically go for “brownie” - I am referring to a specific kind of privilege that comes from advantage received because of race. Using “white” makes it specific and concrete (something I’ve tried to do throughout this entire discussion).
I think you would be hard pressed equate the suffering of a white person with that of a black person. Again, you are speaking in abstracts and not concrete. My African-American neighbor lives hand to mouth, and I’m depressed about not being able to live into my full potential - those things aren’t equal.
One problem I have with what I assume to be your worldview is that the God that you say loves everyone sure has dropped the ball when it comes to the black community. I don’t like your God - “He” doesn’t seem to care about anyone but rich, White folks (males specifically). I’m sorry - I don’t want to serve your God. I’m gonna choose to serve the God who’s on the side of the poor, oppressed, and marginalized - those you refer to as “brownies.”
And the class question is clear to me. I see evidence of the work of God in the happy as a junebug poor person. But I would like to meet this person. I’m pretty positive that the only person you would be able to find in the concrete world (as opposed to the abstract one that you draw from) that is poor and happy as a junebug is someone who has willingly renounced their wealth, not someone who’s never had any. Again, come on down to my neighborhood and try to spin that yarn. Nobody’s buying.
And then we have the fantastic “liberal” word thrown in for good measure. My friend, if I have to “acknowledge it” then I must not be doing a good job “proclaiming it.” I have no illusions about my ideological stance. What I try to do is make sure that the Gospel I preach matches the reality in which it is preached.
I came across a great blog today (I think it was a Princeton Cohort contributor) that was titled “Jesus is the answer but what was the question?” That rhetorical question points to the need for theological discourse to be connected to a real situation and not just abstract theologizing. People don’t tend to like that much because reality goes against their preconceived notions.
The Gospel I’m preaching is Good News to the poor and oppressed, and last time I checked, that’s who Jesus indicated the Gospel should be Good News for. “I came for the sick…” (yeah, yeah, I know - “White folks can be sick too.” whatever.)
I have used your words verbatim at one point in my life. I understand where you are coming from, but I think that your stance lacks foundation for those that need the hospitality (our original topic!) you are saying you want to provide.
One thing you have never addressed is the issue of your turf vs. theirs. Why is that? Why have you automatically gone for my jugular with the racism thing? Did I touch a nerve for you?
I’m done. Peace.
>>>why have you automatically gone for my jugular with the racism thing? Did I touch a nerve for you?
bro, calm down. Relax…breath. Better? I suspect that when you were telling me to “calm down” earlier you were just projecting. lol! Why do you take the attitude that I’ve gone for your “jugular”? What is it with you emergent types that you get so flustered and offended by actual conversation when it actually happens? You say you want it, then it comes and you freak out about it. Didn’t I already tell you that I agreed with you about something or other? You say I didn’t address your turf comments. I did. I said that I agree with you 100% that waiting around for others to help themselves to our hospitality is not the message of the Gospels. I read your comments about your lifestyle and I approved of it. I think it’s great. Sorry I wasn’t more effusive about it. When I blog I usually tend to address the things I disagree with. And why would your comments about race “touch a nerve” for me? Am I not one of those racial minorities you want so bad to put on a pedestal? How would that touch a nerve? I just don’t agree, that’s all. Do minorities not living on the reservation make you uncomfortable? (perhaps it’s YOUR nerve that’s been touched, thus again you project it onto me). I would happily continue along this line of conversation and tell you why I don’t agree, in a civil manner even, but clearly you’re only interested in talking to people who agree with you, thus you’ve already signed off. You say you don’t apologize for “proclaiming” your Liberal ideological stance. That’s fine. I said it was fine. All I’m saying is don’t try to pass that off as God’s word. That’s all. I’m sure you’ve said the exact same thing a million times to Pat Robertson and Dobson. You’re not immune to it, and your own hands aren’t that much cleaner. You just don’t like that I pointed it out. It made you angry. Regarding my being cheeky, I suspect I was no more cheeky than you were being when you dismissed me with a “peace” that felt more like a kiss off. “Peace” apparently doesn’t mean what it used to. And thanks for the hat tip on “mankind”. I didn’t get the memo that said it had been stricken from the English language. I’ll try to remember for next time. Other than that, we’re in full agreement!
out
Comments on this entry are closed.