text:
In This Episode << SLIDE LEFT TO SEE ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS
D.A. Carson Extended Interview
Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor D.A. Carson, author of BECOMING CONVERSANT WITH THE EMERGING CHURCH (Zondervan):
What are your main concerns about the emerging church movement?
The movement is enormously diverse, and I really don't want to come across as just panning it. Part of it is concerned with reaching people who are often disenfranchised from what the Bible says or from Christians, and for this sort of concern the emerging people should only be praised, in my view. On the other hand, some are so eager to make adaptations to fit what is understood to be the postmodern mind, or the sensibilities of the so-called "Y Generation," sort of under 25, under-30-year-olds, that parts of what the Bible actually says get shifted to the side. And so what comes across is not, sometimes, the historic Gospel that you actually find in the Bible. If you start losing the good news about Jesus, then the price is pretty high.
Could you give examples of that?
Well, for example, the historic good news of the Gospel right across the centuries has always been concerned not only with excellent relationships and who God is and turning from that which is evil, but it has also been concerned to confess certain things as true. And the opposite of these things, then, is not true. But some in the emerging movement so influenced by postmodern sensibilities find any mention of truth, objective truth, angular or offensive. It might sound intolerant, and so people like to talk about Jesus himself as the truth, so the truth is relational. Well, I want to talk about Jesus as the truth, too. But the same Gospel, the Gospel of John that portrays Jesus as the truth — the truth made flesh, as it were — also insists that certain things are true, and without them the whole good news about Jesus and what he's done and why he came and how he actually transformed us gets lost somewhere in the shuffle. So, the Gospel itself is angular. It always has been. It always conflicts. It always challenges every generation. It challenges different generations in different ways. But it can never be — it should never be simply domesticated to the current sensibilities.
In your book you outline concerns about how some in the movement handle the notion of "truth." What are your concerns when some say, "We're limited human beings, so we may not have the right understandings of truth"? Are there some things we can be certain of?
It is important to say that we can never have the knowledge of God, what might be called an omniscient access to truth — that is the access to truth only a mind that knows everything can actually have. Postmodern sensibilities have, in fact, helped to remind us that we can only know things as finite human beings can know things. But if you set the bar for the possibility of talking about knowledge at the level of omniscience, of actually being able to know something perfectly and absolutely, the bar is just set too high — it's unrealistic. I'd want to say that human beings can know things not with the certainty that belongs only to God, but with all kinds of degrees of certainty on which you base your life — the kinds of knowledge that are appropriate to human beings. Paul goes so far, for example, when he's talking about the resurrection of Jesus, as to say, "If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead" when, in fact, he didn't rise from the dead, under the assumption now that it was made up or something, "then your faith, far from being commendable, is useless, it's vain. In fact, he goes so far as to say, "You are of all people most to be pitied if you are believing something, no matter how sincerely, that isn't true." In the Bible, genuine faith is increased and multiplied by the articulation in defense of truth. If instead you try to make faith merely a sort of existential leap — a kind of "I want to join this community because the benefits seem to me to be good. I will confess the kinds of things this group confesses, without any claim about whether this sort of thing is true," one is leaving an awful lot of the New Testament behind. The price is simply too high to pay.
In your book you are also very critical of some of the theological discussions going on within the emergent church movement. What troubles you?
A very significant percentage, probably the majority of the leaders of this emerging movement — they prefer to call it the emerging conversation rather than the movement — are folk who come from a culturally pretty conservative background, most of whom have not had much significant biblical or theological training, but who have been part, in the words of [Brian] McLaren — it's a lovely expression — on the most conservative twig, on the most conservative branch of the evangelical tree. And then they found this cultural location so narrow or so disassociated from the culture, so removed from where things are happening in our world that eventually they jumped off. They sort of jumped onto a vine and swung to another part of the tree. There's been a pendulum swing away from things. Instead of finding how to reshape things in the light of what the Bible actually says, using the Bible as the norm, the thing that actually establishes how we should live and how we should think and what we should teach, how we should interact with each other, there has been a kind of pendulum swing to another part, away from this conservative cultural isolationism to something else.
Now I want to say that thoughtful Christians should, by all means, try to read the culture; in this regard I am thankful for the concerns of the emerging church. But it would be really good if they did a little more serious Bible study, got a little better training and aimed to be in the center of historic confessionalism rather than merely taking what is, sometimes from my perspective, a bit of a pendulum swing.
Do you feel they are not within traditional, historical Christianity? They say every generation must figure out what it is to be a Christian in their particular time.
The movement is so large that I don't want to answer that with a simple yes or no. Many, many in the movement are certainly in the stream of confessing Christianity but are merely adding a few candles or a bit of liturgy or reshaping how they do corporate worship or having more discussion or whatever and call it "emerging." … Most insist that the Bible really does think of the devil as being a personal individual. But on the other hand, some within this movement disavow that entirely. Although it is true in one sense that every generation has to work things out from the Bible for itself — I don't want to deny that; you shouldn't merely accept formulas from the previous generation — at the same time you learn from other generations, too. It's not as if all wisdom begins and ends with us. That is leaning too hard on a kind of postmodern subjectivism so that nothing can ever be overturned or refuted or corrected. Whereas even in the New Testament documents themselves there was false teaching that was perceived to be false and condemned as false, even within the first century. In other words, the appeal to work something out afresh, to think it through must be made with a kind of humility of mind that listens very carefully not only to the biblical texts themselves but also listens to what Christians have understood across the centuries and does not too easily leap to the present generation, as if its own accounting of these things [is] a certain kind of independent norm.
What cautions do you have for the emerging church movement as it develops?
