Appropriate
adjective/əˈprōprēət/
Origin
Late Middle English: from late Latin
Like birds, we latch onto various bits and pieces we find throughout our lives and use these to make our nests. Confirmation bias wants to get a word in edgewise here - but I will not allow it!
The heresy of Nationalism (more properly called Phyletism) may be simply explained as a group of people who have appropriated the prophecy & promises given to one nation (Israel) to their particular enclave. As with most if not all heresies this one has been repeated down through the ages by one group after another: perhaps the most famous of which is America itself - as if the actual nation of America were the fulfillment of the prophecies given to Abraham: manifest destiny.
Perhaps less obvious is that the Jews as a nation also appropriated these promises. You may question this - after all the promises were given to a particular person (Abraham) and his descendants (the Jews) - so if the promise was to them, where does the “appropriation” (taking ownership of something that was not originally yours) come in? Hebrews 11v13: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.” What is being described here is not the country of Israel; it is not the country of America; it is not the country of any particular Christian denomination or movement.
In other words these promises are such that you cannot appropriate them: you must instead make yourself a part of them. Less of weaving them into your own nest and more nesting inside them. At this point remember Joshua’s encounter with the Captain of the Lord of Hosts. (Joshua 5:13)
A denomination I know of (I have changed the name, as one does, to protect the innocent) attempted to bypass this particular Catch 22 (i.e., that a denomination (flesh & blood) cannot inherit the Kingdom of God) by saying that not only were they not a denomination (this was one small step further than the by-then standard practice of calling one's group “non-denominational”) but by naming themselves “The Will” - which was short for “The Will of God” - which is to say by definition if you are a part of “The Will” you are a part of what God is currently doing, hence a (the?) partaker of the promises. The intent is laudable - however, there are two issues which immediately prevent success. Firstly, denomination simply means name. There is no way to escape this doom: the simple act of talking about one's group automatically invokes some kind of naming convention - and there you are, stuck on that particular tar baby. Secondly, there is the human tendency to build tabernacles at particular moments of transfiguration - as if by doing so one could cement an anointing in place. You might as well try to preserve the dozen roses given or received as a token of love. These efforts do not meet with success - as I mentioned before the anointing resists being woven into one’s own nest.
Another specific example involving this same group concerns the works of C. S. Lewis. Here, the books of Narnia were taken to pertain to what this particular group was doing: as if (by divine inspiration and predestination) the words had finally found their elemental raison d’etre (again, manifest destiny) in the acts & resolves of this particular group. If one had “left Narnia” (as Susan abandoned Narnia for makeup and such, as near as we can tell) this had a particular circumstantial flavor. The Dwarves in “The Last Battle”, huddled around in their little circle and feasting on bits of old turnip in a dark stable, could not see the bright reality of the kingdom come: they were “so afraid of being taken in that they could not be taken out”. As this group was the realization of the kingdom come here on earth this was taken to mean that there was no way across the gulf to rescue those who, content (or at least resigned) with their mouldy turnips & no humbug, could not have their eyes opened to see true reality. Ironically this works both ways: it is equally impossible to reach across the gulf to those on the “inside” and persuade them of any truth on the “outside” - forewarned is forearmed. But more of this in another place - see the article “Sacred and Profane” by Malcom Gladwell.
There is an interesting post about the song / poem “Jerusalem” which can be found here. I think some appropriation may have gone on here…!
It is a noble aim to desire something pure. But the body of Christ remains at once an unattainable vision of purity - “I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will dwell with them.” Rev 23v3 - and for now a mixed-up and essentially human, down-to-earth, imperfect, halt, lame & blind entity. To be able to hold these two truths at once, to be able to accept the latter despite how it falls short of the former, is essential. “For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” One must open the self to be a part of the real body - which is larger and more dysfunctional than we would prefer and expect. When butchering an animal there is the initial line drawn between oneself and the carcass. Touched, hands must be washed and ceremonial rites of cleansing accomplished. Yet, once the knife is grasped and the first cuts made - the warmth of the body, entrails & all, accepted rather than recoiled from - the work becomes an unexpected joy. It is a simple switch in the thinking which applies to most work a man must do.
