Between Radical & Confessional Theologies: Whitehead’s God

Guest-post by  Austin Roberts.
He is a PhD student at Drew University, studying with the incomparable Catherine Keller.  
[listen to her podcast here
You should 100% follow his blog and you might want to read his book on eco-theology Process pairing Jürgen Moltmann and John Cobb

As a process theologian, I often find myself in the position of needing to explain or even defend the God that Whitehead affirms.  I have these conversations with fellow academics and intellectual types who just can’t see how some of us can still call ourselves theists after the ‘death of God,’ as well as fellow Christians who struggle to see how one could reconcile process panentheism with the God of the Bible.

While the former group tends to be extremely critical of any hint of transcendence (whether in reference to God or otherwise), the latter group gets uneasy with the process theologian’s special emphasis on God’s immanence.  For the former, transcendence is more-or-less relativized – if not entirely eliminated – by immanence.  For the latter, it is usually the other way around: God is infinitely transcendent and created everything out of nothing.

For those who care to go into this kind of discussion, the core theological question up for debate is this:
how immanent and/or transcendent is Whitehead’s God?

I’m certainly not going to try to answer this with any sense of finality.  What I primarily want to do here is to point out the difficulty of this issue when we have, broadly speaking, two types of theologians reading Whitehead in different ways today:

  • those who resonate with Radical Theology
  • those who are committed to Confessional Theology.

This is exciting to me, even as it brings new challenges to process theology.  I’m not claiming that there is a full-blown contradiction between these two approaches, and perhaps there’s a way to bring these two approaches closer together.  Even so, they are starting out with different assumptions and concerns that certainly shape their contrasting readings of Whitehead’s theism.

At the risk of oversimplifiction, there’s a sense in which Radicals tend to read Whitehead primarily through a poststructuralist lens (Derrida, Deleuze, Butler) while Confessionals read him primarily through the lens of tradition and scripture.

This makes for a rather striking difference between the two.

One could always follow the “Whitehead without God” approach (Bob Mesle, Donald Sherburne). One can also see Whitehead’s God as nothing more than a cosmic function – and therefore wholly “secularized” – that is necessary for a coherent process worldview but totally uninspiring for spirituality or religion (Steven Shaviro’s reading in his “Without Criteria”).

Personally, I think there are serious problems with these interpretations (that’s for another post) and they remain minority reports within the process community.

Let’s consider two streams of process theology, what I’m calling the Radical and Confessional paths.

On the one side are those who read Whitehead’s God in ways that strongly emphasize immanence – a kind of Radical theology, perhaps, usually with the help of Deleuze’s poststructuralist philosophy of immanence.  Few process thinkers go so far as to deny God’s transcendence entirely (although see Kristien Justaert’s process pantheism in “Theology after Deleuze”), but the concept as more commonly understood is very much relativized by a more immanent God.  This is rapidly becoming an influential way of reading Whitehead (I can confirm this based on my experiences at both Drew and Claremont where most students of Whitehead tend to lean this way).

My former professor Roland Faber, signaling a stronger shift towards immanence with his Deleuzean reading of Whitehead, argues for “trans-pantheism” as opposed to the more standard reading of Whitehead’s panentheism.  He digs deep into the Cusan paradox of God as “Not-Other” and places a stronger theological emphasis on Whitehead’s immanent creativity.  He interprets the later Whitehead as seeming inclined “to replace any remaining connotations of God’s transcendence with a totally immanent divine creativity” (Process & Difference, 216).  As with John Caputo’s radical theology, Faber will also say that God does not exist but insists as the interrupting event of the new.

For Faber’s radical process theology, God is always “In/difference”: the insistence on difference and relationality of all differences.  For the Radical approach, questions of Christian doctrine (Christology, Trinity, Revelation) tend to be secondary (at best) to the political and ethical implications of theology.  The thinking here is that an immanent theology is better equipped for this-worldly activism based on democratic practices, over against difference-denying oppressive forms of hierarchy that are rooted in transcendence.

On the other side are those who read Whitehead’s God in ways that try to maintain more traditional theological intuitions of transcendence.  I see this as a kind of Confessional trajectory for Whiteheadians that has been much more common for Christian process theology over the last fifty years.  Confessional process theologians are not necessarily Orthodox in their beliefs, but they tend to have a stronger concern than the Radical process theologians to maintain ties to the Christian tradition and to more thoroughly align their theology to the Bible.