One of the things I like about them is their emphasis on being authentic. I think that's wise. But the authenticity is so often tied, as far as I can see, to their passion for the emerging movement. It seems to me that Christians ought to be passionate, first of all, about Christ and about the Gospel, about the Good News. And then, of course, things have to be worked out in different contexts — whether you're in an urban setting, or you're working with old-age pensioners or a Y-Generation crowd. By all means, you've got to work things out in a local ministry. But what should characterize Christians is a passion for people because of the Gospel, because of Christ, because of God's love for us in Christ. If people are passionate about that and then are working out cultural challenges — fine, I can live with that. But as soon as someone begins to assume the Gospel and become passionate about something like the emerging movement, I get a little nervous. It's not that there are not really excellent people in the movement who really do believe the Gospel, but when you listen to what they talk about, what they write about, what they go to conferences for, it all has to do with emergent profiles and how you do this and that. It has to do with the in-house jargon of this developing movement. Some of them go as so far to say that if you're not with them, you really are unable to minister at all to this new emerging church, this new generation coming along, which, quite frankly, is a load of piffle. There are some excellent people who are ministering all around the country outside the movement to the people that interest this movement the most.
What I want to see in the movement is less focus on emerging as a category and more focus on the Gospel, because otherwise, if the Gospel is merely the assumed thing rather than the thing about which we are passionate, in another half-generation, another generation, the Gospel itself becomes diluted, even denied. The successors and heirs of the current leaders to the movement will be passionate about the things they are passionate about, and they are being stamped now, it seems to me, by whether they are or are not sufficiently emerging, rather than being stamped by whether they are or are not sufficiently faithful to the historic Gospel.
Do you see this as a fad or as something that will really transform the church?
I think that the movement itself is likely to split. In fact, in some ways it already has. One of the figures, for example, who was instrumental in starting the movement in the early '90s is Mark Driscoll from the Pacific Northwest. He still is extraordinarily fruitful today in multiplying churches and reaching out to people who are not normally touched by other churches. Hats off to him.
Another segment will continue, more or less, doing what it is now doing — that is, using the "emerging" label as the banner flag around which various people coalesce. And others could easily hive off, and, quite frankly, become cultic and dislocated from historic confessionalism at all.
What is your assessment of the role scripture seems to be playing in emergent theology and spirituality?
Many in the movement use scripture in one fashion or another. But I have yet to see any serious work from this camp, studying scripture closely, thinking of scripture carefully. It tends to be a kind of proof-texting, pick-a-text-to-prove-a-point sort of approach rather than really getting inside a biblical book or a chunk of scripture and thinking it out and bowing before it. In other words, scripture really must have a reforming power in our lives. It's got to say where we're wrong as well as encourage us where we're wounded and forgive us where we are repentant sinners, and so forth. The scripture has a lot of different effects. But one of the effects it must have is to correct us. What I do not hear from this camp is the kind of serious wrestling with scripture that will enable scripture to contradict not only modernism but [also] postmodernism. In other words, most in this camp are so concerned about the evils of modernism that they cannot see any dangers at all in postmodern trends in the culture. Or there are very slim and slender dangers that are admitted by way of concession.
In your book, you call some emergent thinking "theologically shallow" and "intellectually incoherent." Why do you think that?
Let me give an example. Two or three or the authors in the movement, for example, when they come to try to understand afresh what Christ accomplished on the cross, proceed by listing some of the ways that Christ's cross work has been understood in the past. For example, some have understood what's called the "Christus Victor" theme, that is, Christ overcomes; he's the victor over sin and death and so forth. Another is that he is in some ways our representative. Another is that he provides a model for absorbing the guilt and penalty. It becomes the model for the way he should live. And still another is that he is our substitute. He bears our death. He bears our penalty. He takes our place and we are permitted to go free. That's why God has accepted us, because Christ has died in our behalf. Now the way this is regularly set out is something like this: Here we are in the history of the church with these various models. They each have strengths or weaknesses. Pick one. Pick two, if you like, and see how they fit in to where you are in your life and live it. Well, I want to argue that is usually a bad use of history … That simply isn't biblically informed. It's not being informed by scripture. It's got a shallow approach to the history of doctrine, in the sense that it's a theologically shallow pick-and-choose sort of approach rather than trying to bring everything so far as we possibly can for the test of scripture.
One of the hallmarks of the movement is that it doesn't want to have preachers from a pulpit or a professor's desk telling Christians what to believe. Shouldn't Christians wrestle for themselves with a lot of these issues?
Sometimes the problem is the way it is set up, as it were. No one believes more strongly than I do that every Christian should be a theologian. In that sense we all need to work it out. I want all Christians who can read, to read their Bibles and to read beyond the Bible — to read the history and theology. By all means read, read, read and, in that sense, interact. I don't want a kind of priestly class of scholars or pastors or theologians who somehow give dictates to the church about what must be believed. One of the great emphases, in fact, of the Reformation is the so-called universal priesthood of all believers. I certainly don't want to give any impression that I have some sort of inside access to God that others don't have or can't have in principle. On the other hand, clearly some people know more than others or live longer, study Scripture more, or the like. After all, that is what these leaders of the movement must think, the way they keep writing books and telling the rest of us what we should be believing about the relationship between the Bible and movement. There are degrees of seniority and experience. What is passed on should not be in a sort of dictate fashion and "You believe this because I said so. You obey me because I'm up and you're down." On the other hand, there are many, many ordinary pastors and teachers of scripture who convey something of the truth of scripture with enormous personal warmth and humility of mind even while themselves conveying something of the authority of scripture itself. This is God's self-disclosure in words. God is a talking God, and thus you must come to wrestle with him. You must wrestle with what he said. And insofar as pastors or preachers or teachers are seen actually to be faithfully representing what is given, then eventually people are not arguing with some authority figure. They are arguing with scripture itself. Of course, I want Christians to wrestle like that. On the other hand, precisely because not everybody is as mature, as informed, as well read as others, this does not mean that every opinion has equal weight in terms of the kind of influence it should have in the church.
