Kyle David Bennett

[involuntarymemoir]

The world is always suspended above the abyss of the event. ~ Claude Romano (at Geneseo, New York)

[involuntarymemoir]

Prophecy without Contempt

I'm super duper stoked to be reviewing this book by Cathleen Kaveny for International Journal of Public Theology. 

First of all, the title absolutely tickles me: "Prophecy without Contempt." Such a provocative, convicting title. Follow that with endorsements from Robin Lovin, Mark Noll, and John O'Malley. Not bad. Not bad at all. And if that doesn't sell it, there's the Table of Contents . . . Look at this: 

It looks like Kaveny is going to cover ground that tends to be overlooked in discussions of religious discourse, which excites me. I hope she touches on two issues that I think are important.

The first is our attitude or disposition (and maybe even gestures?) towards those we disagree with in public forums or spaces. We may belittle such things, but our overall presence and demeanor in public is just as important as what we say or do.

The second is central religious practices, such as prophecy and compassion, that cannot be devalued, domesticated, or dismissed like many try to do with religious language in public discourse. We cannot shed or "dumb down" practices. Nor should we. They say more and mean more than our words. 

But take a look at that Table of Contents again. Sheesh. That's a straight up smorgasbord of buzz words and provocative associations. That last chapter is going to blow my mind. I'm sure of it.

Okay . . . that's all for now. Stay tuned: I'll be posting quotes and some thoughts on how this relates to my philosophy of citizenship project.

And if I haven't said it before, thanks for reading. 

[involuntarymemoir]

Prophecy without Contempt

I'm super duper stoked to be reviewing this book by Cathleen Kaveny for International Journal of Public Theology. 

First of all, the title absolutely tickles me: "Prophecy without Contempt." Such a provocative, convicting title. Follow that with endorsements from Robin Lovin, Mark Noll, and John O'Malley. Not bad. Not bad at all. And if that doesn't sell it, there's the Table of Contents . . . Look at this: 

It looks like Kaveny is going to cover ground that tends to be overlooked in discussions of religious discourse, which excites me. I hope she touches on two issues that I think are important.

The first is our attitude or disposition (and maybe even gestures?) towards those we disagree with in public forums or spaces. We may belittle such things, but our overall presence and demeanor in public is just as important as what we say or do.

The second is central religious practices, such as prophecy and compassion, that cannot be devalued, domesticated, or dismissed like many try to do with religious language in public discourse. We cannot shed or "dumb down" practices. Nor should we. They say more and mean more than our words. 

But take a look at that Table of Contents again. Sheesh. That's a straight up smorgasbord of buzz words and provocative associations. That last chapter is going to blow my mind. I'm sure of it.

Okay . . . that's all for now. Stay tuned: I'll be posting quotes and some thoughts on how this relates to my philosophy of citizenship project.

And if I haven't said it before, thanks for reading. 

[involuntarymemoir]

Fragments on the Citizen

I’m writing a book on spiritual disciplines. As I’m doing this, I’m already mapping out and sketching a sequel. I can’t help but think how these arguments I’m making about spiritual disciplines apply to other issues I'm contemplating. So, as I’m writing about how spiritual disciplines have a “horizontal” dimension to them—that is, they transform and renew interpersonal relationships—I’m thinking about how far and wide this transformation and renewal goes. I’m thinking about what this looks like when we move the conversation from private and intimate interactions to public persona and civic relationships. 

So my idea for the second book is to explore how spirituality bears on society, particularly our lives as citizens (I’m also flirting with a third volume on spirituality and politics, which isn’t the same as our life as citizens). As I have made forays into the academic field of citizenship, I have come to see several problems with the conversation(s). One in particular that I would like to hone in on in the second book is how we limit our object of investigation. We define “citizen” very narrowly. Typically our definition of it goes something like this: a legally recognized subject under a governmental rule of law. I think this sorely limits what we can uncover in our investigation. It brackets elements of our experience as citizens that should be discussed in the conversation. 

And so I’d like to unfold a wider notion of the citizen. 

From a phenomenological standpoint, that is, from our lived experience, it seems to me that there are three modes or ways we experience ourselves and others as “citizens.” Or, to put it another way, there are three types (inter alia) of “other” we experience in public spaces. These three types by no means exhaust our encounters with others in public places. But they do seem to me to be the main types we experience. This schema is still very rudimentary, and I’m just starting to develop it, so be nice and let me know what you think. 

Three dimensions to the citizen:

    1.    We experience ourselves & others as neighbors. We interact with and face others (family, friends, strangers and enemies) in close proximity. We live in the same neighborhoods. We see them daily or frequently. We aren’t necessarily intimate with them, but we do recognize them. They are familiar and native to our places. Our experience of/with them seems to carry a moral or ethical dimension. 