John Cobb is an obvious example here, especially evident in his rather high Christology in which he intentionally remains close to the creedal confession that Jesus was “fully God and fully man.” By reading Whitehead’s God as a balance of immanence with transcendence, he can affirm that God is the most powerful reality in existence, that our existence is radically contingent upon God as our Creator, and that we depend upon God’s grace.  Attempting to do justice to key themes of the Bible and Christian piety, Cobb will claim that because God is always working for the good in the world and truly loves her creation, God can genuinely reveal herself in particular ways, our prayers can be answered, people might even sometimes be healed through God’s action in the world, and that death ultimately does not have the last word.

Unlike Radical process theology, Confessional process theologians unequivocally affirm God’s existence as a real being (e.g., David Ray Griffin’s cumulative argument in his Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism).  A neo-Whiteheadian approach, as in Joseph Bracken’s theology, pushes even closer to traditional commitments and asserts a stronger (“asymmetrical”) sense of transcendence than even Cobb.  Like Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle and Augustine did with neo-Platonism, Bracken will use Whitehead as a general philosophical framework for special revelation in scripture and tradition, allowing the latter more authoritative sources to revise the former when necessary.  The doctrinal results for him are an orthodox view of the Trinity, creatio ex nihilo, and bodily resurrection.

Some of us might cringe at the Radical approach, others at a Confessional approach.  To Confessionals, the Radical approach might sound even more esoteric and complicated than Whitehead himself and irrelevant for practical or spiritual life outside of the academy.  To Radicals, the Confessional approach might sound outdated and naïve at best, or imperialistic and oppressive at worst.  Or some of us might instead be able to see the two as constrasting rather than contradicting and perhaps look for a way to learn from both, even if we share the more basic assumptions of one or the other.

If the Radical approach is helping to keep Whitehead relevant to postmodern intellectuals, religious skeptics, and academics – perhaps even effecting a “Whiteheadian revolution” or a “return to Whitehead” in contemporary philosophy and science – the Confessional approach tends to have much more traction for pastors and laypersons.

This distinction seems to me to exemplify the challenge of identifying the task of theology today: is it important to do theology primarily for the sake of the life of the confessing church, or can we (should we) move on and do theology primarily because of its continuing politically subversive and ethical power for society?  This is not a question just for those of us in the process community, but rather for any theologian who finds herself in this predicament, between the Radical and the Confessional.

Share

Caputo Responds AAR part 2

In part 2 we hear from friend of the podcast Jeremy Fackenthal and then get Caputo’s response to all the papers – including those from part 1.Beer_Labels-Caputo-phone_rev03

If Jeremy Fackenthal sounds familiar, you may have heard him from the popular breakout session at EVTC 2012 session “Marx & Whitehead” or his previous AAR session on Occupy The Church.

We look forward to your feedback on these fantastic papers – which will be available in E-book format next month.IMG_3164

The Theology Nerd Throwdown is excited to welcome Chalice Press. They are the offical publishing sponsor with lots of great books and resources for theology nerds, preachers, and church planters. They just might become your #1 favorite progressive Christian publisher. So check them out.

 

Come Join Tripp & Jonnie for the Conference, Live Podcast and Craft Brewery Fun.

Come Join Tripp & Jonnie for the Conference and Craft Brewery Fun.

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Barrel Aged Graphic_crop2_rev1

Subscribe to the new stream.

 

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes

Subscribe on iTunes

 

 

 

Share

Taking Caputo into the [insert practical places discussed]

HBC-300x300-BannerAd2

3 Books for the Price of 1!

6 week online class w/ Peter Rollins

6 week online class w/ Peter Rollins

The Caputo Session at AAR from the past year was amazing! This is part 1 of that night. Part 2 will follow in just a couple of days.

We look forward to your feedback on these fantastic papers – which will be available in E-book format next month.
The Theology Nerd Throwdown is excited to welcome Chalice Press. They are the offical publishing sponsor with lots of great books and resources for theology nerds, preachers, and church planters. They just might become your #1 favorite progressive Christian publisher. So check them out.

Come Join Tripp & Jonnie for the Conference, Live Podcast and Craft Brewery Fun.

Come Join Tripp & Jonnie for the Conference and Craft Brewery Fun.