There needs to be a place in the church or just outside — there needs to be a place where people feel free to ask questions without being put upon, where they feel free to ask difficult, challenging questions to voice their skepticism. All of that's necessary; I couldn't agree more. On the other hand, there also needs to be a place where more senior Christians are teaching more junior Christians. Come see for yourself. Read, read. Find out these things for yourself. Grow, grow. There is some material here to learn and not simply give your opinion about.
Are young people today looking for a place to ask spiritual questions or to find answers?
There's often a sort of stereotype to the Y-Generation or postmodern people that they can't stand any authority. In fact, it's even arguable that there's even a swing back in university student profiles and elsewhere — there's a kind of suspicion of people who are so endlessly open that they can never articulate anything. In fact, I'm neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a kind of a cultural swing to the right on some of these issues in the next 20 years. But whether that's the case or not, there is always a segment of the population, even in very fluctuating times, that because the times are fluctuating want a little more stability and structure and order. … Ultimately, if you try to weigh and evaluate and think without having the grist for the mill, it just becomes a pretty empty-headed discussion.
Is it possible to generalize about the emerging movement, since it is so diverse?
One of the reasons why it is difficult to evaluate the emerging church movement fairly is because of its diversity. Some people, especially if they have come from conservative backgrounds, have found themselves disenfranchised in their ability to talk with ordinary people. They've picked up some tips from some of the emerging leaders, and so they think of themselves now as part of the emerging movement. Basically, they're simply ordinary Christians who have just learned a little bit better how to talk with people who aren't Christians and who live outside their own contextual Christian culture. That's all to the good as far I'm concerned. On the other hand, as the emerging tag becomes stronger and stronger, then sometimes they become a little more interested not in actually winning other people to Christ as [in] winning other Christians to the emerging flag. That becomes a little more troubling. And then you keep moving farther out and farther out and farther out until the whole cultural shift that is sometimes characterized by the label "postmodern" begins to domesticate what the Bible is actually about. At that point it becomes more than troubling. It becomes really a threat to historic Christianity. All of it still flies under the label "emerging," and so you can go to a major emerging conference and all of these different voices are speaking equally. If you criticize someone for example at, oh, we'll call it the far left end — although it's not really a left and right sort of thing — at the more skeptical end of things, at the postmodern end of things, at the more open-ended end of things, you criticize someone along those lines and say, you know, I'm a little worried about just where this is taking us, there'll be a whole lot of people at the other end of the spectrum saying, don't put me in that basket. I'm as strong a believer in what Christ has done for us as you are.
But nevertheless, for both groups, the emerging flag becomes a little more important than the Gospel itself, and that eventually begins to trouble me.
You've said some wings of the emerging church are posing a threat to traditional Christianity. Is that really the case, or is it overstating the case?
Christianity itself is far more stable than something that can be shoved over by a movement. Christ himself said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." God is not going to be threatened by any movement in this century or any other century. The church in that sense has withstood wars and persecution and attacks and its own seductions and stupidities. It's not going to be overturned by a movement, so I don't want to say that. All I'm saying is that those who get sucked into the far-out end so that accommodation to postmodern sensitivities, a refusal to deal with the category of truth, a refusal to say that, according to the teachings of Jesus, some things are right and some things are wrong, that there is an objective truth, propositional truth to be announced as well as discipleship to Christ to be lived and displayed, and authenticity is delight in God to be demonstrated individually and corporately, in addition to all of these things there is truth to be announced — if you start losing that, you really step outside what Christianity is. The Gospel is something to be taught and to be believed. It is not something simply to be experienced.
One of the troubling features of the movement is that it is investing so much energy and self-identity in the movement itself and merely assuming the Gospel, rather than investing this passionate energy in the Gospel and in the application of the Gospel to people using genuine cultural insight to learn better how to do it. As soon as the Gospel becomes something that is merely assumed, while the movement becomes its own raison d'etre, its own reason for being, then it is approaching silliness. It is certainly losing the story. A wheel is coming off somewhere.
What's your impression as you read Brian McLaren's writings and what he is calling for?
Well, first of all, I want to say that he's a charmer. He writes well. He writes engagingly. I've never had the privilege of meeting him. But I'm sure I would enjoy sitting down and having a drink with him and long conversation. He's clearly warm-hearted and winsome. So, if I disagree with him on some point or other, I want to say in the strongest terms that he is, as least as I've seen him, above being a nasty or a petty or the like, and for all of these reasons I appreciate him. Moreover, some of the questions he raises have to be raised again and again every generation. I'm far from saying that there's nothing beautiful or interesting or challenging in the book [A GENEROUS ORTHODOXY]. On the other hand, his very niceness can sometimes entice people to come along with the niceness, even if he's saying something that is not, at the end of the day, really sensible.
What are some of the points that concern you?
Consider his book A GENEROUS ORTHODOXY. The subtitle is impossible to repeat. It's something like probably 20 or 30 more words ["Why I am a missonal evangelical post/protestant liberal/conservative mystical/poetic biblical charismatic/contemplative fundamentalist/Calvinist Anabaptist/Anglican Methodist Catholic green incarnational depressed-yet-hopeful emergent unfinished Christian"] and in one sense that really fits the postmodern mood, doesn't it? A pick-and-choose bit that takes a bit from here and a bit from there and refuses to be tied down to any tradition. There's something really attractive about that in the contemporary culture. But when you actually look at the arguments he makes for why he belongs to this or that camp, sooner or later one becomes — I don't know how to say it but — gently appalled at the lack of rigor, even the way serious discussions are skated over.
For example, "Why I am an evangelical": The reason he says he's evangelical is because he likes evangelical passion. Now notice, he likes evangelical passion, not evangelical Gospel or their historic commitment to good works and service or their relationship to the great doctrines articulated in the Reformation or their worldwide evangelism. It's the passion. There is nothing distinctive about passion and evangelicalism. Many movements are passionate. The fact that a movement is passionate does not make it evangelical. So for him to say that he is evangelical because he is passionate is simply a non sequitor.
