The Death of Theology God

Introduction

- Christian theology in tandem with and in reaction to the Zeitgeist

- The importance of the postmodern criticism of grand-narrative

- The impact upon Christian theology

Theology and Modernity

- Modern thought; a totalizing influence with grand claims and optimistic potential

o The idea of finding demonstrable truth once and for all time

o The interference of Christian ‘mythology’ and ‘ignorance’

- The terms, concepts, and understandings of modernity had to be embodied in order to be dealt with and discussed

- Theology did not attempt to refute modernity – as it was understandably attracted to the end-game of modernity – but rather to redefine it with the Christian grand-narrative

"The Postmodern Condition"

- For a great many reasons (war and the decreasing hope in an increasingly better world, sympathetic attitudes towards previously disregarded viewpoints, an increasing awareness of the limits of knowledge) the modern vision grew to become unbelievable, and with it, the totalizing manner with which modernity conducted itself

- What resulted has been called post-modernity, defined simplistically as “an incredulity towards metanarratives” (Lyotard)

- Taylor: the end of modernity is the death of God, the disappearance of the self, the end of history, and the closing of the book.

The Theological Response

- Rejection of the criticism

o Counteractive evangelical and fundamentalist movements

- Acknowledgment of the criticism/working within the criticism

o Emerging church movement, radical orthodoxy, post-critical theology

§ I shall be engaging post-critical theology specifically under the mindset that theology has not gone far enough in its utilization of the critique of grand/metanarrative

o Process theology, liberation theology, existential theology, hermeneutical theology

- Acceptance of the criticism

o I consider this to be a rarity, though many who acknowledge the criticism would disagree; Taylor’s Erring: A Postmodern A/Theology is the work I shall be engaging as an acceptance of the criticism

Post-Criticalism and Grand Narrative

- Post-criticalism – as manifest in The Art of Reading Scripture – begins with an acknowledgment of “the postmodern condition”; it concludes this acknowledgment with the idea that it has overcome (or eluded) the bulk of this critique

o Insofar as the Biblical narrative does not justify the structure, it is not considered to be judged under Lyotard’s “grand narrative” criticism

o Is this finally the case? Is the bulk of this criticism directed at the justification mechanism or rather at the totalizing nature of the grand-narrative explanation?

- If this is the case – that the grand-explanation is under criticism concurrent to the grand-justification, and not an independent and un-criticized entity – then the very supporting structures beneath post-critical theology are still under criticism.

o I shall proceed within the idea that post-critical theology has not justified itself under Lyotard, and that this justification may be irrelevant; if Lyotard does not judge the Christian grand-narrative to be tyrannical, than I shall

Post-Criticalism and Pre-modern Readings

- A generalized and poetic statement: that post-criticalism believes the texts of the ancients to have been liberated from the oppression of critical theology

o As such, texts that could not be read believably before may now be read as having insight

- I propose that this is a somewhat unrealistic idea; I believe that the “fires” of modern criticism have made their mark, and that this mark is not easily reversed or ignored. It has, in fact, given us new eyes, eyes that cannot embrace these texts as holistically as might be desired by post-critical theology

- “We must begin wherever we are and the thought of the trace… has already taught us that it was impossible to justify a point of departure absolutely. Wherever we are: in a text where we already believe ourselves to be”; could pre-modern readings and understandings of Scripture and tradition possibly qualify? For myself, they cannot.

Introduction to "Higher Criticism"

- “Higher criticism” is the rather privileged name given to the groups of Biblical criticisms (studies, investigations) interested in the origins of any particular text.

o Like anything else, higher criticism possesses its own set of assumptions, one of which is the idea that the world in and around the time of the Bible functioned more or less as our world does; that is to say, the general outworking of the physical reality (physics, biology, etc) was the same yesterday as it is today.

o Such a conclusion, necessarily, negates things like ‘divine revelation’ and such

- Higher criticism utilizes the idea that the Bible has been composed of by a great many purely human authors; texts are divided to produce distinct traditions, ethical and communal assumptions are placed upon the texts as being behind the texts, and very natural explanations are given for the writing of the Bible

"Higher Criticism" and Believability

- Higher criticism is certainly not without its profound difficulties, especially when one considers the basis of its assumption and method. It is, after all, quite fully a product of late modern thought that was still able to state itself in flagrantly elevatory terms.