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Barrel Aged Graphic_crop2_rev1

Subscribe to the new stream.

 

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes

Subscribe on iTunes

 

 

Share

An Important ‘A’ from Jack Caputo

I am always learning and part of blogging for me is comparing notes with other people. It is part of my education. I don’t claim to be an expert on anything – I am just attempting to supplement the cultural conversation I watch stream by.

Quick Disclaimers:

  • I am not a radical theologian and don’t do radical theology. I am just conversant with the thought for the purpose of addressing some big problems that it points out. 
  •  While I love Caputo’s work (I really do) I obviously don’t buy into his project hook-line-and-sinker or endorse his views 100% [a friend asked me to clarify that from now on].
  • I do however have an early pdf of his soon to be released book. 

I’m only half-way through Caputo’s soon to be released book The Insistence Of God, and am about to get to the substantially titled chapters (on Malabou, Zizek and Millbank) but I found some stuff in the early parts of the book that were eye-opening.

The first is the helpful addition of an ‘a’.

The second is about the death of god. 

Jack reports to be doing ‘a radical theology’ several times. That seem like an important distinction. In this new book, he is not representing the totality of the radical tradition and approach – he is offering ‘a’ radical theology.

After introducing his ‘perhaps’ project, he says:

I would understand it if, at this point, the orthodox theologians feel rejected, if they get up and leave, before my lecture has even started, rejecting out of hand the very idea that this is theology at all. I share their suspicion. Indeed, such a suspicion of what I am doing is the condition under which I do it, under which I conduct what I am calling a “radical” theology. I would publish this book under protest if the orthodox theologians did not protest it. If this “theology” were not suspect, if it did not threaten a walkout by the pious, I would not be associated with it. What I call theology is possible only under the condition that it might not— perhaps—be theology…

There are 5 layers of explanation in the first chapter alone, but I am obviously not able to post them all here until the book comes out. Suffice to say that he starts chapter 2 with Plato’s pharmacy (pharmakon) and ends with Hegel as the hero.

The second, and in my mind more important, distinction relates the death of god. Caputo takes his point of departure from the ‘death of god’ theologians [a point of considerable concern] when he says the following:

Notice what the “death of God” means in the chiasm: God dies unless we come to God’s aid and let God be God in our lives. What has been traditionally called death of God theology is a headline grabber but it is a misleading misnomer—it should have been called the birth of God…

That is why I never speak of the death of God but of the birth of God or the desire for God (desiring sans all Lacanian lamentable lamentation over the lost phallus) and why Eckhart’s account of the story of Mary and Martha (ch. 3) is one of the inspirations of my theology of the event, as will become more and more clear as we go along. God is what God does, and what God does is what is done in the name of God, which is the birth of God in the world.

This seems a significant distinction to me. It clarifies ‘a’ point of departure.

 

Couple of reminders in closing: 

  1. I am not doing ‘a’ radical theology. I’m just a curious conversation partner. 
  2. I do not endorse Caputo’s (or anyones) ideas carte blanche
  3. My copy of the book is pre-editor and pre-publisher. The previous quotes should be taken with that in mind. 
  4. These thought have been formulated within a vibrant set of friends I am reading the book with. Any of the above thoughts that you do not agree with were theirs. 
  5. I have enjoyed reading about other genealogies of radical theology as well.  
Share

Radical Responses

Two weeks ago I put up a post built around Tripp’s notes for his High Gravity talks with Pete Rollins for the Summer Reading Group they were hosting online around the subject of Radical Theology.
Little did I know that this would be so poorly received. The main critisim came from 2 divergent camps:

  1. Those who are really into Radical Theology (RT) and feel both territorial about the subject and indignant that their favored father was left off of Caputo’s genealogy (and thus the Rushmore poster promoting the Subverting the Norm 2 conference)
  2. Those who are frustrated and flustered by the subject all together

I could literally write an entire post about how intriguing the juxtaposition of those two groups are. However, here is a letter from Patrick F. that gets to the heart of the matter. His words will be in black. My jovial responses will be in green.

__________

Forgive me for chiming in a few days late…

  • No worries mate! It happens on every blog post and I was out of town on a Middle School Work Week so the timing worked out.

I wrote a blog post last week ( a day after this came out) about how I felt the need to shelve Caputo’s The Weakness of God.