    2.    We experience ourselves & others as inhabitants. We share, exchange, own, and bargain with others (family, friends, strangers and enemies). We may or may not live in close proximity to them. We may live in the same state, but not necessarily in the same neighborhood. We don’t see them everyday or recognize them, but we do recognize our need of them. Our experience of/with them may carry a moral or ethical dimension, but it definitely carries an economical dimension. 

    3.    We experience ourselves & others as subjects. We experience others (family, friends, strangers and enemies) who are governed and protected by institutional rules, rights, and laws. They are members of shared associations. We may or may not live in close proximity. We may or may not see them daily or frequently. We may or may not recognize them. We may or may not feel any need for them. Our experience of them may or may not carry an ethical or economical dimension. But our experience of/with them carries a political and/or legal dimension. 

[involuntarymemoir]

Seneca on the citizen

As of late, I’ve been finishing up a book proposal for an interested publisher. The proposal is dragging its feet, not me. The topic is spiritual disciplines as social practices for cultural renewal. I’m already thinking of a sequel that ties the formation of personal character and etiquette with spiritual disciplines and exemplary citizenship. Though it will be written for a general audience, I secretly want it to be a backdoor critique of the narrowness of theorizing in normative ethics and regnant notions of the person in citizenship studies. Anywho, I’ve been looking for fodder. I’ve found some nuggets in Max Scheler. But I’m currently teaching Seneca’s Dialogues and found a gem in his piece to Serenus, Nero’s police commissioner. It’s typically translated as “On Tranquility.” I think I want this to be the epigraph. 

 “The efforts of a good citizen are never useless; by being heard and seen, by his expression, gesture, silent determination, by his very gait he is of service.” 

[involuntarymemoir]

Life Statement

This year I'm trying to get my students to think in terms of ultimate ends and goods. What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of athletics? Of course, they already think in terms of means. But ends, well, that's a different story. At first, I considered having them write a Rule of Life. But the more I thought about this I realized that they need to do some groundwork first. Before they write up how they should relate to things and conduct themselves, they first need to think about things and the purpose of these things. So, I came up with this assignment. Let me know what you think, and if you have any suggestions. Here is an excerpt from one of my syllabi:

As a final project, you will develop a life statement. Drawing on our discussion of various thinkers on the nature and purpose of life, I want you to state what you think is the meaning of life, the purposes and proper ends of particular things, and how you, as a human being, are supposed to treat these things and help bring them to their proper end. (You may agree or disagree with Plato, Seneca, Aquinas, or Hume on some of these things; either way, provide an argument for your view). It needs to be five (5) pages single-spaced. You will submit it for my review several times in the course of the semester. This is meant to help you stay diligent, enable me to give you feedback, encourage you, and offer some thoughts in response. Focus on the following four “relationships.” Take the following questions as a guide, not a checklist—there may be other questions you want to address. 

 Yourself

What is your purpose in life? Why are you here? 

What should you pursue? What should orient your life?

Is life about experiences and pleasure, or is it more than this? 

s health important? Why? Should you exercise? Is it possible to exercise too much?

 Other human beings (family, friends, lovers, children, strangers, enemies) 

How close/intimate should you be with your parents and siblings? Should you take care of them in old age? Should you send them money? Should you hang out with your brothers or sisters?

Of what use are friends? What is a friend? What's the difference between a friend and an acquaintance? Should we treat everyone the same? 

How should we treat our lover? Is s/he more important than you? Should you make personal and professional sacrifices for him/her?

How should we raise our children? Should we raise them or should we send them to grandma's, daycare, foster care, or boarding school? Should we teach them our beliefs and practices or let them think for themselves? Are we obligated to teach them anything about life?

How should we treat our neighbor? Should we invite him over for dinner? How should we treat (illegal) immigrants? Should we give the homeless man money? 

How should we interact with our “enemies?” Who are our enemies? 

 Lower animals (pets, wild animals)

How should we treat our pets? Should we treat them like children? Should we buy them healthy, organic foods? Do we have a moral obligation to own a pet? 

Should we kill spiders in our house when we find them? Should we hunt for sport? When it is appropriate to kill a "lower" animal?

 Land and material resources (money, property [home, car], clothing)

Should wealth be our ultimate pursuit? 

How many houses or cars should we have? How should we use them? 

How large of a wardrobe should we have? Should we aspire to buy thrift store clothes, Target, Brooks Brothers or Gucci?

[involuntarymemoir]

Every parent has a favorite.

[involuntarymemoir]

Citizenship and the common good

When I get around to it, my second book will deal with citizenship. I want to push back on our definition(s) and categories of the term, as well as the very meaning it holds for us. For most, citizenship is a term reserved exclusively for the political sphere. And by the latter we think in terms of nation, state, government, law, etc. (In other words, when we think politics, we think organized structures, not the organism that is the body politic). It's a legal status (with documentation to prove it) conferred by an institution (government), accompanied by tasks ("go vote"). I want to push back on this thin definition and suggest that there's so much more to citizenship than this. 

