Ethics of Resistance

One part of one chapter of my dissertation is on the ethics of resistance. Let me post what an abstract for this may look like. It has very little to do with the Romero material, other than the fact that I see Romero as one of those people practicing the ethics of resistance in their context. So, the theory that follows can be seen to lay the groundwork for how I would interpret Romero's ministry.

I propose to pursue the connection between ethics and religion in the move from the modern to the postmodern. Specifically, I will show how postmoderns work to develop an ethic of resistance which focuses on otherness and difference, which is in contrast to the modern development of a universal ethic. One cite where we can see this development is in the use of religion in the postmodern. This paper, then, makes two moves. First, I look to the recent work of David Tracy on the fragment as a way of explaining the move from the modern to the postmodern and the way that religion functions in this move. Second, I show how Tracy’s theological focus on the fragment shares a way of thinking with Jacques Derrida. This shared way of thinking is pursued through what I call an ethics of resistance, which is developed in conversation with the religious. Ultimately, we see in Tracy and Derrida the use of religion to fight the modern impulse to totalization through the development of an ethics of resistance.

I begin with the theological work of David Tracy, focusing on his most recent which takes up the question of naming and thinking God. Tracy shows how the theologian must move from the attempt to totalize God with hegemonic forms (a la modernity) to the search for forms that allow for the interruptive and disruptive nature of God. For Tracy, this form is found in what he terms the fragment. Fragments are those ways of thinking that are part of a tradition that call that tradition into question, disrupting the thinking taking place. For Tracy, fragmentation is the postmodern situation. As such, the fragment does not long for a new totalizing discourse; rather, the fragment shows the breaking apart of any totalizing discourse. Thus, the discourse for God that offers systematic structures which “box” God are inadequate. Rather, we need forms which allow the impossibility of naming God (a la Augustine) to come to the fore. For Tracy, this means theology must recover the underside of its own tradition, those voices that have been silenced or ignored in the past; it is these voices that show the calling into question of many of the hegemonic forms that parade as names for God today. In a similar way, religion acts as that force that calls into question the modern way of thinking. Thus, Tracy simultaneously shows the limits of modern thinking as well as systematically inclined theological endeavors.

For Tracy, though, the fragment does not act as a strictly deconstructive moment; rather, there must be reconstruction. This is accomplished through a “gathering of the fragments.” The gathering works as a way of bringing together disparate claims about God; often these are in disagreement with each other. However, by turning to the gathering, Tracy allows these fragments to “live-in-difference.” The gathering does not allow the fragment to become one more totalization because it exists within the gathering that always allows the fragment to be called into question, deconstructed, etc. Thus, the gathering of fragments, allowing them to live-in-difference, turns into an ethics. This ethics acts as a moment of resistance to those forms of thinking that preference hegemony and totalization; rather, in the postmodern, we must allow this living-in-difference.

Here, it is necessary to turn to the explicitly ethical work of Jacques Derrida, as Tracy does not develop an ethics as such. Tracy’s work opens the way of thinking for theology that allows for this Derridean turn through the living-in-difference promulgated by the gathering. The turn to Derrida is a move to his notion of deconstruction as doing justice to the other, that doing justice is deconstruction. Derrida develops this notion of justice in contrast to the idea of law. He says that law is founded on an act of violence, set up as a totalizing structure to restrict the way of being of inhabitants under a law. It is an explicitly Enlightenment/modern way of thinking. Derrida says, however, that the notion of justice deconstructs law because the law’s focus is not justice—even thought it says it is—but is sameness and cohesion. Derrida says that justice deconstructs law by calling into question by preferencing the other through hospitality; and for Derrida, both justice and hospitality are thought through religion (specifically Abraham). This causes a rethinking of the very nature of law, politics and morality, by saying that the just action is not law, but a turn to the other, being open to this other. Thus, justice resists law, showing law its inherent limitations while also showing a more “ethical” way of being. In Derrida, then, we see the explicit development of this ethics of resistance through the preference of justice.

Thus, we see that the theological endeavor of Tracy and the work of Derrida develop an ethics of resistance. This ethics acts as a way of both opening the postmodern to the religious because the religious is used as that which resists the totalizations of modernity. Rather, the religious becomes the impetus for the development of an ethics of resistance; both through the gathering offered by Tracy and the justice pursued by Derrida.