  • OK. TWOG is not easy reading… admittedly. BUT let’s not shelve it entirely just yet … being as it is the best book on the subject that I have read in the last decade.

Most of it is far beyond my reach as an armchair scholar (I’m not in seminary at this time). 3/4 of the time I have no damn clue who the heck he’s referencing, and a quick search to find out about those folks is clear as mud (Derrida being the big example).

  • Maybe a different Caputo text would be more appropriate to start with. He has several amazing volumes that are not as … ‘technical’ as TWOG.

I know I can’t read EVERYTHING (thanks, Tony Jones!) but I feel like I need to have read SOMETHING prior to tackling that book (or much else of what Caputo writes).  Here’s that post, if you’re interested: http://theendofevil.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/shelved-the-weakness-of-god-by-john-caputo/

  • I will look forward to checking that out. I have enjoyed your writing in the past.

This post, however, hasn’t made things much clearer.  I realize these are notes on a text, but looking at your definitions only makes me more confused.

  • Hmmmm…. I am surprised by this. I had hoped to make things more clear by boiling it down. Rest in the confidence that you were not the only one who objected. Just keep in mind that those who most objected that I made it TOO clear and that I should have let people wrestle with it themselves because the struggle is what produces any good at all.

For example:
Your definition of radical theology is really broad.  To say it’s a theology that isn’t tied to a denomination or sanctioning body really doesn’t say much; there’s plenty of theologians out there who theologize without working in the context of a church.   If we’re simply talking about people who talk about God, you could call Donald Miller a radical theologian by this definition.

  • Wrong. Donald Miller is accountable to both his home church in Portland’s pastoral staff and to his publisher (and subsequently their readership at Christian Book Stores)
  • I don’t want to be mean, but that fact that you even think that Donald Miller could be in this category let’s me know that you have not gotten this concept.  Radical Theologians are OUT THERE. They do not report to the church and are not accountable to the ecclesiastic structure or to its history. I can not overstate this.

Listen: Tripp and I are both pastors at Mainline churches. We do not do Radical Theology – we are only hosting this conversation because it provides a much needed critique of the existent structure. Homebrewed is outside of most people’s outer boundary… and we are not Radical…. we are only in conversation with the Radical tradition. Just think about that. 

If I go on to your definition of Confessional theology, things do a get a little clearer in that you tie any approach to theology that looks to classical thinking to its definition (which would lump Miller in here).  Couple that with Tripp’s notes that radical theology is parasitic to confessional theology, it leads me to think that radical theology has to reject any theology at all that might attempt to articulate anything metaphysical.

  • On this account your are 100% accurate. Now I feel bad about being so hard on you about that last point ;)

And for all its antagonism toward confessional theology, many confessional theologians are coming around to the kind of thinking (or at least attitudes) that radical theology champions without radical theology’s help.

  • I would contest that it is without RT’s help. Ever since the Death of God movement and that famous Time Magazine cover in 1966, RT has had an influence on all of us.

I’m kinda annoyed at Tripp’s note that “radical theology reserves the right to ask any question.” OK, fine, but why do they spend so much time asking questions and little to no time attempting to answer them?

  • AH HA! We find the crux of the problem: Constructive Theology attempts to answer the questions. That is not what RT is up to! You are asking a Bulldozer to be a Comero. Look … it’s just never going to do that. I don’t know what else to say … those are unrealistic expectations.

I love Peter Rollins, and many of his writings have impacted me, but listening to Tripp interview him is one of the most frustrating things I’ve ever heard.  I feel like Caputo makes more attempts to answer questions posed to him, but does so almost in a way as to say, “There is no question.”

  • Good one! Yes, Pete does not like to answer’s Tripp’s brand of questions (and for good reason). Whereas Caputo just says “that’s not a real question”. Caputo is a living legend. He gets to decide what questions to answer and which not to. Rollins is a friend of the podcast and has to make himself available and be somewhat approachable for the interrogation that Tripp puts him under. No other author subjects themselves to that level of vulnerability. So while it can be infuriating … it is only because Pete agrees to a level of hand-to-hand combat that almost no one else would even dream of. Most authors would not even consider letting Tripp ask them real questions.

