Canticles of the Unhomed
Friday, December 30, 2005
My Talisman
A talisman is, by definition, an object marked with magic or arcane signs and is believed to confer on its bearer supernatural powers or protection. Or, more generally, something that apparently has magic power.
While I was researching my grad thesis I ran into them all the time. They could be literally anything, but usually was either a relic of a dead person that was thought to have great power, or a small piece of stone or wood carved in the likeness of some diety or patron. It was thought that by carrying or "invoking" the talisman you could share in the power of the person or diety to which the talisman referred. For example, a priest of certain animistic religions would often carry the dessicated finger bone - usually the right ring finger - of their dead master. It was believed that the power of the dead wizard would be transferred, at will, into the living apprentice. This is of course, related to habits of cannibalism and head-hunting in several primitive cultures. The way it was explained to me was that the power is deep in the earth, like a resevoir, and that the user of the magic, ie the wizard/priest/etc is like a wick in a lantern. For the magic to work, the user had to provide a "spark" that would release the power of the magic. The purpose of the talisman would be to provide that spark and to add the dead person - or god's - power of control to the release of the magic. You would often prefer the talisman of your dead master over to the totem of your god, since your master's energy is already more keyed to your own, and gods have a reputation for being notorious capricious. In short, the talisman was an extremely powerful item, if you knew how to use it, and if it was procured in the correct way. If it was a relic of the person, preferrably the best way to collect it was in the final moments of life, and preferrably after YOU kill your master. Also, the more the relic was essential to life, or symbolized the connection of the person to the magic, the more powerful it was, and the more powerful you had to be to use it correctly. The most powerful relics were the heart and penis, though the finger bone was considered an appropriate compromise.
The point of it all was that in using the talisman, for all intents and purposes, you became that person. Ostensibly they were already very powerful and accomplished, and the more you could appear to be that person the better, when you had to trick your god into interceding for you.
I offer all that as prologue. Consider the emergent church's use of Brian McLaren as a talisman. I recently read an article written by him that addresses this issue. Check out the pdf here. He talks about not really knowing the person that people talk about when they use his name/books/etc to support their ideas.
Now, I really like McLaren. In my experience he has been an excellent bridge between emergent practioners and theoreticians. As well, I really resonate with his missional focus.
However, I must admit to using his name like a talisman. Anytime that I needed to add a little weight or authority to my ideas, I would whip out Generous Orthodoxy, or whatever equivalent text and say that the legendary McLaren agrees with me. The name "McLaren," previously only referred to stupidly fast and expensive cars in my brain. Now it has taken on a mythic quality, almost to the point that you could add "the" to the beginning. "THE McLaren." Sounds like a totem to me.
To my eyes, this amounts to history's use of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, AB Simpson, and so on. Those men became symbols for movements that were largely outside their control. Now, we have a different pantheon. Now, there is McLaren, Newbiggin, Sweet, etc. I can see why some are considering the emergent movement in the context of a denomination. We are following the pattern fairly closely.
It was my understanding, and granted I am no emergent guru, that we have no set rules, no strictures, no forms. I thought that the emergent conversation was concerned with the incarnation of mission, the integration of faith and lifestyle and the desire to live in harmony with God in a reality that is hostile toward God. I thought that we were not so much interested in adopting new "presbyters" like McLaren/Sweet/etc, but rather in seeing Christ. Allowing them to inform our conversation, not guide it.
Of course I could be wrong. I have avoided much of the reading and minutia of the emergent movement, for exactly that reason. I have become familar with some of the basics, but largely I want my own personality, my own thoughts to guide me, instead of becoming another Paggitt rip off.
But i could be wrong; I often am.