Kirk Winslow gives a testimony which I will here paraphrase. You can hear the whole embedded in this podcast episode - about halfway through is where the story starts:
Kirk is standing in St Pauls, London. He is a new Christian & very troubled by his uncertainty about his own place in the church and, more recently, by the terrible history he has learned & witnessed while touring London - tortures, crusades: the great and terrible troubled history of the Church. As he stands there, gazing at the painting “The Light of the World” by William Holman Hunt,
with all these thoughts running through his mind he hears God speak to him - while not an audible voice as clear as a bell nevertheless - "These are my people. This is my body. This whole institution? It is mine, and I'm not picking a different thing. It is messed up, to be sure. The whole thing - tower of London? Bad scene. Inquisition? Not good. Crusades? Not my idea. But here's the deal: if I can get my church through THAT I can get it through anything you're going to face. So if you are going to be a part of me (and the implication was - you are) then you WILL be a part of THIS, from here on out."
When I heard this it strongly resonated with me so much so that I felt I was hearing the voice myself. “If you are going to be a part of ME then you WILL be a part of THIS.”
Circling back to the idea of appropriation, what is wrong with the idea of making something your own? Is this really wrong and if so, can anyone actually escape? Has there ever been a life free from copying others? Looking back on my own life I would say that appropriation - the idea of taking ownership of something - has many times been a powerful force to the good. It can transform the way you live your life, do your work, love your family. However - the act of taking ownership can also be an act of shutting out - of exclusivity. If you make something your own it then may not belong to “the others”.
Consider the time honored tradition of citation. Scholarly articles always try to avoid plagiarism. If you like someone else’s idea and want to include it in your “nest” it is important to include a reference to the fact that you have included a snippet of someone else’s work inside your own - a citation. At first glance I thought this might be an example of the type of inoculation needed - a necessary talisman against improper “appropriation”. However as I started to think it through I realized that stripping the author’s name from a quotation also strips it of much of its power. Perhaps the danger lies not so much in appropriating an idea without giving credit where it is due, but in appropriating an idea with the author in tow, will he nill he. This can be clearly seen when looking at the ultimate example - that of the promises made by God. If someone were to appropriate these without referencing the author (God) they would obviously miss the most important part… If someone can successfully appropriate them with God in tow, “nothing will be restrained from them”. There are many examples that come to mind - but the cautionary note is that God will have none of it:- “I never knew you”.
What then is the necessary inoculation against improper appropriation? I am coming to the conclusion that it is the inclusion of others in one’s life. Where the tendency is individual-centric then the opening up must be to include a family of some sort. As a Christian, this would naturally extend to some sort of “church family”. Where dealing with the larger picture of the Body of Christ, this becomes the inclusion of, and the opening up to, other Christian groups.
It would not be fair at this point not to give credit where due (and perhaps rope in another unwilling reference!). This is C. S. Lewis on why he went to church: “But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off. I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren't fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit." God in the Dock, pp. 61-62.
Following on from this, where there is a tendency for the church family to think themselves special - let there be a deliberate opening up, an inclusion, of “other” - whether they be those who sing “fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music” (- Lewis) (NB - I can easily imagine an individual I know well using these same words in reference to mainstream Christian worship vs their own!). Let there be an awareness that, just as the individual may understand themselves to be a unique part of the Body of Christ by way of thinking themselves an ear, or a hand, or an elbow; that each church family is similarly unique and also just a small part of a vast whole.
There is no problem with each group having a name: so long as one only uses it as part of the extensional bargain which encapsulates all the communication our species takes part in: we must name things to discuss them. But it may be helpful, given our human frailty, to use names which do not contain in themselves a claim to exclusivity.
As Joseph Benson would have it: - “Psalm 139:16. Thine eyes did see my substance — Hebrews גלמי, my rude mass, as Dr. Waterland renders the word: massa rudis et intricata adhuc, says Buxtorf, neque in veram formam evoluta, a mass, yet rude and entangled, and not unfolded into proper form. When the matter, out of which I was made, was an unshapen embryo, without any form, it was visible to thee how every part, however minute, would be wrought; and in thy book all my members were written — Before any of them were in being they lay open before thy eyes, and were discerned by thee as clearly as if the plan of them had been drawn in a book.”
No comments:
Post a Comment