- What higher criticism does have in its favour, however, is the fact that it has been a part of the way in which we read the Bible for some time now; ‘contradictions’ within the Bible are more openly acknowledged, interpretation and perspective are given preference, many do not practice a Scriptural reading that understands all aspects of the Bible to be equally inspired, etc…

o In other words, higher criticism still remains believable, even with all its faults; it has almost become a part of the contemporary Western ethos

- While for some – like the post-critical theologians – higher criticism has proven to be vacuous and desert-like, others, such as myself, have enjoyed the desert and found it to be a comfortable home

Divided Text as Discordant Justice

- In addition to being believable, higher-criticism functions beneficially within the grand/metanarrative criticism

o The division of texts allows discord within the canon; voices and ideas that might easily be sidelined as ‘obscure’, ‘mysterious’, or ‘misunderstood’ in light of the ‘bigger picture’ are allowed to speak as one of many traditions and/or ideas present within a text

o Contradictions and incompatibilities are allowed

o Theology then does not become a privilege, but rather a difficult task

- Optimism depending, this may function either as a blessing or as a curse

o Negatively, theology is not simple under this view; it is not merely a process of listening to the divine word and living in light of it, but rather, people become responsible for their conclusions; God cannot be deferred to quite so easily

o Positively, theology is not oppressive under this view; contradictory ideas and differing thoughts cannot be seen as products of sinfulness, inadequate revelation, or simple heresy, but rather are understood as being attempts at understanding God that must be judged with relative and fluctuant categories.

A/theological proposal

- The death of God as the end of metaphysics of presence; the end of metaphysics of presence as the end of grand narrative; the end of grand narrative as the end of justification; the end of justification as the end of the self-enclosed revelation

- God as god; God as flux; God as mystery (and a brief treatment of apophatic theology)

- History as perspective; Christianity as a voice among many; the gospel as phenomenology

- The self in other-terms; the creative, the responsible

- The pharmakon of the structure; the give and take of revelation; inheritance and response, gift and responsibility

Riot, Religion and Righteousness -

When faced with this week’s readings, I was confronted with a stark play of differences between the passages, a series of differences that resonated more prominently than any similarity that I might be able to find betwixt and between the lines of this text.

The first passage – that of the giving of the ten commandments – presents the direct vox dei in a clear and present manner; that is to say, God himself “spoke all these words”. In contrast to this, the second Old Testament passage intentionally relies upon mysterious and ambiguous metaphors – though the heavens declare the glory of God, they do so without speech or words. It is almost as though the eternal law of the Psalm – rising from the heavens and found in every child’s smile, no doubt – is different in a way from the lithographic law of Exodus 20. Whether one wishes to equate these two passages as speaking about the same law or not, it seems to me that there are profound differences; perhaps these are difference that should be taken in tandem with one another, though perhaps they are differences that exclude one another.

A similar play of differences is found in the two New Testament passages; while Paul in First Corinthians speaks of a more sublime manifestation of God – a manifestation that has appeared as foolishness to the Hellenists and an unorthodoxy to Jerusalem; the world did not know God from its inception, nor were signs and wisdom given to the Jews and Greeks respectably – the passage from the gospel of John demonstrates a portrait of Jesus who gives clear didaction (to the point of excess, perhaps) with a concluding chiastic bookend that speaks of the sign of the resurrection of the dead Christ.

If one were to look to these passages for a unity, one could perhaps find one in the presence of the law in the Old Testament – first to the Hebrews in the form of the ten commandments and secondly to the world in the profession of the heavens – combined with the ‘fulfillment’ of the law in the uniting of Jew and Greek and the abolition of the temple (which, in some readings, represented the whole of creation) and the concomitant raising of Jesus in the place of the temple. This is, as far as I can tell, the most comprehensive unity between these passages (though my synopsis comes from my tradition; I trust that others in the class will have different ideas, and I look forward to hearing them); even still, I believe the various texts speak more poetically and believably in their differences, rather than this ‘common thread’ that circles over them and ties them together (even as they, I believe, try to squirm away from these bounds).

The title, by the way, is the name of the song (and the band) I'm currently listening to... I thought it was somewhat ironic as I gave my response.

Daniël

Daniel's Response

This may be too long and occasionally off-topic, but here it is anyhow:

As I was searching for commentary for these readings of the first Sunday of Lent in Year B I found that the common theme among them is the theme of baptism.