Similarly, when he says that he is Reformed he takes one slogan from the whole Reformation heritage: Semper Reformandum, that is to say, the Reformers thought that the church should always be reforming itself in light of the word of God, and he says in that sense he, too, is Reformed. Well, yes, yes, just about every group wants to be reforming itself in the light of scripture. … The only element that he identifies himself with in the Reformation, to call himself reformed, is he's always reforming himself. I find this sort of argumentation to be either be cute and clever or, frankly, right on the edge of dishonest. If you claim to be something, you ought to be identifiable as such by at least some others in the party. I don't know anybody in the Reformed tradition that would think of McLaren as being Reformed. In fact, it's hard to imagine his definition of being passionate as adequate for being identified as an evangelical in the evangelical tradition, too — the same also with his definition of liberalism and Catholicism and so on. It becomes a slippery way of picking and choosing rather than a way of being, somehow, the kind of person who can put all of these traditions together. At the end of the day, it becomes a very isolated new form of individualism, in which I pick what I want from these things rather than, in fact, belonging honestly to any of them. Instead of being all of these things, he really isn't any of them but is really becoming his own new identity by picking and choosing among them. That sort of self-focus and self-definition — it's really right on the very edge of a new form of self-idolatry, isn't it?
Is part of your problem that it's hard to tell exactly where he comes down?
It's not because he doesn't want to give any answer at all, it's because he wants to give answers that are fuzzy. That is his intent. It's not because he is a clever diplomat who is trying to avoid the toughest questions by using ambiguous answers of a diplomatic cast, but everybody who understands the language knows what he really means. He really does want all of these edges taken away. He wants to avoid what he perceives to be the angularity of confessional truth. And he's very good at dancing around. He's very good at it. At the end of the day, it seems to me that it avoids some of the angularities of the Bible itself.
He raises the topic of hell and criticizes traditional evangelicals for putting so much emphasis on "personal" salvation. How provocative is this kind of language?
On the personal faith sort of thing, there are segments of the broad evangelical movement where, quite frankly, I share his concerns. It's often been pointed out — this is really coming to it from the side, but — it has also been pointed out in recent times that when you take out the morals profile of the evangelical movement as a whole — let's say, divorce rates — that profile, those rates are indifferentiable from the rates of the culture at large, and that can be very troubling. But as soon as you start putting in some filters, as soon as you start saying so-called evangelicals who go to church at least once a week, and who read their Bibles regularly, and who really do confess Jesus as Lord meaningfully, and who want to live under the authority of the Bible, then the morals profiles of that group of evangelicals is hugely different from the profile of the culture at large and of evangelicals self-proclaimed at large. In other words, I would say that the so-called evangelical movement today is so broad that there are all kinds of people who sort of "get done"; they've made a personal statement of faith and think that they're in and they signed a card or they walked an aisle, but [they] really haven't, in any biblical terms, been regenerate. They really haven't come to know God. Their lives really haven't been transformed by the Gospel. Whereas the Bible is very clear that the genuine faith does transform you. It really does change you. Now, if that's what he's saying, I'm with him. I'm with him one hundred percent. On the other hand, it's a bit of a caricature to say that all of evangelicalism is like that. There are some big swathes of it that are, in my view, a long way away from the Bible itself. The Bible must be the reforming agent. But there are also huge swathes of evangelicalism which stress not only that individuals must individually repent and believe but that they join together as brothers and sisters in Christ who constitute a local church, in part of the people of God adjoining men and women from every town and tribe and people and nation. I believe that as passionately as anyone. And many of us do. Yet at the same time, while you're stressing this corporateness, you still want to say that people have to trust individually. That too is something that is demanded again and again and again in Scripture.
Do people walk away and say, "Brian McLaren does not believe in hell"?
It is worth reminding ourselves that the person who speaks most often about hell in all the Bible is Jesus. I know that there are very clever attempts to domesticate what he says, but it really is hard to avoid the angularity of his insistence that there is a heaven to be gained and a hell to be feared. Now that does not mean that Christianity is only for the life to come and is not for this life. That's simply isn't the case. And it does not mean either that most Christian preachers of the traditional camp spend all of their time warning against hell. In fact, in my judgment, broader evangelicalism today is so diluted on what Jesus himself actually says about hell that there aren't many serious warnings at all, even from within the traditional camp. The day when people were so heavenly-minded there was no earthly good — if it ever existed, certainly it isn't today. Nowadays we're so earthly-minded that we're probably good for neither heaven nor hell.
There's such a focus on the [contemporary] dimensions of Christianity that the eternal dimensions of being ready to meet your Maker can get lost in the shuffle somehow, but those dimensions are taught by Jesus himself. … And so it is important to capture that dimension or you lose something that is integral to the teaching of Jesus himself.
How provocative is it for McLaren to raise these questions and make suggestions that challenge traditional understandings?
If the suggestions he were making were based on careful, close reading of scripture, and [if he] interacted with people who, similarly, have made close readings of scripture, then it would be simply part of the broader discussion. But, in fact, if he takes people farther and farther away by clever arguments that are not submitting to scripture, then I fear that what will happen [over] the long haul is that he will be disenfranchised. He will disenfranchise himself. In some ways, his theology reminds me very much of a sort of old-fashioned 1920s liberalism, and eventually, I think, more and more people will see that, unless he himself self-corrects, which is still possible.
How should people read his writings, especially those who do not have theology degrees?
Read discerningly. Read everybody discerningly, whether you're reading my books or his books. Test everything by Scripture. Don't believe somebody just because they're nice and write well, or just because they're scratching where the current culture is itching. Always, always, always if you're a Christian, come back to the test of scripture, so far as that is humanly possible.
Some evangelical leaders have accused him of being heretical. Is that fair?