I'm still thinking through this, but I want to do this by getting to the nitty gritty of our experience as persons inhabiting shared spaced. We are denizens before we are recognized as citizens (think of unborn children), and the two are inseparable. As persons, inhabiting shared space, recognizing the presence of a nation, state, government, and so on, what does citizenship mean to us? What are our experiences as citizens (perceptions, judgments, imaginings, and expectations)? Doesn't being a good citizen have as much to do with how we host dinner parties and coach soccer teams as it does with not committing tax fraud or voting. I like to think of this approach as a phenomenology of citizenship. 

I think this approach will help us close several gaps in our thinking, namely, our spiritual and physical lives, private and public spaces, political and social dimensions, and so forth. I really want to deal with the common good a little bit, too. This term gets thrown around a lot. I’m thrilled; it’s a great term to keep in the foreground. But few are quick to define it. We could use a new, working definition of the term in our “secular,” pluralistic, democratic society. I, in particular, would like to explore what the common good might look like when citizens are suspicious of political structure itself. What is the common good . . . no, what can the common good be when the body politic has disdain for political authorities, distrusts law enforcement, and doesn’t think in terms of public welfare, among other things? What “good” is possible? Can it be common?

Anyhow, I’m currently collecting fodder and quotes for the book, while jotting things here and there. Jacques Maritain’s Man and State is one of the books I’m teaching in my Thomistic Philosophy course this semester. (I’m the only Protestant in our dept. and I’m the one teaching Aquinas. I love it. I consider it my christening.) And it just so happens that Maritain is addressing some of things I want to discuss in the book. I’m about halfway through it, and I came across a few juicy lines I wanted to share.  

 “The entire man—though not by reason of his entire self and that he is and has—is part of the political society; and thus all his community activities, as well as his personal activities, are of consequence to the political whole.” 

 “Family, economic, cultural, educational, religious life matter as much as does political life to the very existence and prosperity of the body politic. Every kind of law, from the spontaneous, unformulated group regulations to customary law and law in the full sense of the term, contributes to the vital order of political society.” 

 “The common good is not only the collection of public commodities and services which the organization of common life presupposes: a sound fiscal condition, a strong military force; the body of just laws, good customs, and wise institutions which provides the political society with its structure; the heritage of its great historical remembrances, its symbols and its glories, its living traditions and cultural treasures. The common good also includes the sociological integration of all the civic conscience, political virtues and sense of law and freedom, of all the activity, material prosperity and spiritual riches, of unconsciously operating hereditary wisdom, of moral rectitude, justice, friendship, happiness, virtue and heroism in the individual lives of the members of the body politic.”

[involuntarymemoir]

Nerding out with my midget BFF. #readcation #writecation #drinkcation (at Downtown Orlando)

[involuntarymemoir]

Church square park #Hoboken

[involuntarymemoir]

diversity workshop

Caldwell University is hosting a “Mini-University on Diversity” this week. Yesterday, a theologian and I conducted a workshop on how to “embrace diversity without endorsing relativism.” Though the topic sounds abstract, it was actually quite practical. We proposed healthy classroom practices that we think facilitate a positive view of diversity among students and invite them to think critically…

View On WordPress

[involuntarymemoir]

Intellectual Humility seminar books arrived. Sheesh. Life is hard for a slow reader.

[involuntarymemoir]

Sleepy Hollow. Terror assuaged by aqua vitae. #Hoboken

[involuntarymemoir]

Hannah Arendt Interview, Zur Person

Hannah Arendt Interview, Zur Person

One of my favorite thinkers, Hannah Arendt.

View On WordPress

[involuntarymemoir]

Crombie on Plato on Justice

Crombie on Plato on Justice

If you’ve never read Plato’s Republic, you’re really missing out. There are many, many facets to the book that elicit appreciation.

This is the second semester I’m teaching it. Not only am I appreciating it more that last semester, but I’m wanting to dig much deeper. And as I make forays into political and social theory in my own work, I’m struck by the comprehensive and detailed ideas of this…

View On WordPress

[involuntarymemoir]

appreciating disobedience

This will sound like heresy to some, twisted to others, and strange to most.

A few nights ago I was reading Dickinson. I don’t recall exactly what in Dickinson prompted it, but I had an overwhelming sense of gratefulness for my kids. I tend to take it for granted that I have two healthy kids. All appendages are intact. All faculties (seem to be) operative. Both are sweet and cute. Biologically,…

View On WordPress

[involuntarymemoir]

love your intellectual "enemies"

love your intellectual “enemies”

When’s the last time you willingly listened to one of your critics? How about the last time you sought out or approached him? Or when’s the last time you listened to him, and actually heard him?

(more…)

View On WordPress