PunkIsrael

Stuff-ology

Every time I start to think about moving, I think about my stuff, and how annoying it is to have all of this stuff.

Then I think about getting rid of most of my stuff.

Then I feel righteous for wanting to get rid of my stuff.

Then I realize that my spiritual sensibilities are not as precious as I think, and that I am merely lazy and don't want to move all of this stuff.

---

Randy Alcorn wrote a book almost 20 years ago called "Money, Possessions, and Eternity." He says there's two errors we can fall into when it comes to our stuff. One is blatant materialism, popularized by the health and wealth preachers, whose basic message is that Jesus died on the cross so we can have better stuff. The goal of the Christian life, it seems, is to make Jesus look good by acquiring more and flashier stuff.

Another error is asceticism, which teaches that having little or no earthly stuff earns us spiritual money to buy heavenly stuff. This one is subtler than the previous one. We see someone who has given up stuff entirely, and we think, "aren't they spiritual?" But God made stuff, and He doesn't mind our having stuff. We're just not supposed to worship it.

Here's a poem I wrote about the desire for stuff we don't have:

Introit

My dog’s dearest wish: squat legs and fishhook claws
to mimic the zero-gravity antics of squirrels.

My wall’s dearest wish: better bone structure,
to halt this swayback travel downward.

My rug’s dearest wish: a trip to Arabia,
to sample pedigree and aviation.

My roof’s dearest wish: a hurricane, to suck it up
into the storm for once, instead of crouching in dread.

My car’s dearest wish: shocks tense as prayer,
to bound over potholes and railroad tracks.

My heart’s dearest wish: a poem that strikes
at forever so squarely, and money to buy it with.

Metanarrative

Reading Tim Keller's new book, I was especially struck by his simple yet penetrating critique of Foucault: he points out that Foucault's central thesis (all truth is will to power) is itself a power claim. Despite Foucault's constant efforts to demote his own thesis, to enter the discourse without exercise of power, the thesis re-emerges, which leads me to believe that even postmodern culture, with its "suspicion of metanarrative" cannot entirely avoid metanarrative.

We cannot avoid synthesizing our experience into overarching claims to truth. For instance:

Marx: "All truth emerges in the midst of class struggle"
Science: "Rational inquiry will lead us to greater truth"
Secularism: "Truth emerges from justice and education"

If Foucault's reluctant thesis is subject to its own critique, then it occurs to me that metanarrative claims are subject to their own critique. This may sound elementary to some, and I freely admit I'm a slow study when it comes to philosophy. But it opens some interesting doors.

Marx: "All truth emerges in the midst of class struggle"--itself is a class-based claim, available only through education and the ability to critically analyze culture.

Science: "Rational inquiry will lead us to greater truth"--depends on a rationalistic idea of rational inquiry. Rationality begs the question, "what is rational?"

Secularism: "Truth emerges from justice and education"--like Marxism, depends on education. But at what point did education become available?

These are preliminary thoughts, and not fully-orbed critiques, so please be gentle. But I had a seminary professor who used to say, "all arguments are ultimately circular."

I'm beginning to understand what he meant.