Romero Quote

I have been reading much lately for various projects - my dissertation advisor says I have something akin to academic ADD in that I have to have multiple things going on at once to get one thing done. One of the things I'm working on is a paper for the Concilium Conference this summer on Christianity as a practice that works against capitalism. One of the authors I'm reading is Oscar Romero. I believe everyone should be reading Romero, as well as MLK, Jr. But, this quote is quite interesting in light of some of the recent surveys that said that white, evangelical Christians were the most likely to support torture. It's interesting the contrast when you are not the one torturing, but (as Romero shows), the one being tortured.

"This is why the church has great conflicts,
It accuses of sin.
It says to the rich,
Do not sin by misusing your money.
It says to the powerful:
Do not misuse your political influence.
Do not misuse your weaponry.
Do not misuse your power.
Don't you see that is a sin?
It says to sinful torturers:
Do not torture.
You are sinning.
You are doing wrong.
You are establishing the reign of hell on earth." (Violence of Love, 17).

I can't imagine many evangelical churches preaching this on Sunday (or Tuesday or Thursday for that matter). It seems Romero puts the role of the Church in direct opposition to many of the things the evangelical church of America holds dear. However, unlike the mainline, liberal churches, Romero believes the only way to oppose the system of oppression is through conversion and transformation through the encounter with Christ. Perhaps it is Romero that we should be looking to as an example (and, for all those who always ask about being practical, Romero was a pastor and wrote as a pastor).

Theology of Culture, Part 2

Ok, so to answer Joshua's questions, I decided to offer a post instead of just a couple of comments. And, always remember, these are only preliminary thoughts and what I see as a "way in" to developing a theology of culture.

So, first, let's talk about the method of correlation. A method of correlation is relatively simple and yet incredibly difficult to implement. Basically, as articulated by Tillich in his Systematic Theology, a method of correlation looks at the issues and problems of society and then purges religion (spec. Christianity) for the answer to the problem. The only problem with this is that many times the question being asked by a culture/society was not the same question that was being answered by Christianity. So, we need a more specifically hermeneutical (and, a radical hermeneutics) approach. Thus, the goal now, as articulated by David Tracy, becomes to understand the culture/society in which one lives and to see how they ask their questions and approach problems. We also need to be adept at Christian theology in such a way that we can offer answers and positions out of our tradition that speak to the broader culture. I would offer, also, that there is also a process of deconstruction at work here, both of theology and culture. Thus, this theological method is inherently apologetic.

Now, it becomes necessary to articulate what I mean by culture. And, I think here we hit a nebulous concept that is not really able to be had. But, basically, when I talk about culture, I am talking about the web of signification which gives a group or multiple groups meaning. Culture fills a "meaning space," weaving a web of signs and symbols that imbibe groups and societies with meaning. This means that cultures have what Tracy calls classic texts and I would add classic foci. A web is weaved from these classic places, with new classics constantly being added.

So, for an American, I would say that to understand our culture would be to understand a certain set of classic texts that have gone into giving people in the culture and society meaning, while also understanding the different art forms and other signifiers where people find meaning. Some classic texts would be Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, Scarlet Letter, Slaughterhouse 5, Catch 22, Catcher in the Rye, the Bible. But, we also need to understand what goes into shaping people now, which would be popular culture, like TV shows, pop music, movies, and even bestseller books.

I would also say that any theology that seeks to be practical must understand its location. So, any part of a practical theology must leave room for articulating the horizon against which one is set and speak to that horizon. So, if one lives and does work in the South, that should be acknowledged; one living in a northern city would look at things differently, etc.

The goal is to understand the world in which one lives, and also the world to which one communicates. The hope being an offering of the transformative power of the Gospel in a way that a group or culture can hear it anew and in its glory.

Toward a Theology of Culture

So, a New Year's Resolution is to start blogging more frequently. Specifically, use the blog as a way to get thoughts somewhere so that I can come back to them later to flesh out more substantially. I'm also hoping to do some book reviews as I interact with some theology and music material. As usual, please, whoever you are, interact, dialogue, share.

Right now, my thoughts are growing more and more toward building a theology of culture. My concern is the development of a theology that seeks to engage culture, not on culture's terms but also not by ramming culture into a theological paradigm. Rather, I'm really seeking to think through a way that a theologian can interact with culture in a way that is critical of both culture and theology.

I think that in beginning a journey like this, two caveats must be made:
1. Culture, the world, whatever, is loved, and graced, by God and is a place where God does reside.

2. A method of correlation must be used. I make this second statement knowing full well that many believe that this method is not appropriate. I recognize the weakness of this method, but believe it is the only way that does not seek to theologically dominate culture nor allow culture to dominate theology. I think that postliberalism and radical orthodoxy do the former and that liberal theologies do the latter.

