I decided to try something else. Not sure what will happen here.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
I was recently accused of being an egomaniac. Wikipedia defines egomania as,
an obsessive preoccupation with one's self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation.
Given the situation of the accusation I felt like the charge stuck and I tried to take it for it was and sit with it. What I began to wonder was the extent to which context can nurture or expose egomania. I know I function basically in a selfish mode for most of given day but by and large I think I can attend to the needs and concerns of the people around me and to whom I am responsible. And in many times and places the above definition simply does not fit. However, I wonder if there are contexts which I simply do not have resources for. What if there are contexts in which all typical approaches and appeals fail? What do I do then? In that arena I seem to hold on to a slender notion of self. I become, in almost an absolute sense, self-centered. I had hoped or thought I was in a context which would support or 'feed' my sense of self and in turn I found no 'connection', no sustenance.
This is probably a simple issue of affirmation. There are many contexts in my life where I don't really care to get affirmation, it's always nice to receive it but I move through these space without that felt need. I am self-sufficient. But there are places where I look for an affirming sense of orientation and stability. I have already (rightly or wrongly) identified there and when I do not meet myself there then there is break. This is the case in academic/critical theological discourse. I have already identified with these spheres and when those spheres are not at play in other areas of life my self remains intact but when I do not find my self in those spheres or my perceived self is criticized or rejected then there is a break. And rather than an initial humbling response my self actually grows, becomes manic and it becomes an absolute and singular eye seeing and encompassing the world.
Both postures I think are wrong. Self-sufficiency may be latent ego-mania and self-instability is manifest ego-mania. The self may well be entirely contingent and truly unstable but there is not only one posture of instability. Right now it feels like I am reading everything through a Kierkegaardian lens but here it feels very appropriate. There is an initial nourishing and critical 'I' that is the self-God relationship. This is a disciplined self, a gifted self, a non-stable but infinitely secured self, a self always in motion as it is in relation to the one who moves.
I was also told that I say a lot of bullshit . . . sigh.
Monday, June 14, 2010
I can always remember living in two worlds. One was in my head and the other was in the world. The outlet of one was exploration and adventure in my sprawling farmyard growing up and the other was careful and cautious navigation of relational expectations. As I grew older and became drawn to more abstract theory I felt the conviction that such pursuit (adventure as I saw it) was useless and so for much of my adult life I lived in contexts where I felt forced to make decisions in in relation to my thinking where other environments would not have made such demands (I am thinking here of the social conditions of some urban centres where one is faced directly with larger societal choices). In time, for work, I have moved away from such contexts. In this most recent process I have responded to any internal/external convictions about theory with the notion that I am embodied theory, there is no distinction between theory and practice. Theory is a practice. I still believe this but I am coming to realize that I may not be currently theorizing well.
I am experiencing a greater disconnect between my theoretical and theological pursuits and my professional role. I wonder why I have not written and reflected more directly on my actual professional roles? Why I have sought to maintain a certain divide in this area? I would like to write more about my profession as a pastor but I do not. I have an uneasiness. I have not integrated my intellectual world and my professional world. This can be noted in the maintenance of my online handle (IndieFaith) and the recent relatively consistent addition of dcl_driedger. I am uneasy that people who know me directly in my professional life will begin to get to know me in my intellectual life (which is somewhat represented in this space). What is the uneasiness? At one point I simply felt it was too difficult, too many bridges to build in order to communicate what I was reading with what I was doing . . . but that is laziness. I have also felt that I would be dismissed and criticized for producing work that was neither of a very high academic caliber nor of a very relevant or accessible form. In some ways I felt that an interested 'lay' response was the most the devastating critique. This is stupid . . . Yes, yes it is.
The situation is not quite as difficult in preaching. The translation is performed more easily in preaching where I can draw allusions and illustrations from various sources that have inspired or illuminated my thinking without actually needing to outline and clarify all the nuances of the person being cited. However, what I am thinking of is the class of youth exploring baptism. Our church's muddled concept of communion. My own dissatisfaction with the practice of pastoral care. The need to navigate and understand church systems and politics. The church's desire to be a blessing in the world. Christian identity as such.