Brian is so careful to dance around the edges that he's shrewd enough not to come into the position where he simply says, "I know that's what the Bible says, and I disbelieve it." At some point, when a person does that, then categories like "heresy" are appropriate categories. But he's so careful not to do that while skirting the same issues, giving the impression that they're either not important or he wants to reinterpret them, that at some point I understand why those labels are being raised. But with my whole heart I would much rather see him hear these sorts of criticisms and self-correct. Come back and re-read scripture afresh and reform himself in the light of the word of God rather than simply being turfed out too soon, too quickly, as it were. He is helping some people rethink. Do I think he's saying some dangerous things — dangerous in the sense that he's diverting people from things that are central to the Gospel, that are nonnegotiable as part of the Gospel — he's diverting people away from those things? Yes, in that sense, I think he's dangerous. On the other hand, I hope and pray with all my heart that he will, as he's made several shifts in his life already, make another one that comes back to the centrality of what the Bible actually says and be more concerned to be faithful to that than to the current postmodern agenda.
To what extent do you think these are lasting ideas or a current fad?
The staying component in what they're doing is the missional concern to reach a new generation of biblically illiterate people who don't know any of the theological jargon, don't know that the Bible has two testaments, don't know how it's put together. The emphasis on understanding the culture, reaching out to people — all of those things are hugely important. They have a staying power. They're part of Christian confessionalism, Christian mission, in every generation. And there are many, many, many Christians outside the movement that share exactly that perspective. In that sense, they're not nearly as new or as innovative as they think they are. But the bits that are most distinctive in the so-called emerging church movement are, in my judgment, largely ephemeral, because they have been called forth by certain cultural developments, and as the culture changes, as cultures do change, then those things will shift again. I just can't predict how the shifts will come about, but my guess is that in 50 years, nobody will be talking about the emerging church movement. They will still be talking about the Gospel of Christ.


text:
content warning: state violence
On March 31, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio backed a ten year plan to close Rikers Island, the city's prison infamously known for its brutal treatment of inmates, with hundreds requiring hospitalization each year. The torturous conditions are only exacerbated by the island's physical inaccessibility and the bureaucratic slush that prevents inmates from filing complaints—nearly 70 percent of whom have yet to receive sentencing. The closure of Rikers is largely symbolic: the inmates will be transferred to other prisons in the New York area, and ending the explicit brutalization of incarcerated people at this site does little to account for the structural violences enacted by incarceration in the first place.
But Rikers' closure also has implications across the city. For Hart Island, the New York's mass grave for unclaimed bodies less than 5,000 feet southeast of the Bronx's Pelham Bay, burial labor is currently performed exclusively by Rikers' inmates. It is the only cemetery in the world operated by a prison.
With growing support from abolitionist groups and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), advocacy efforts are shifting toward an alternative future for the cemetery. In 2012, Bill #0134 was introduced to the New York City Council by member Elizabeth Crowley (D-30) to petition for a jurisdictional transfer of Hart Island from the Department of Correction (DOC) to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). At a public hearing for the bill after its reintroduction in 2016, Mark Levine (D-7) argued that transferring oversight to the DPR would make public visitation possible "to pay respects to the one million people who are buried there. People who reflect the history of New York City from how we've dealt with contagious disease, how we dealt with our war dead, the history of poverty over two centuries, the AIDS epidemic, the modern homeless crisis."
The remaining structures on the island—a former infirmary, a workhouse for boys, and a rehabilitation facility—are in desperate need of preservation, which proponents of the bill believe should be completed under the purview of the DPR.
Purchased by the DOC for $75,000 in 1868, the 0.2 square mile island was first established as a juvenile workhouse for boys. Before its purchase, the island functioned as a prisoner-of-war camp for Confederate soldiers during the Civil War, and since then, has operated as a quarantine site following the yellow fever outbreak of 1870, a women's psychiatric hospital in the 1880s, and a storage site for missiles for the military's Project Nike during the Cold War.
Louisa Van Slyke, a 24-year-old woman who died alone at Charity Hospital in 1869, was the first recorded burial on the island. As the largest tax-funded cemetery in the world, Hart Island functions as the City's major potter's field, providing burial for some of New York's most marginalized: primarily, bodies that remain unclaimed or unidentified.
Keeping expenditures to a minimum, bodies buried here are not embalmed in any way and are placed in simple pine coffins. Though many states require that individual coffins be encased in cement, the coffins on Hart Island are instead grouped by the thousand and stacked in a series of trenches across the acreage. Because of this bare-bones burial method, bodily remains decompose every 25–50 years, and trenches are frequently refilled. A catalogue system introduced in the late 19th century groups coffins by age in separate trenches, and each coffin is now labeled with an identification number to facilitate the reinterment process for those claimed post-burial.
In 2008, the Hart Island Project, a charity headed by artist Melinda Hunt, filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests from the DOC. With support from the NYCLU, the advocacy efforts required that the DOC make burial records and the procedure for survivors of the interred to request for a private re-burial public. In 1977, nearly two decades of burial records for the island were destroyed in a fire, and despite numerous gaps in the archive since, available records suggest that more than 68,000 people have been buried since 1980.
After the original purchase by the DOC, the potter's field was first serviced by prisoners on what is now Roosevelt Island. When that prison was demolished in 1936, the DOC transferred the burial labor to the incarcerated people at Rikers, who still are responsible for the gravedigging and burial procedures to the current day. Paid a paltry 50 cents an hour, inmates are ferried to Hart Island most weekdays to tend to the grounds and inter upward of three thousand bodies per year. Rikers inmate Michael A. Roman said of Hart Island in April 1992, "an island of those poor unfortunate souls buried here in the unknown to others. If only I had the power to help this lost island."