However, as prolegomena to any theology of culture, we must establish the theological importance of the world and culture, which allows for us to then begin to understand it.

I think that the way to establish this theological importance for a Christian theology of culture is to turn to the person of Jesus Christ and his role in both the Creation and Incarnation. By looking here, we can begin to see how this method of correlation develops because of God's insistence on interacting with the world in a completely engaging way. I'll start another post here.

Black Theology and Black Power

I'm currently writing several papers (beside my dissertation) for conferences coming up in the Spring. I'm hoping to get quite a bit done over Christmas Break so that I'm not rushing at the last minute like usual.

One paper I'm writing is on Derridean hospitality as a solution to the problem of race - ultimately I'll argue that the Church should be (and has the resources to be) the place of reconciliation and hospitality for all races. In my reading for this, I ran across the following quote from James Cone, which I found to be very profound in light of my own life.

"[M]ost American theologians are too closely tied to the American structure to respond creatively to the life situation...Instead of seeking to respond to the problems which are unique to this country, most Americans look to Europe for the newest word worth theologizing about. Most graduate students in theology feel they must go to Germany or somewhere in Europe because that is where things are happening in the area of theology. Little wonder that American theology is predominantly 'footnotes on the Germans.' Theology [in America] is largely an intellectual game unrelated to the issues of life and death. It is impossible to respond creatively and prophetically to the life-situational problems of society without identifying with the problems of the disinherited and unwanted in society. Few American theologians have made that identification with poor black kids in America but have themselves contributed to the system which enslaves black people. The seminaries in America are probably the most obvious sign of the irrelevance of theology to life. Their initiative in responding to the crisis of black people in America is virtually unnoticeable." James Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, 85.

RIP - William Placher

Yesterday I found out that William Placher had died. I had the opportunity to briefly meet him after a lecture last year at my alma mater (where I was teaching at the time). He spoke on his new book The Triune God, elucidating a hard subject for a bunch of undergraduate ministry majors and minors. What came through in that discussion was a theologian I admire very much, even if I disagreed with him at times. He was a theologian who loved God, loved the church, and worked hard to do a theology that honored both. That is what a good theologian does and is about.

What is Theology - Part 1

It has taken me a little while to get into my dissertation...I've been trying to figure out how to approach the subject matter, which is to talk about theology as improvisation. I think that I have finally figured out the answer: God. Of course, right? The first answer for a theologian is usually the issue of God and how the doctrine of God works/ plays. In my view, the idea of God should be constantly deconstructing the theological enterprise, calling it into question and always leaving the question open, never turning to closure. This is where I think that improvisational music becomes a helpful analogate.

Now, in order to get into this, I have been reading various enterprises for thinking of theology as music - Robert Jensen's Systematic Theology (BTW, this is an excellent theology), the work of Jeremy Begbie, David Ford's Self and Salvation, and some others. Essentially, these proposals see theology as music, but turn to music as a fugue or opera. It is a constructed whole, a constant form, if you will. I have even been looking at Bruno Forte's Portal of Beauty, and he makes an attempt to use the fragment, but the fragment is always part of the whole, not that which calls the whole into question. What seems to be the real problem, here, is that there is a consistent form to theology and God and this is not called into question.

I want to call theology into question, or, at least, call upon the idea of God as something which always drives the theologian to their respective knees (both in prayer and in frustration). So, I'm working out how theology as improvisation moves from the form to the formless, taking the form of the idea of God and allowing this to stretch and play into something that is different and calls into question our traditions and thinking. I think this is the only way to think about God. I take here the example of Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses, which begins with the light of God but moves in the nebulous darkness that is God, into the seeing of nothing, hearing of nothing, but standing in the no/thing that is God.

So, I'm turning to a fragmentary theology, but using the fragment as that which calls into question the whole. And, I think that the ultimate fragment is God, especially as God was revealed in the Second Person of the Trinity in the Incarnation of the Son. Jesus is the deconstruction of the idea of God, which is the deconstruction of the enterprise of theology, at least as theology tends to operate.

Implicit in this is a hard question: how do we know God, or intuit God? My argument is that theology, like improvisation, is based upon a logic of attunement. We know God by being attuned to God through the tradition and Scripture and religious experience. However, by being attuned to God, we hear God differently in the tradition, which results in greater attunement and so on and so on. It is similar to the way that a jazz musician knows the music upon which he or she will improvise upon. We'll get into this more later though.