One thing I don’t get is how subbing metaphysics for theo-poetics actually helps radical thinking.  When I was reading the Weakness of God, Caputo seemed to make the claim that, by doing away with metaphysics, he was solving the problem.  It sound more like avoiding the question to me (see point above). If we’re going to affirm an event, but otherwise not talk about it except with poetic language that has little concrete meaning (thinking about what Tony Jones said at the Cornhole match), why should I believe there’s an event to begin with?

  • THIS is a great point!!! And …. if this had been your only point …. we could have done an entire post on this subject alone!
  • You let me know if you want to chase this rabbit down the hole because … I love this subject. (By love … I mean that it is all I think about every day of the week that ends in a ‘Y’)

Oddly enough, looking back over what I just wrote, maybe I get it better than I thought.

  • That makes sense.

I really like some of the things posed and pushed for by radical theology,

  • For sure! It is a much needed critique.

but I feel like if I look deeper into it, I’m left very wanting.

  • That may be rectified by accepting the nature of the project.

Also, like Micky was saying, I feel like I need to wear a dunce cap while I’m reading it sometimes.  It’s articulation is way, way over my head.

  • Fair enough. Admittedly, RT is not for everyone. Of the 50,000 IP addresses that downloaded from HBC in the past months, 146 were even interested enough to sign up for High Gravity. It is a niche market. 

Everyone feel free to chime in with your thoughts and concerns. All we ask is that you please let us know if you are in a PhD program in Chicago. 

Share

Radical Theology Cliff Notes

Sometimes you stumble into something so wildly different than anything you have encountered before that it can give you a bit of whiplash.church-300x199
When this happens in the realm of theology – it can cause a level of trauma to your faith that it feels as if it will never recover.
This is where translators and apologist can come in and play a healthy role.
I am not a practitioner of Radical Theology per-se. I am more of a practical theologian who is in dialogue with (or informed by) schools of thought that might challenging to the population as a whole (or at least those who occupy the pews).

I received this week’s notes from one Mr. Tripp Fuller that he intended to utilize on the most recent episode of the High Gravity reading group co-hosted by the incomparable Peter Rollins. I took one look at them and thought to myself:

“Self… folks may not know what some of this stuff means. This is sad because much of it has deep implications on living out faith in the 21st century and even deeper implication on the cultural conversation that each of us finds ourselves caught up in the middle of.”

SO I thought it might be interesting to throw a few of the notes out there and to attempt to attach a helpful note on a few items.
Here is what I am up to: if you feel like you are interested in a Radical approach but find it out of reach or unclear … please respond in the comment section and we can either A) figure this out together or B) I will point you in a helpful direction if I know of one.

Before we start – couple of overly-simplistic definitions:

  • Radical Theology – a theological approach that is not tied to a congregation, denomination or other sanctioning body. The freedom of not being anchored in a confessional approach allows thinkers to interact with daring, innovative and contemporary schools of thought without consequence of consideration of how the outcome will impact faith communities (at least not primarily).

 

  • Confessional Theology – a theological approach rooted in both historic tradition and local expression. Confessional theology takes classical perspective and either tries to update it for the current context or attempts to return to some previous incarnation with the hopes of a purer expression or acceptable orthodoxy/practice.

 

  • Theo-poetics – born out of an awareness that all of our god-talk is both perspectival and provisional. When we speak of god/the divine we do so in imagery, metaphor, and symbol. This awareness of our limitations of language release us to confess that our signifiers (symbols) can never fully or truly represent that which they signify. The result is a freedom to explore, innovate, ratify, renovate and adapt our god-language in order to both expose idolatry and inspire creativity in how we express our beliefs.

 

  • Big Other –  As Tom explains below “(in very simple terms) the set of customs and rules that regulate our horizontal social interaction and belief”. One way of conceiving of this is “That is to say, ‘the big Other’ is the ambience of the situation that comes through human ways of following situational “rules.” That is, without human beings, there is no ‘big Other.’”  Addressing the Big Other is often manifest in a critique of a projection of a watcher in the sky sort of conception of god.

Here are some of Tripp’s notes:

Radical Theology v Confessional

1) Radical Theology is parasitic to Confessional Theology… on its behalf. Radical Theology is being faithful to what is harbored in the name of ‘God’ – the event & not the tradition on the tradition’s terms.