Often referred to as the 'City Cemetery,' body disposal on Hart Island is dictated by the city's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Though most bodies buried on the island are now identified, uninsured and underinsured people who cannot afford private burial or whose surviving family cannot provide arrangements are offered the option of "City Burial." Rhetorically obfuscated by this seemingly routine option, Hart Island is anything but standard.
After the DOC made their interment records public, the Hart Island Project developed a digital, interactive archive of the people buried there. The homepage for the Project's website serves—with an endless scroll function—as a series of identification cards for the Hart Island dead. Each card lists all publicly-available information: age of death, burial date, location of the plot on the island, and sometimes, additions from visitors to the website who knew the deceased. Each name is attached to a clock that tracks the length of "anonymity" for the unclaimed bodies; the clock stops only when the body is exhumed or identified digitally by a loved one.
Leo (Ramon) Summers died on April 1, 1985 at age 59 at the VA and was buried in plot 168 one year and 15 days later (a stipulation in New York state law offers any unclaimed bodies for scientific research and medical education for a year or more before 'proper' burial). On the Project's website, Jamison Graff offers in December 2016 that Leo was an award-winning sci-fi illustrator in the 60s for the serial Amazing Science Fiction Stories novel, among other published works. For an infant with the surname Bermeo who died in August 2000 and was buried two months later, Estrella Quizhpi writes in February 2017, "Mi angelito, nunca te he olvidado todos los días te tengo presente en mi corazón." Estrella attached a number of photos of the baby's siblings and relatives, and the message ends, "te amo mi niña por siempre."
Others on the site have yet to be identified by loved ones: Larrier Budelo, who died at Sloan Kettering in April 1982 (age unknown), was buried a month later and has not yet been found through the Project's site. Of Jose Rodriguez (1958-2015), Carola Martinez writes in September 2016, "while we were not able to physically say goodbye, he will forever remain loved and remembered by his family."
Efforts by the NYCLU and the Hart Island Project have offered a potential for reburial for many, like Gladys Van Aelst, who died in 2014 at the age of 85 and was reinterred a year later. For others, the Project is an opportunity to render visible the deceased most obscured by the state, even if the physical remains stay stacked in the island's trench system.
In 2015, the NYCLU filed a class-action lawsuit against the DOC to grant families of the deceased access to the grounds. On July 19 that year, 50 family members who petitioned the department for visitation were transported by ferry for the first-ever public visit. For one weekend day each month since, visitors are shepherded onto the island; this January, the program was expanded to accommodate 70 visitors at a time and to include new permissions allowing family to photograph the grounds. The surface of the island is quite bare: aerial footage of the island shows large, grassy spaces, save a few decommissioned buildings. Except for the individual grave of the first child to die of AIDS in New York, no markers reveal the island for what it is.
Transferring oversight to the DPR would place Hart Island in a long linage of New York potter's-fields-turned-public-park. Among the former mass graves are the heavily foot trafficked Madison Square Park, Washington Square Park, Union Square, and Bryant Park. This year, the city's Historic Districts Council named Hart Island as one of their annual Six to Celebrate—an initiative to highlight neighborhoods in need of preservation.
If Hart is taken over by the DPR, proponents of the bill argue the island's structures would be better prioritized for preservation efforts and access to the island would significantly increase. In collaboration with the Hart Island Project, environmental architects propose the island as a site for eco-burial practices that would reduce the physical labor required of the current interment methods used (at the cost of losing the potential for re-interment), while addressing the spatial limitations that make traditional burial methods unsustainable in the city. Transfer to the DPR opens the possibility for a new public memory for the centuries of life hidden beneath the soil.
DOLMA OMBADYKOW B'17 will keep digging.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Designing your own home is a multi-step process which typically requires enlisting the services of several professionals – from architects and interior designers to plumbers and electricians. Considering the number of intricate processes involved in designing a home, all the while making it as aesthetically pleasing and functional as possible, it is not surprising to find many individuals opting to buy houses which are already built. This way, all they have to worry about is moving in and making some renovations, if necessary.
However, if you want your home to be specifically made in accordance to your taste, lifestyle, and budget, then you are better off having your home built from scratch. But what are the things you should consider when designing your home?
In this article, I will provide you with a brief overview of everything you need to know about designing a home. Of course, this will not be a comprehensive guide, but it should be a good starting point for those of you who want to have a better grasp of what it means to take charge of your home design.
What you should know about architecture
For a lot of individuals, saying the word "architecture" evokes images of old cathedrals or towering skyscrapers. But while notable architecture certainly pertains to such magnificent structures, good architecture is just as important when designing your home.
Architecture combines elements of design with economics in order to create a cost-efficient space for the people using them. Architecture goes beyond the façade of the building and likewise takes into consideration how the space is used, how it facilitates movement, and how it suits the lifestyle of the people using the space. Hence, architecture is an important consideration when designing your home considering that it is the best way to ensure that your space is maximized without sacrificing style.
If you are working with budget constraints or with limited space, then architectural services are even more important. While enlisting the services of an architect will set you back, getting professional help is still the most cost-efficient way to build your home. A good architect can help you find ways to maximize a limited floor area, as well as apprise you of the ways to cut costs without sacrificing good design. Moreover, enlisting the help of an architect will ensure that your space is as safe and as comfortable as possible.
For individuals who are having difficulties figuring out how they want their home to look, the services of a good architect are also indispensable. An architect can help you figure out what style to incorporate into your home design, as well as help you design your home in such a way as to allow for renovations or remodeling in the future. For those who already know how exactly they want their home to look, an architect can serve as a fresh set of eyes who can say which particular design elements will or will not work, or which particular spaces can further be improved in the name of aesthetic and practicality.
What you should know about interior design
Of course, a home is more than just a structure. A space can hardly be called homely if it is completely bare. This is where interior design comes in. Whereas architecture is all about creating the space, interior design is all about decorating the space.
Regardless of how small or how big your space is, there are ways by which you can make them appear bigger or cozier than they actually are. You can also evoke certain moods in different areas of the house, depending on what color schemes, materials, or elements you introduce into the spaces.