In many of these expressions I find myself grasping for resources I do not have readily at hand. I still believe that I am informed by my intellectual pursuits but I am afraid that what ends up happening is an implicit appeal to older 'theories' of church because I cannot theorize 'on my feet' in some specific contexts. This results in a professional expression that I am not pleased with and where I feel that I done justice neither to my intellect nor to my faith. And so I hope to remedy this perceived lack. Here are a few concrete expressions I hope to pursue in the near future.
1. Soren Kierkegaard's Works of Love as a source, critique and inspiration for pastoral care.
2. An exploration of communion in conversation with Yoder, Ward, Marion, Cavanaugh, and Pound.
3. The epistemological implications of the Body of Christ. What I am thinking here is modes of discourse. I have been challenged by recent conversations over at AUFS but have not been satisfied with the notion of acceptable discourse practices advocated there. I wonder if Paul's explication of the Body and the unity and diversity of spiritual gifts speaks to a more varied epistemology which embraces the critical discourse but also accepts equally other modes in manner that does not 'hedge' knowledge in self-legitimating ideology.
4. The ecclesiological implications of the book of Revelation. I just love Revelation right now and hope to post more on it. Perhaps this will be a more critical expository thread with engagement in the Greek text.
This may be ambitious but I wanted to lay it down for my own accountability. I need to be making a shift here and I hope these topics can provide me with a more nuanced and thoughtful approach to my professional role.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
With respect to the post below I see it more clearly now. While I jokingly referred to AUFS as my persecutors (and therefore myself as martyr) I see that perhaps what is happening is the attempt by some of the AUFS folk to walk into a public space which is not neutral in which powers exist and are exercised but they walk in with the knowledge that no 'pious gestures' will shield and protect them and if there is any value in this space it will come only in the witness of their accessible life, their bodies as it were. This is of course all too dramatic (and likely problematic) but I am not yet ready to lose the imagery.
Posted by IndieFaith at 10:08 PM
Friday, June 11, 2010
A recent response by APS on AUFS's blog thread read,
so you’ve essentially [p]ut a little hedge around your beliefs and ideas so they can’t be criticized. That’s called ideology, which is surely a part of religion, though not one that I think should be encouraged.
The issue as I take it is the manner in which theological discourse is open for public engagement and mutual correction/criticism. At first I thought APS's remarks were a little harsh (though they were not directed at myself). I had this response because the folk at AUFS (that I am engaging with) are not working with a neutral space for such correction/criticism. It is a space in which one must decide whether the parameters are acceptable for or worth engagement. While I do not believe that there are neutral public spaces (and I am not saying that these folk advocate that either) I do accept 'the public' as an arena of contestation. The Christian faith, as I would read it, is not concerned with what parameters the public may place on its presence (though it is concerned with what parameters it may place) but embraces, rather, that it is in the public that the faith is ultimately manifest or at least cycled (I am thinking dramatically of martyrology . . . yes AUFS you are my persecutors!! . . . to ease interpreting prior line think misplaced irony and smiling emoticon).
I am trying in as much as is possible to discard those instruments that buffer a more direct encounter with 'the public' that I might continually be exposed to those things I use to secure my position so that my thought and action can be refined (to use a pious expression!). I certainly do not claim that the people I am engaging with share this understanding and I am only articulating what is emerging for myself as I ask the question of what value this engagement offers. So I am increasingly happy to cede to various parameters because it is for my benefit (selfishly) with the hope that to the extent that I continue to be embedded in the institutional church it might also be for its benefit.
Posted by IndieFaith at 4:23 PM
Kierkegaard's Works of Love - Part II - Mercifulness, a Work of Love, Even if It Can Give Nothing and Is Capable of Doing Nothing
Kierkegaard begins with a passage from Hebrews, "Do not neglect to do good and to share" but then quickly adds his own reading, "But also do not forget that this perpetual worldly talk about doing good and well-doing and charity and charities and gifts and gifts is almost mercilessness. SK's main thrust in this section is against the 'do-gooders' as it were. Why? Because of the mercilessness this position lays upon the 'poor.'