If one had to tie the readings together as a unified whole - the goal of the assignment, as I understand it - this would seem to be as theologically good a tie-in as any. Like most overriding themes, however, it necessarily suffers from the almost inherent thematic need to silence dissonance in favour of harmony. To be less rhetorical and more to the point, it appears to me that, while the New Testament readings involve baptism, this theme is entirely absent from the Old Testament readings (for obvious reasons); the idea of covenant, however, is present in the Old Testament readings. Historically, a great many Christian sects - my own Reformed tradition included - have equivocated these two ideas, and in that sense a valid reading exists from that foundation; in another sense, however, there are serious problems with this reading.

To play a quasi-deconstructionist for a moment, there are other themes within these passages that might encompass elements of each of the readings: the idea of overcoming suffering, the revelation of the way/desire/path of God, the proclaimation of God...

This being the first Sunday of Lent, we find that the purpose of Lent is to renew the vows of our baptismal covenant with God through Christ Jesus.

As an aside, I don't feel that any healthy covenant should need to be renewed annually... or that the Lent season of temporary sacrifice - the churches that I have been to that find Lent to be important have stressed a 40-day sacrifice of some sort - really does anything at all conducive to this...

This covenant in which is initiated by God (Gen. 9:9, 9:11, 9:12) is not only a covenant to a specific people (Sinai) but rather with all of creation (Gen. 9:15, 9:16, 9:17).

Or rather, to all flesh... or perhaps even better, to all flesh that withstood the deluge...

The floods have come and gone, whether in truth or the understanding, of a phenomenon, so what can we learn from them? We learn how God relates to the world.

Indeed we do... God relates to the world quite poorly. He must have an amazing PR department though; not many would be able to pull off a stunt like the flood and retain popularity.

The purpose in which God created the floods (Gen. 6:5-7) gave Him enough reason to “scrape off” what He didn’t like and keep what He did like. God wanted to renew creation.

And Hitler wanted to renew Europe... it's actually quite amazing how innocuous the imagery of the flood can remain until people start to emulate it... to be perfect, as their heavenly father is perfect...

...The third interpretation in which I find myself inclined to is that the water has saved Noah and his son’s from a world in which could have been ruled by evil.

I dunno... considering the flood phenomenon, is evil really all that bad? It makes one pause to wonder if it'd be worse to live in a world ruled by evil or a world ruled by God...

The water has wiped all that may have overcome Noah and his son’s if God would not have taken action.

Judging by Noah's drunken reaction to the flood, it doesn't seem like this is so.

In a sense Noah’s family has overcome the evil of the earth and remained victorious over evil only with the relationship of God.

Where, exactly, does a relationship with God factor into any of these passages? I've often heard relational terms being used in reference to God, but I've been hard pressed to find relational references in God's love letter to me.

In the same way Peter explains that baptism is not a physical cleansing but a conscientious renewal of creation through Christ alone.

The forest-fire effect, I assume, with reference to the flood...

As Christ has became victorious of the temptations faced (cleansed His conscience) He then is able to return to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God (Mark 1:14).

I'm not entirely sure I like this imagery... as though this victory necessarily involves some un-cleanliness...

We may find a sense of renewal in creation and we may also find a spiritual cleansing that renews our relationship with our Creator.

Our creator often is made to sound like some finnicky Victorian lady who constantly needs people to bathe before she'll see them.

...a deeper sense of Lent would be to allow the season of Lent to “Create in me a clean heart, O God. And renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10).

A popular psalm, though I tend to sing "Why Can't We Be Friends?" and "Get Together" whenever I read it. Again, perhaps somewhat off topic, but I'm not entirely sure I want to get much closer to God... from what I've experienced, God can be pretty... abyss-mal.

3/01/2006 03:12:20 AM

About this Blog

This blog is for Theo 495 students at The King's University College. It will allow each member of the senior theology seminar to post a reflection on the Revised Common Lectionary readings for the first four weeks of Lent, and for others members of the seminar to interact in turn. In the words of the syllabus:

Each student member of the seminar will contribute a 500 word reflection on a blog to be set up by the instructor. The topic of the reflection will be the Revised Common Lectionary readings for the week of the class. The reflection must be theologically focused, tie all the readings together, and be posted no later than 5.00 pm on the Monday before the class. The other members will blog a critical response of about 250 words, to be posted not later than 12.00 noon on the Wednesday before the class. The class will consist of a discussion of the original meditation and the responses.