The common misconception about interior design is that it focuses solely on aesthetics. This could not be farther from the truth. As with architecture, good interior design also takes into consideration effective usage of space. However, while architecture focuses mostly on the structure itself, interior design places a premium on what is contained within the structure – from furniture to light fixtures.
That said, if you are going for a specific theme when it comes to your home design, then enlisting the help of a good interior designer is a surefire way of making your interiors go harmoniously with the architecture. Moreover, interior design will aid you in further maximizing your space through storage and space-saving solutions without sacrificing aesthetics and comfort.
As with architecture, enlisting a professional interior designer would cost extra. The good news, however, is that interior design principles are a lot easier to grasp. If you already have a good eye or have previous experience in home renovation, you would probably find it less challenging to work out the design for your interiors. Of course, in certain cases, it is still better to get an interior designer. But if you are working with smaller home renovations, you might be able to work it out yourself.
Common home improvement projects
As you can see from the previous sections, building your home from scratch can be quite costly. Because of this, a lot of individuals opt to just buy houses and do some renovation or remodeling. It must be noted that home improvement is an umbrella term which can cover a whole range of projects, ranging from something small such as changing light fixtures to something more substantial such as revamping an entire room.
In this section, we will talk about common home improvement projects which you can undertake to improve your home.
Painting or repainting using a paint sprayer
The easiest home improvement project you can undertake is painting or repainting your home or at least certain sections of it. While you certainly can outsource this job to a professional, painting your home is a fairly easy job which you can do so yourself. Of course, if you are inexperienced, the whole process can take a bit longer, but it is generally beginner-friendly.
When it comes to house painting or repainting, you have several options depending on your needs and the job itself. For example, you may opt to go use a brush, a roller, or a paint sprayer for your painting project. If you are painting or repainting only a small section or a non-flat surface, then using a brush is the easiest way to do the job. It is very straightforward, requires no expertise whatsoever, and very little preparations is needed. If you are planning on painting or repainting entire walls or panels, however, using a brush is not the most convenient option since it can take quite some time. In such case, using a roller is the best option. If you are doing a big painting job requiring you to paint both flat and non-flat surfaces, then using a paint sprayer is the most efficient way of doing so and in that case finding the best paint sprayer suited to the type of project you are doing is needed. There are many different types of paint sprayers you can choose from that will fit different styles, project size, and what kind of paint you want to use. Using a paint sprayer is quick and easy (at least after you have prepared and configured everything) and allows you to evenly paint various surfaces. Since you do not have to keep switching between a brush and a roller, you will be able to finish your painting job a lot quicker. The downside of using a paint sprayer, however, is that it is extremely necessary to wrap everything which does not need to be painted. Otherwise, the process is quite hassle-free.
Ceiling fans
Even with the popularity of air-conditioning units, ceiling fans are still handy home appliances, especially if you want to save on your electric bills. During warmer months, using a ceiling fan alongside your air-conditioning unit will enable you to run the thermostat at a higher setting without experiencing any discomfort. Since your air-conditioning unit is not working as hard to keep the temperature low, you also get to lower your electric consumption.
Another good thing about ceiling fans is that there are models specifically made for outdoor installation, so you can create air flow even in your patio or balcony. This will allow you to enjoy lounging outside even during warmer days without having to bear with the heat. Moreover, outdoor ceiling fans are also helpful in driving insects away, thereby allowing you to lounge and even eat in peace outside your house.
Another upside to ceiling fans, aside from its practicality, is that it can also improve your interior design. The best rated ceiling fans are now available in a variety of styles and designs, so you can certainly find one that will work for you and your home. You can even make your ceiling fan a conversational piece and an integral part of your interior design.
A good, well-designed bathroom is an underrated luxury. Fortunately, improving your bathroom does not mean having to tear down everything and rebuilding from scratch. Sometimes, it is just a matter of adding a nice set of fixtures such as a high quality shower head or a good looking toilet which will not only make your bathroom look better, but also make it more functional.
A quick and relatively easy way to improve your bathroom's overlook is by changing the faucets. A plastic faucet head is certainly cheap and easily replaceable when necessary, but it does nothing to make your bathroom look better. If anything, it can clash with your bathroom's design or make it look drab. That said, if you have the money to spare, it would be a good investment to purchase and install stainless steel or chrome-finished faucet heads. Not only do these finishes look streamlined and elegant, but they are also very versatile. That said, they will likely look good with the rest of your bathroom even after you do a remodeling in the future. A Good bathroom faucet fixtures can even serve as accent pieces for your bathroom! Moreover, a high-quality faucet head will avoid leaks and, hence, avoid water wastage. Note that while leaks might seem unnoticeable on a monthly basis, the water wastage can really add up over time, especially If you have water leaks all over the house.
Another way of improving your bathroom is by installing an exhaust fan. Bathrooms are typically closed off areas with little to no air flow, so they tend to be stuffy. If you do not have the time to clean your bathroom on a regular basis, you might even notice that smells to get trapped inside the bathroom.
One way of ensuring that your bathroom does not end up stuffy is by making sure that there is at least a small window in the bathroom. This way, you can air out the bathroom after use, thereby ensuring that moisture does not get trapped inside. By doing so, you also get to avoid unwittingly creating a breeding ground for molds and mildew.
However, if your bathroom does not already have a window built in, an easier option would be to install an exhaust fan. There are several benefits to installing an exhaust fan in your bathroom. The first benefit is the elimination of odors. This way, smells will not get trapped inside your bathroom and will not affect the towels or curtains. Second, an exhaust fan also helps with humidity reduction. Note that too much humidity can ruin the paint and wallpaper, causing it to peel. Also, too much humidity creates a breeding ground for molds which can be difficult to get rid of, especially since they accumulate rapidly. Finally, installing an exhaust fan also helps in reducing airborne contaminants. Detergents and cleaners used in bathrooms are typically abrasive and can cause health problems when inhaled, so it is best to air out the bathroom after cleaning.