The poor man groans in church as he hears the pastor preach on and on about charity and doing well towards the less fortunate. He groans not that more well-doing be directed towards him but he groans against the pastor because this sermonizing of well-doing in fact becomes the great injustice. Charity in the sense of giving is derivative not primary. Mercifulness is primary and charity flows from it. SK seeks in vain where we might find space in Christian discourse about the acts of mercy that the poor themselves practice.
We shall hold to this point in our discussion of mercifulness and take care lest mercifulness be confused with external conditions, which love as such does not really have within its power; whereas true love has mercifulness in its power, just as love has a heart in its bosom. Because a person has a heart in his bosom, it does not follow that he has money in his pocket, but the first is nevertheless by far the more important and certainly decisive with respect to mercifulness. . . . It follows of itself that if the merciful person has something to give, he gives it very willingly. But this is not what we want to concentrate our attention upon but on this, that one can be merciful without having the least to give. And this is of great importance, since really to be able to be merciful is a far greater perfection than to have money and consequently to be able to give.SK then offers alternatives to the stories of the Good Samaritan and the Widow's Mite. What if the Samaritan had no horse and no money but carried the man as far as he could, pleaded for help, then sought a safe place for the man to rest, though the man died. Would this have been less an act of mercy? Or what if the widow with her two pennies was on her way to the temple but en route she was tricked out of them or was robbed and had nothing to offering in the temple. Would her act then be dismissed? Was she required to give something material? SK cannot embrace this basic understanding because
the world has understanding only for money - and Christ only for mercifulness. . . . Of all you that you have seen there is nothing you can be so sure will never enter heaven as - money. On the other hand, there is nothing heaven is so certain about as mercifulness. Therefore you see that mercifulness infinitely stands in no relationship to money.And so in the world it is money, money, money. All is geared towards a relationship with money rather than the primary God-relationship. If the shift towards mercy can be made then everything shifts and talk of charity towards the poor is recognized as merciless. Charity to the poor 'traps' the poor in their poverty. But mercy asks of the 'poor' that they indeed practice mercy for our sakes. Be merciful SK cries to the poor,
Do not let envious pettiness of this worldly existence finally corrupt you in such a way that you are able to forget that you can be merciful, corrupt you in such a way that a false shame squelches the best in you. . . . Be merciful, be merciful toward the rich. Remember that you have this within your power, although he has money! Therefore do not misuse this power; do not be unmerciful enough to call down the punishment of heaven upon his mercilessness! . . . For mercifulness works wonders. . . . O, how many has money made merciless - if money shall also have the power of making merciless those who have no money: then the power of money has conquered completely! But if the power of money has conquered completely, then mercifulness is altogether abolished.In emphasizing that mercy can do nothing SK turns to the aesthetic and asks whether or not "a painter might portray mercy." SK says that it cannot be done. The painting can portray charity buy not mercy. The painting can portray the two mites given but not that that it is all the woman has. And what of the mercy one who is incapacitated? They cannot be portrayed as merciful but as the object of mercy.
And then in some repeated act of repentance SK turns again to the one can 'do nothing at all.'
Do not forget to be merciful! Be merciful. This consolation, that you can be merciful, let alone the consolation that you are that, is far greater than if I could assure you that the most powerful person will show mercy to you. Be merciful to us more fortunate ones! Your care-filled life is like a dangerous criticism of loving providence; you have it therefore in your power to make us anxious; therefore be merciful!SK then begins to climax. The temporal demands that we always do what we can to remedy every need. But the danger becomes the possibility that mercy will not be practised in the midst of it. Mercy cannot be positioned in any place other than as a primary work of love.
The fact is that the world does not understand the eternal. Temporal existence has a temporal and to that degree an activist conception of need and also has a materialistic conception of the greatness of a gift and of the ability to do something to meet need. 'The poor, the wretched may die - therefore it is important that help be given.' No answers the eternal; the most important is that mercifulness be practised or that the help be the help of mercifulness. 'Get us money, get us hospitals, these are the most important!' No, says the eternal; the most important is mercifulness. That a man dies is, eternally understood, no misfortune, but that mercifulness has not been practised is. (emphasis mine)The eternal will not budge on this matter. The material is irrelevant for all will die in this life. The manner is what matters. And so mercy may be in great and small gestures. But the smaller and the nothing is where mercy can be most clear as it sheds the temptation to view the 'spectacular externality which has an accidental kind of significance.'