2) Radical Theology reserves the right to ask any question. Because Confessional Theology is accountable to a tradition & its institutions there will be places where questions\conversations\operating conclusions will serves as “conversation stoppers.” Places in which that activity of critical thinking puts one out of the building. (ex. Trinity or Same Sex Marriage)

3) Radical Theology seeks to be EXPOSED to the Event w/in the Confessional Theology tradition but not PROPOSE a new articulation of the tradition.

4) Radical Theology rejects both the apathetic silence about the Big Other & the theist\atheist debate about the Big Other. The Big Other does not exist.

5) Radical Theology displaces the boundaries & certainty of ‘belief’ w/in Confessional Theology – the “how” w/out articulating another ‘what.’ Why? Whatever the ‘what’ is w/in a tradition doesn’t correlate to ‘how’ it is enacted.

6) Radical Theology affirms the Event contained IN but not BY Confessional Theology.

7) Radical Theology is a material (therefore a political) theology. God’s insistence is about our existence, here in the world, in relationships, & not about our continued or reanimated existence elsewhere. Radical Theology is about faith enacted for this world, not faith in another.

8) Radical Theology leaves the logos of Confessional Theology behind for theo-poetics. For the Radical Theology there is no divine-logic to be learned or sacred syllogisms to be mastered. When ‘words’ are used to close the circle around the truth, the poet protests ‘words’ enslavement… their demonic possession of the impossible possibilities that vanquished on behalf of the actual – the certain – the final – the verdict of Confessional Theology.

I thought it would be helpful at this point to outline how Caputo frames the turn from Confessional to Radical Theology in his amazing and short book “Philosophy And Theology” . In chapter 5 he illustrates 3 turns that converge together to make the BIG turn.
First up is the Hermeneutical Turn – this a confession we each read a text or interpret our experience from an angle. We all have a location and that means that we all see things from an angle.

Second is the Linguistic Turn – this is a recognition that every discipline and every tradition has its own set of vocabulary and concepts that form the ‘rules of the game’. Just as one can not play ‘Sport’ but plays A sport (football or baseball) so one can not speak ‘Language’ but A language. One can not practice ‘Religion’ but A religion. One must learn and abide by the rules of language game that one is playing.

Third is the Revolutionary Turn – this is an admission that things change… or rather that the way we see things changes. Working off of Kuhn’s idea of ‘paradigms’ and scientific revolutions, we readily admit that even where the data does not change (the universe) the way that we conceptualize it does periodically alter in radical ways.

These three come together to form the Postmodern Turn. They are also helpful for illustrating the sort of thing that Radical Theology is up to.

If you have any questions or comments I would love for post them below! 

__________

I also want to acknowledge that I left out references to Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Tillich, Descartes, and Kant. We can do all of that in a subsequent post if you want. 

 

Share

Do Confessional and Radical theologies need each other? More on Missio Alliance and Subverting the Norm

Guest Post from Tad Delay

 

I.  On Tuesday Bill posted a very conciliatory case for “Why Missio Alliance and Subverting the Norm need each other.”  Bill and I were both at Subverting the Norm.  And to be honest, I do not know much about Missio Alliance.  But I’m intrigued and want to think more about this.

II.  Tony Jones advised those at StN to “be loyal to this tribe” and “put less words in scare quotes. Just answer the goddamn question.”  I’ve been thinking about that.  The catch of course is how to determine who is in the tribe.  Being part of the vituperative world that academia so often is forces you to get used to the idea that some people are brilliant comrades working toward similar goals and yet can be very difficult people.  That’s easy enough to spot and work with.  On the other hand, a difference of goals has a tendency to inflame tensions no matter how good our intentions are.  That’s easy enough to recognize, but very difficult to work around.  So how do we decide who is going toward a similar destination via different route or who has departed for a different course altogether?

III.  This far-too-simplified schema is how I tend to think of Christian theologies.  Each of these has a difficult time talking with either of the other two:

A) Confessional pastoral and lay theologies

This is the filler of many sermons, coffee house conversations, and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists.  It is not sophisticated, but it is theology “on the ground.”  You know it when you hear it.  And it absolutely has to be engaged, but it is more and more difficult to dialogue with the more you learn theology.