A beautiful, comfortable home is essential in improving your quality of living but getting a livable home can take some hard work, not to mention expenses. Of course, there are ways by which you can minimize spending on home improvement; you just have to know what particular changes you want to introduce into your home.
Enlisting the services of professionals in doing your home renovation or remodeling can set you back by no small amount, but the outcome will certainly be worth it. in the long run, it can even help you save on repairs.


text:
Letter to Our Clients – December 2016
December, 2016
Dear Clients and Friends:
There have been two major surprises in the last month or so – the Trump election, and the reaction of the financial markets to his victory.
The stock market as a whole has risen dramatically since the election, on the expectation that reduced taxes (corporate and personal), increased government spending and the easing of government regulations will combine to spur growth. This may or may not actually occur, but at least in the short run stocks in companies that benefit from a high-growth environment have been rising. It is not a uniform advance, however. A CNBC internet news article on December 5th indicated that the stocks of 4 companies were responsible for about 55% of the return of the Dow Jones Industrial Average* from the election through the end of November (Goldman Sachs, United Health, Caterpillar, and JP Morgan), resulting in a very uneven market advance. Left behind are the so-called "boring" or "low-risk" companies, many of which are at or near 52-week lows.
Hot money has moved from "safe" to "risk-on," and many feel we are now in a market of greater irrational exuberance than we were before the election. (Alan Greenspan reportedly used that phrase for the first time in 1996, 20 years ago, and it took almost 4 years before the stock market crashed.)
This "hot money movement" has also affected the bond markets. Aggressive investors have sold bonds to buy potentially high-growth stocks. While almost all bond indexes are down, bonds that are high-quality (such as US Treasury bonds) have fallen in value more than bonds considered "more risky," such as high-yield bonds (also known as junk bonds). Regardless, bonds remain an important part of almost everyone's portfolio.
People are asking: What will the markets do from here? No one knows what they will do, and those who say they do are either lying or fooling themselves. Those who chase performance can sometimes profit, but usually by the time one becomes aware of a trend it is too late to fully capture its benefit. The other side is usually true also, in that one can never tell if a drop in the market is the beginning of a long trend, or just a temporary pull-back. We believe those who most benefit from the stock and bond markets are those who can be patient enough to ignore the spikes in the market, and disciplined enough to maintain their investment strategy.
We encourage investors to remain mindful of their investment goals, their time horizon, and their ability to tolerate fluctuation – especially downward fluctuation. This may seem boring when markets are soaring, and frightening when markets are collapsing, but remaining disciplined and patient improves your likelihood of obtaining and maintaining financial stability.
As always, please contact us if you have questions or concerns. And, from all of us, Happy Holidays!
Best Wishes,
Robert K. Haley, JD, CFP®, AIF®
Chairman, CEO
*All indices, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, are unmanaged and investors cannot actually invest directly into an index. Unlike investments, indices do not incur management fees, charges, or expenses. Past performance does not guarantee future results.


text:
The Institute of Waste Management of Southern Africa (IWMSA) is delighted to report a resoundingly successful WasteCon2012. The biggest waste conference to have been hosted in East London thus far brought together municipal as well as private entities to deliberate and to set up processes which will move our nation ahead in addressing crucial issues pertinent to the waste management industry.
Recently appointed president of the IWMSA, Deidré Nxumalo-Freeman is passionate about the role of the IWMSA as an organisation which aims to educate its membership, private and government sectors and to set new standards for its members in terms of certification and accreditation.
Nxumalo-Freeman says "In order to effectively implement sustainable waste management processes, the IWMSA needs to be proactive, especially at grass roots level. As an organisation as well as personally, I believe that the challenges faced by those working on the ground on a day-to-day basis must be addressed in order to effect real change in the industry.
"We, at the IWMSA, believe that we are on the brink of change, and that we are ready to face exciting new opportunities and challenges. Establishing a quality assurance framework for our membership base is foremost on the agenda, which will not only result in that base having acquired sound knowledge, but also serve to enhance the reputation and credibility of the IWMSA.
education & mindset-shifts crucial to waste issue
"We simply have to move away from landfill as the primary option for waste disposal. In order to achieve the desired result, we will continue to focus on the principles of Reuse, Recycling and Recovery. The IWMSA also seeks self-regulation for its members within an appropriate legal framework. We understand that it is crucial for the IWMSA to serve its members by engaging with the various stakeholders who determine legislation and to provide education in the form of workshops and training that is both relevant and informed.
"The IWMSA is pleased to have established a much greater rapport with government. Collaborative efforts resulted in the attendance of more municipal delegates than ever before at WasteCon and is evidence of the progress being made in this regard. We are excited too, to have received inputs from young delegates attending WasteCon2012 who were there as a result of concern for the environment and for their future. We need to nurture and encourage such interest wherever possible in order to keep open effective lines of communication with our communities at large. We hope that this will lead to transformation from the ground up.
Nxumalo-Freeman concludes, "In the past five years, the IWMSA has made significant progress in appointing sponsored and accredited assessors and moderators to facilitate accredited training programmes which are run by the IWMSA. These individuals are professionals in their respective fields who give voluntarily of their time and expertise and are, as such, truly invested in combatting our waste management crises. We thank and salute them all."
The IWMSA focuses on providing education and training for its members, as well as other interested parties, whether private individuals or government entities.
The IWMSA is a non-profit organisation comprising a body of dedicated professionals in their respective fields, who give freely and voluntarily of their time and expertise in order to effectively educate, promote and further the science and practice of waste management. For more information, visit www.iwmsa.co.za.
Jenny Miller, sales manager: ReSource, and Deidre Nxumalo-Freeman, IWMSA president. Source