Mericfulness is the truly significant; the hundreds of thousands or in a worldly way to do everything is the significant gift, the significant aid. But the truly significant is indeed that which must be looked at; the secondarily significant is indeed that which must be looked away from. And out of mistrust of yourself you therefore desire the removal of that from which you must look away - alas, but the world thinks it is much easier to achieve awareness of mercifulness when it gives hundreds of thousands than when it gives a halfpenny.SK again affirms that mercy may be present in both the nothing and everything but that the everything has greater temptation to distract from mercy. Even Peter's gesture of offering neither silver nor gold but what he has in healing the lame man draws attention somewhat away from mercy towards the miracle. For mercy never become clearer than when it can do nothing at all; for then there is nothing at all to hinder seeing definitely and accurately what mercifulness is.
To learn mercy one must learn from the eternal. Temporality will always be concerned with the gift and not the giving.
These reflections return in many ways to SK's basic contour of love which is its absolute accessibility. There can be no parameters which bar love except those parameters created by the individual. No one can bar another from loving and no one can bar another from being merciful.
There are significant issues that would need to be worked through in this account. What I can say at this point is that this does not fall prey to the fault of intention, that what matters is someone psychological framework. The emphasis as I understand it is with respect to orientation. If the act is founded on external change then it remains 'temporal' and ultimately leads to mercilessness. If one is oriented to the eternal then both life and achievement are placed in context and mercy funds any act of charity.
This summary is far to vague and open to valid criticism but I don't have the energy to make it more pointed at this time. I hope to work through this text several times and so hopefully my articulations will also become more pointed.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
I have encountered that period of life where I am becoming reacquainted with my dentist. Those neglected visits have caught up and upon my check-up I was given the option of having them do 'all the work' in one visit or I could spread it out over two of three visits. There was a time when I would want simply to get it over with and suffer through the discomfort in one visit. This time, however, it made sense to spread it out. I take this, in one sense, to be an act of maturity. When faced with discomfort or challenge there is a tendency towards collapsing the tension. We want resolution and so either we drive towards synthesis or reject one or several of the points sustaining the tension.
A recent example of this was my periodic encounter with the threat of disembodiment posed by the internet. In this position I can come to the tempting desire of wanting to collapse the tension between what I see as beneficial and what I see as harmful. If I can reject the benefits (and withdraw my online presence) then I have resolved the tension but at what cost? Perhaps none. It may be that such a decision will only prove edifying for myself and others. But this would not be the result merely of that single decision it would rather assume that I would then venture into and navigate the tensions and paradoxes of other spaces as I can never inhabitant or envelop a collapsed tension but only move in the spaces upheld by tension (and maybe even at times find rest in them).
We cannot collapse the tension of life as a blessing and a curse as much as I can get all my dental work 'over with'. To the extent that I force the collapse of these tensions to that extent I foreclose the possibility of blessing. And here is another paradox. To encounter blessing is to live in curses. Christ's body broken (cursed but spaced for entry). Christ's body resurrected (blessed whole). I am beginning to see my drive towards collapse intellectually and relationally but it is fruitless.
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
- Leonard Cohen
Friday, June 04, 2010
Kierkegaard begins with a long refrain about all manner of difficulties in life but he says love abides. This abiding though must be present relationally. A lover must abide in love and so relate to another. There is present then three, as love itself is present, manifest in an act. If love abides then "if one ceases to be loving, then one never was loving." Because love abides. We can say that we had many things but if we cease to love then we never had love. Because love abides.
The clear example is erotic love. We say that a couple falls out of love. "But this expression Christianity does not recognize, does not understand, is not willing to understand." This is a wonderful corrective (as this book has been full of) for a Christian reconstruction of marriage. Erotic love is not denied but positioned by or flows from neighbour love.
When one speaks of reaching a breaking-point, this is because one is of the opinion that in love there is only a relationship between two rather than a relationship among three.If love was only between two then a break, a falling out, would make sense and would be advantageous to be the breaker if necessary as the broken would be defenceless.