B) Confessional academic theologies

This is the material produced by the seminaries and universities.  Along with Biblical studies, academic theology is expansive, engaged with history, systematic, and (hopefully) philosophical.  My assumption is that every future pastor and/or theologian makes a decision at some point in their studies about whether or not they will even try to communicate the material they are learning, because more academic theologies can feel very intimidating and threatening to parishioners who are not reading theology/philosophy.  It is meant to be theology “for the church” in the roundabout way of developing coherent, esoteric systems of thought.  I put Missio Alliance here.  Again, I profess my ignorance of Missio Alliance, but my impression from those I’m in dialogue with tells me MA is a very confessionally Christian group.

C) Radical, political, and process theologies

This third category is theology in the aftermath of Altizer, Whitehead, Derrida, Schmitt, Badiou, Žižek, and of course the two living JCs.  This group often treats theology as a void that can only be accessed by the various disciplines on the periphery.  There are certainly confessional types among them (particularly within post-liberal or process types), but its also not at all uncommon to find entirely atheistic political theologies in this camp.  Subverting the Norm asked a broader question about postmodern theology, but since radical theology ended up being such an important theme,  I put Subverting the Norm mostly – but not entirely- here.

VI.  Conservatives, liberals, and radicals see very different problems as the main point to address.  The primary antagonism we select directs our energy.   Sometimes disparate theologies can work together on social issues here and there, but on a long enough timeline they are driven apart because the antagonisms they mean to address are mutually incompatible.

Forgive the caricatures, but political conservatives locate a primary antagonism along lines of moral purity or cultural/religious loyalty.  Liberals locate the primary antagonisms along some combination of class, race, and gender or whatever else liberals are upset about.  Both liberals and conservatives tend to agree on capitalism (with minor skirmishes over neo-classical or Keynesian models), and thus we get the stereotypical similarities between platforms.  Radical and/or Marxian perspectives locate the primary antagonism almost exclusively along class lines, which is why we are always complaining about capitalism.  And at Subverting the Norm, there was a definite tension between liberals who wanted to talk about how to be more inclusive and radicals who think theology (no matter how inclusive) does not matter if it doesn’t occupy politics.

So can Missio Alliance and Subverting the Norm work together?  I definitely hope so.  I haven’t even figured out if StN’s mix of radicals and liberals can work together in the long term.  But if we can be serious about exactly how confessional (or not) we expect a theology to be, and if we can isolate the antagonism(s) our theologies address, then we are at least on a path toward an answer.  And that answer has implications that are much more significant than two conferences.

Tad DeLay is a PhD student in philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University. http://taddelay.com
@taddelay   
Share

Subverting the Norm LIVE and in 3-D

This is a ruckus selection of audio from the HomeBrewed Christianity live event at the Subverting the Norm 2 conference last weekend. Rushmore_Poster_rev0

It begins with Barry Taylor and the Band then moves on to 4 toasts offered in honor of the 4 faces on our Mt. Rushmore style Radical Theology poster for the event. Hegel, Tillich, Derrida and Caputo are toasted by Kirsten Gerdes, Tripp Fuller, Jack Caputo and Peter Rollins.

Tony Jones sat in for Bo Sanders in ‘the Practical Seat’  and you will be able to hear how wild things got as the evening progressed.  There was also a contest between Tripp’s two new brews: the Caputo Decon-structor Ale and the John Cobb #Faniac Ale.

If Radical Theology is something that interests you, make sure to sign up for the Summer Reading-Video Conference with Tripp and Pete called “High Gravity”.

Leave us some feedback about this episode by using the little microphone on the front page in the ‘Speak Pipe’.

Share

The New Materialism with Jeffrey Robbins

Brace yourself!    Jeffrey Robbins is all about the New Materialism and he is going to knock your socks off! ContentImage-63-220729-ContentImage63163974CrockettRobbins2

Tripp gets to chat with the co-author of the book “Religion, Politics and the Earth” (along with pod favorite Clayton Crockett) that is making its way around the inter-webs in preparation for the Subverting the Norm Conference – April 5 & 6 in Springfield, Missouri.

We will be linking here to all of the posts from the New Materialism blog-tour.

 

This episode is sponsored by the Subverting the Norm Conference 2 in Springfield Missouri April 5th and 6th. Thanks to both Drury University and Phillips Theological Seminary for sponsoring the conference and making it the most affordable two-day event of the year.

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Share

Our Theology Starts 100 Years Ago: an experiment

I want to throw something out and see if it has legs. I will be playing a character today – feel free to play along! 