While I was researching my grad thesis I ran into them all the time. They could be literally anything, but usually was either a relic of a dead person that was thought to have great power, or a small piece of stone or wood carved in the likeness of some diety or patron. It was thought that by carrying or "invoking" the talisman you could share in the power of the person or diety to which the talisman referred. For example, a priest of certain animistic religions would often carry the dessicated finger bone - usually the right ring finger - of their dead master. It was believed that the power of the dead wizard would be transferred, at will, into the living apprentice. This is of course, related to habits of cannibalism and head-hunting in several primitive cultures. The way it was explained to me was that the power is deep in the earth, like a resevoir, and that the user of the magic, ie the wizard/priest/etc is like a wick in a lantern. For the magic to work, the user had to provide a "spark" that would release the power of the magic. The purpose of the talisman would be to provide that spark and to add the dead person - or god's - power of control to the release of the magic. You would often prefer the talisman of your dead master over to the totem of your god, since your master's energy is already more keyed to your own, and gods have a reputation for being notorious capricious. In short, the talisman was an extremely powerful item, if you knew how to use it, and if it was procured in the correct way. If it was a relic of the person, preferrably the best way to collect it was in the final moments of life, and preferrably after YOU kill your master. Also, the more the relic was essential to life, or symbolized the connection of the person to the magic, the more powerful it was, and the more powerful you had to be to use it correctly. The most powerful relics were the heart and penis, though the finger bone was considered an appropriate compromise.
The point of it all was that in using the talisman, for all intents and purposes, you became that person. Ostensibly they were already very powerful and accomplished, and the more you could appear to be that person the better, when you had to trick your god into interceding for you.
I offer all that as prologue. Consider the emergent church's use of Brian McLaren as a talisman. I recently read an article written by him that addresses this issue. Check out the pdf here. He talks about not really knowing the person that people talk about when they use his name/books/etc to support their ideas.
Now, I really like McLaren. In my experience he has been an excellent bridge between emergent practioners and theoreticians. As well, I really resonate with his missional focus.
However, I must admit to using his name like a talisman. Anytime that I needed to add a little weight or authority to my ideas, I would whip out Generous Orthodoxy, or whatever equivalent text and say that the legendary McLaren agrees with me. The name "McLaren," previously only referred to stupidly fast and expensive cars in my brain. Now it has taken on a mythic quality, almost to the point that you could add "the" to the beginning. "THE McLaren." Sounds like a totem to me.
To my eyes, this amounts to history's use of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, AB Simpson, and so on. Those men became symbols for movements that were largely outside their control. Now, we have a different pantheon. Now, there is McLaren, Newbiggin, Sweet, etc. I can see why some are considering the emergent movement in the context of a denomination. We are following the pattern fairly closely.
It was my understanding, and granted I am no emergent guru, that we have no set rules, no strictures, no forms. I thought that the emergent conversation was concerned with the incarnation of mission, the integration of faith and lifestyle and the desire to live in harmony with God in a reality that is hostile toward God. I thought that we were not so much interested in adopting new "presbyters" like McLaren/Sweet/etc, but rather in seeing Christ. Allowing them to inform our conversation, not guide it.
Of course I could be wrong. I have avoided much of the reading and minutia of the emergent movement, for exactly that reason. I have become familar with some of the basics, but largely I want my own personality, my own thoughts to guide me, instead of becoming another Paggitt rip off.
But i could be wrong; I often am.
:: written by Matt Thompson, 12:41 PM
2 Comments:
Interesting ending line--and a great straight line which I will resist...
We do need to guard against using men as "proof" or "authority"--but there is notnig wrong with giving attribution to those you quote.
It's just a matter of how you do it.
And as Spurgeon once said...
(Okay just kidding and invoking your separated at birth twin)
We do need to guard against using men as "proof" or "authority"--but there is notnig wrong with giving attribution to those you quote.
It's just a matter of how you do it.
And as Spurgeon once said...
(Okay just kidding and invoking your separated at birth twin)
I think this is why I've never actually read anything by Brian, except his emails and articles.
Perhaps thats a daring "confession" among emergent types but I got tired of playing the parrot years ago.
If the milestones along my path happen to correspond to something sweet, mclaren or anyone else has said or written it's simply because we are living on the same rock, breathing the same air.
you do well my son
meijuip
Perhaps thats a daring "confession" among emergent types but I got tired of playing the parrot years ago.
If the milestones along my path happen to correspond to something sweet, mclaren or anyone else has said or written it's simply because we are living on the same rock, breathing the same air.
you do well my son
meijuip