But this certainly would be wretched, if an innocent one should be the weaker. So it is in the world, to be sure, but eternally understood it can never hold together this way. What does Christianity do about it? The earnestness of Christianity immediately concentrates the attentiveness of the eternal upon the singly individual, upon each single individual of the pair.When this occurs then it can be seen that the only break that can occur is of one individual breaking away from love not from the other person. In this way the innocent becomes the stronger so long as he or she does not also fall away from love.
If love were simply and only a relationship between two, then one person would continually be in the other's power, insofar as the other was a base person who could break the relationship. When a relationship is only between two, one always has the upper hand in the relationship by being able to break it, for as soon as one has broken, the relationship is broken. But when there are three, one person cannot do this. The third, as mentioned, is love itself, which the innocent sufferer can hold to in the break, and then the break has no power over him.It is the stronger that suffers as that person falls away from love. And so the true lover never falls away from love and so she never reaches the breaking point as love abides. SK asks then whether it is possible to prevent the breaking point. He admits that in a certain sense it only takes one to break
but just the same, if the lover does not fall away from love, he can prevent the break, he can perform the miracle; for if he perseveres, the break can never really come to be. By abiding (and in this abiding the lover is in compact with the eternal), he maintains superiority over the past; thereby he transforms what is a break in the past and through which a break exists, into a possible relationship in the future.From the perspective of the past the break remains and even grows clearer over time but from the perspective of the future (aided by the eternal) "the break is not a break, but rather a possibility." The past views a broken relationship but the lover sees a relationship not yet completed. So someone breaks off the relationship and says that it is over. But the lover asks how one can know it is over when one cannot predict the future? So there is no contact, silence. But this too can be a part of communication. But it stretches out over the years. This, though, is a perspective from the past. The past has no power of the lover for it only sees what is still possible. The lover abides in the strength of the eternal and is only weakened insofar as she succumbs to the past. In light of this SK speaks of the lover,
What marvelous strength love has! The most powerful word which has been said, yes, God's creative word, is: "Be." But the most powerful word any human being has ever said is, if said by a lover: I abide. Reconciled to himself and to his conscience, God's friend, in league with all good angels, the lover goes without defence into the most dangerous battle; he only says: "I abide." And as he is truly the lover, he will still conquer, conquer by his abiding. . . . As he truly is the lover, there is no misunderstanding which sooner or later will not have to give up and yield to his abiding - in eternity if not sooner.SK concludes this chapter by contrasting the true lover with the erotic lover who waits for her love unto death. Though she remains faithful he love still changes because erotic love is not in the order of eternity. Even the most faithful erotic love wastes away. But true love's only home is eternity as such is always open, always in the moment of reconciliation.
While the conclusion comes off as a little weak it is an important reminder that SK is not talking about erotic love. And so while much of his work can be related to marriage this is not his direct audience. For this reason the conclusion remains useful as this chapter has nothing to do with a poor heartbroken lover who hangs on with hope-against-hope that his or her lover will return. This speaks of someone who can move on from a 'broken' relationship and continue to live in the possibility of the future which includes some form reconciliation as nowhere does SK imply that what would be consummated would be another relationship of erotic love with the past lover but only the love that we are all called to offer our neighbour.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
I am rereading the conclusion to Kierkegaard's Works of Love and will post a more formal summary later but I was struck by a line that again dismantles any notion of how Kierkegaard's self leads to away from a social vision.
O, men so gladly deceive themselves; men so gladly imagine that a person should for his part have, as it were, a private relationship to God. But relationships to God are like relationships to authorities: you cannot speak privately with one in authority about things which are his business - but God's business is to be God.In as much as the self emerges naked before God to that extent the self is brought to account for and in relationship with his or her neighbour.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
I have heard at numerous times in various ways that theology serves as a type of get out of jail free card. That theology tends towards weak thinking. There remains in the realm of intellectualism and academy a form of struggle over positioning, de-positioning, and un-positioning; over claims and counter-claims of oppressive and liberating models, theories. These are good and valuable. But I need to come to grips that at present any participation I have in this forum is towards self-gratification and self-legitimation. Perhaps it would be possible for me to engage in the spirit in which I would like to, that it might lead towards healing. But at current I am not . . . I am not . . . that might be nice.