My great-grandmother was born into a world that no longer exists in many ways.

I’m preparing a presentation for the Subverting the Norm Conference. I have been reviewing a book called Modern Christian Thought and I am haunted by the reality that there is something significant about the late 19th and early 20th. One-Room Schoolhouse

The world changed 100 years ago. The changes weren’t just technological and societal. The changes were in areas that deeply impact the realms of belief and the way that we live out faith in community.

As a constructive theologian who is getting ready to present to a group of radical theologians, I keep circling around this idea:

 

The way that we think about theology and engage our faith has been fundamentally altered in the last 100 years.  

I am tempted to say that we would be far better off if we just started theology at the turn of the 20th century.  In some ways, the way that we all approach the christian faith begins about 100 years ago.

  • Radio was becoming a technology for mass communication. Somewhere between 1909 and 1920 the medium emerged. 1920 sees the first public stations.
  • TV didn’t exist yet.
  •  Women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920.
  • 100 years ago – World War 1 had not started.
  • The Great Depression is almost 2 decades away. That is important because it wrecked 2 things that ruled up until that point in the American psyche: 1) the myth of perpetual growth & prosperity 2) the illusion of independence and not be inter-connected with other nations.
  • The 1906 Pentecostal Revival at Azusa Street was on the move.
  • 100 years the large of majority of American churches were preaching ‘post-millennial’ theology: that we would usher in the kingdom of God through societal improvement. 100 years later almost no one believes that.
  • In 1914 Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic and was arrested. A decade later she would do it again with success since venereal disease had become a reality for soldiers in WWI. By the 1930s legal victories would make contraception normative.
  • 1903 the Wright brother famously took flight. 1909 air travel began to go commercial.
  • 100 years ago the psychology of Sigmund Freud was starting to be popularized.
  • Movies were still a few years away.
  • Vatican II, Nuclear War, and the Internet were not even shadows to be hinted at – and those three have perhaps impacted the greatest number of humans as anything else on the list.

One Downside: 

In fact, there is only reason that I am hesitant to say that we would be far better off to just start theology at the turn of the 20th century. The reason for my hesitation is that matters of racism and the colonial legacy might be lost.

I would argue, however, that these concerns are accounted for in my 100 Year proposal because the implications of African slavery, First Nations genocide, and other historic legacies are so deeply embedded in the current structures that they show up continuously. *

Huge Upside:

It seems to me that those who are most into things from the 13th century (Aquinas) or 16th century (Calvin) or even the 19th (revivalism and holiness) are most prone to the ‘silo mentality’ that has then focused on ‘in house’ matters to the apparent neglect of the culture around them. I know that it is dangerous (and ill-advised) to paint with such a broad stroke but …

There is something self-satisfying when we get fascinated with a historical expression that tends to pull one into a more … I don’t know how to say it … internal place?

It’s not a lot different than when people get really into quilting, or tying flies, or video games. That becomes their big things, takes much of their thought energy and time. But in the end … it is just another thing. Like collecting Precious Moments figurines – it’s not harmful – it’s just not worthy to be the thing.   Like a kid so enthralled with playing in the sandbox being totally oblivious to world around.

It doesn’t pass the ‘so what’ test.

Conclusion:

Because the gospel is about incarnation, we are supposed to be the body of christ fully embodied in our time and place. That is how I read it.  So much has changed over the past 100 years that to not put all our energy into the world in which we live is the equivalent of  – at best fantasizing/day dreaming … and at worst to live in denial and prefer the fantasy.

I am growing suspicious that it is that stark.
The consequences are that dire.
The realities of our century are that severe.

It is why I’m growing suspicious that Radical Political Theology may be far more faithful an endeavor than attempts to recover a romanticized notion of something lost.

I don’t want to talk about Aristotle and neo-Platonism one more time. I don’t care about the Greek polis. It doesn’t matter how pre-moderns conceived of substance and essence. I don’t care how the Reformers argued about communion and baptism. It’s time to move on.

 

* There is no greater danger in them being lost anymore than they are now, nor is there much progress being made by our current approach which is white-washed simply by ‘look, I didn’t own any slaves and I didn’t steal any land – that has nothing to do with me.’ So I’m not sure how much the 17th 18th and 19th century are really helping us in matters of justice. 

 

Share