Theology, for me, is not self-legitimation nor does it represent any sort of 'pass'. Theology is my attempt to think and live faithfully. This has been an uneasy, though sometimes easy and also sometimes painful process, and continues to be; this, though, has left a panorama shot through some with pin-holes of darkness that ease the blinding light. I believe this orients me to a cosmos which is moving seen from a perspective that is shifting . . . but which may still offer navigation . . . as one might navigate something living and more than living . . . resurrected?
I am a weak man (begin to read the beginning of Notes here) . . .
And so I need to turn not initially and not finally and also not away from intellect to spirit, these cannot be divided. But I need to turn more basically. No I need to turn more simply. I need to turn to my rising in the morning. I need to turn to my sitting at meal time. I need to turn to my solitude and to my fellowship. I have been turning to myself, to gut myself, to portion myself a offering of dead flesh . . . but this is a finality that allows for no more turning. And I must, as a human, be able to turn. The church sings,
There is no shadow or turning with Thee
Perhaps, I don't know, but with humans there is only turning.
And in my turning I will turn to and then past and then to again those who think in manners that I do not. I hope only to be blessed by them, though they will not speak the blessing. I do not know where my turning will face and away from whom it will keep me. As I move I am always turning, tilting, shifting. My cheek will need to turn and so will my thinking. I have no doubt in the accompaniment of nausea . . . perhaps there will yet be sea legs but I know I will also turn to land again whose apparent solidity will rock my planted feet.
And what of time?
In turning, eternity
The temporal, tempting
(sorry for the poor verse)
Time came with the Fall. Time came in Adam and Eve's hiding. Time started in the attempt to stop turning. And so since turning is impossible to stop time took up the task to turn and set a limit on life. But that limit is not binding or is only partially binding. For we can yet turn.
This is my theological faith. This turning is always on the horizon of death, but like death there really is no horizon.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
This chapter begins,
The temporal has three times and therefore essentially never is completely nor is completely in any one of the periods; the eternal is. A temporal object can have a multiplicity of varied characteristics; in a certain sense it can be said to have them simultaneously, insofar as in these definite characteristics it is that which it is. But reduplication in itself never has temporal object; as the temporal disappears in time, so also it exists only in its characteristics. If, on the other hand, the eternal is in a man, the eternal reduplicates itself in him in such way that every moment it is in him it is in him in a double mode: in an outward direction and in an inward direction back into itself, but in such a way that it is one and the same, for otherwise it is not reduplication.The eternal is not known by its characteristics but is its characteristics.
So it is with love.
What love does it is and what it is it does.
As it goes beyond itself (in an outward direction) it is in itself (in an inward direction), simultaneously.So it says that the lover creates confidence in the other but in so doing he simultaneously creates confidence in himself.
Note the reduplication here: what the lover does, he is or he becomes; what he gives, he is or, more accurately, this he acquires. . . . In this way love is always reduplicated in itself. This also holds when it is stated that love hides the multiplicity of sins.Now like most things in life when you pay attention to them you find out that there is more and more to them; a greater and greater multiplicity. It is the same way with sin. The multiplicity of sins can become greater and greater. But the one who does not discover this multiplicity, though it may be found, ends up hiding the multiplicity. Our world prizes those who discover, it is a mark of intelligence and ability and so it goes with without saying that "the lover, who discovers nothing, makes a very poor showing in the eyes of the world." We think it is advanced to know the intricacies of evil that lurks even in the purest guise. We maintain our stature as critical and rigorous people by offering, casually, a unique and unexpected example of the corrupted nature of society.
The lover though has, in a sense, a narrowing of vision, "he sees only very little." He does not even discover the mockery that is hurled at him. The lover is like a child placed, for a short time, in den of thieves. The child returns and recounts her time noting all sorts of detail. And yet if one did not know where she was they would also not know that she was among thieves.
What has the child left out; what has the child not discovered? It is the evil. Yet the child's narrative of what he has seen and heard is entirely factual.(As an aside this quotation is reminder of contemporary approaches to narrative therapy in which the dominant or subjugating narrative is objectified and exposed so that an already present, not created, narrative can be recovered.)
SK creates a relational dynamic in the understanding of evil.
At the basis of all understanding lies first of all an understanding between him who is to understand that which is to be understood. Therefore an understanding of evil (however much one tries to make himself and others think that one can keep himself entirely pure, that there is a pure understanding of evil) nevertheless involves and understanding with evil.To understand evil is to have a relational understanding with evil. And if one travels further down this road the multiplicity of sins only increases to the point that he discovers sin where he knows it does not exist. Earlier SK uses the example of a natural scientist who with increased technology and research is limitless in discovery. It could be said here that it is the technology of evil that discovers evil and this to the point that person becomes himself the technology.
SK returns to the child who takes delight in peek-a-boo. But the lover is one who in plain site cannot see something as though it is hidden. In this way the "lover, who is worthy of honour is, as it were, deranged."
But there are times when the individual cannot avoid seeing the sin. In this case the lover hides it "in silence, in a mitigating explanation, in forgiveness." The argument is that in this case the sin remains. But SK's point is that in speaking the sin the lover increases the multiplicity of sins. In this way the lover can do her part by decreasing the multiplicity. The section seems to be speaking comparatively. SK's real concern at the start of this movement is the gossip who revels in knowing and spreading the sin of other.
SK then shifts to the second part of the statement that the lover holds silent in a mitigating explanation. Explanation is that which defines. But explanation is not absolute, variation always exists; explanation is a choice. And so the lover has the choose to hold the most mitigating explanation. Here imagination comes into play. SK asks whether we could not grow with increasing joy and passion in the task of uncovering good intention as much as we revel in those who break down the witness to expose their guilt. It is easy to criticize this position and it is a little weaker than other accounts but it is always set in the context of eternity. We fear that if people don't know their faults then they will continue in them and abuse or mistreat others but for all those who understand eternity or eternally no one is able to fool or deceive the lover and so the task is to create more lovers (read perhaps 'individual') not expose more sinners.
SK concludes acknowledging that silence does not actually take away from the multiplicity and mitigating explanations may remove some things misunderstood to be sin. But there will remain that which we remains which we cannot ignore. SK shifts the conversation towards things seen and unseen.
Forgiveness takes the forgiven sin away. This is a remarkable thought, as it is the thought of faith; for faith always relates itself to what is not seen. I believe that the seen came into being on the basis of that which cannot be seen. . . . The unseen is in this that forgiveness takes away that which nevertheless is; the unseen is in this that what is seen nevertheless is not seen, for when it is seen, its not being seen is manifestly unseen. The lover sees the sin which he forgives, but he believes that forgiveness takes it away. . . . Just as one by faith believes the unseen in the seen, so the lover by forgiveness believes the seen away. Both are faith. Blessed is the man of faith; he believes what he cannot see. Blessed is the lover; he believes away what nevertheless he can see!But the question is still raised whether any real difference occurs in forgiveness. SK responds by saying that in one direction after forgiveness the wound of sin may be the same but it is now cleaned and dressed (it will heal). Though without forgiveness sin grows on sin and the wound grows and spreads. This is helpful in that there is no magic here though there is faith. Something decisive in the order of things has happened though in that very moment the wound may be exactly the same.
Finally SK turns to love as being able to prevent sin from coming into being. Though the sinful person may be indeed sin against love in rage or bitterness, "yet in the long run sin cannot hold out against love." There is no greater restraint and no greater rehabilitation for sin than love. Here again, though SK does not use the image, Christ is the pattern. Theology is the basis for this position. I have experienced many times when a loving disposition stifled the actuality of sin. But there are times when love cannot be endured or accepted by another and one can be injured even to death. And this is Christ. But again in the long run sin cannot hold out against love. Sin leads to death but love overcomes the grave.
This chapter came across as the most practical for me.
1. Learn to live as one (the child) who simply does not see sin.
2. When you see sin do not spread it and explain it in the most gracious manner.
3. Forgive sin, though it changes nothing and everything in the moment.