(Ir)religiosity - Latest Comments

Re: Derrida and the task of academic theology

blakehuggins — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:22:19 -0000

I love that article! It is one worth rereading again and again from time to time.

A simultaneous read sounds good to me!

Re: Derrida and the task of academic theology

twitter-88820526 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:47:42 -0000

You may already be aware of this as a Caputo fan, but he has made a very similar argument in a very concise way in a jam-packed short article with Catherine Keller. I've got it linked over on my essays page here: http://ow.ly/E2NX. Worth the read methinks.

I too am looking forward to getting at Transforming Christian Theology. Care to do a simultaneous read through?

Re: On theological anthropology

jonathanbrink — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:21:20 -0000

It is easier to tear down assumption than conclusions.

Re: On theological anthropology

blakehuggins — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:11:42 -0000

That sounds like a great book idea. And I think the Garden -- and really the Fall entirely, and how we think about it -- is crucial to all this. And I'm still not sure how I would talk about all that in this different view. Maybe I'll just let you do all the work and then read your book. ;-)

Re: On theological anthropology

blakehuggins — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:04:29 -0000

That sounds a lot better! I'm completely with you there. And that is a hugely important difference.

Re: On theological anthropology

jonathanbrink — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:34:17 -0000

I'm actually working on a book that explores that very point, which is why I brought it up. The biological process has to do with how we construct reality in our brain. The problem isn't as Augustine thought, as something hereditary, but something having to do with our design as human beings. What has helped me understand this has been a long road into neurology. Wouldn't it be funny if science ended up providing answers. ;-P

My hope is to examine our assumptions of the Garden so we can create a better story going forward.

Re: On theological anthropology

UMJeremy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:21:30 -0000

What if we called it "hereditary" sin rather than "biological" sin. If you are born into sin (communities of violence and suffering) then that's biological. If you are born with the sin of Adam, then that's hereditary. The former I can understand, the latter I can't.

Re: On theological anthropology

blakehuggins — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:01:40 -0000

You know, thinking about it now I'm not sure how responsible it was for me to write a categorical statement like that, especially given what we now about evolutionary biology. I think today I would say that original sin is not solely or merely biological. What I'm trying to get away from, though, is the traditional biological understanding of original sin (in Augustine, for example). It seems to me that that is more destructive than it is helpful. So I guess, what I'm saying is that I agree with you that it is both biological and sociological. Could you say more about the biological part? How it is similar or different from the traditional ideas about original sing?

Re: On theological anthropology

jonathanbrink — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:46:09 -0000

Blake, I would argue that sin is both biological and sociological. The problem manifests itself biologically to create a sociological problem.

Re: On Revelation

blakehuggins — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:09:58 -0000

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Given the time constraints, I wasn't really about to flesh this section out as much as I would've liked (I never feel like I have enough time to do things justice during the semester!), but I'm with you on a communal hermeneutic. That is paramount, I think. And it's really been minimalized in the tradition.

Hopefully, when I get some time I can expand it a bit more. Hermeneutics are a real interest of mine. And it is deeply important -- virtually every theological issue/debate eventually comes back the question of interpretation of the text.

Thanks for the link, btw!

Re: On Revelation

twitter-88820526 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:48:16 -0000

Just came across this today. Bizarrely similar (in spirit) to a piece I'm doing for /my/ systematic theologies course. I'm going at it in a bit of a different way, but am equally interested in making explicit the fact that hermeneutic interpretation is ALWAYS a communal affair. Anywho... I thought that you might be interested in some of the other work I've already done in this area, especially since you mentioned the duck/rabbit bit. Give it a looksee if you like: http://theopoetics.net/SURPLUSSQUINT.html

Re: On creation and providence

blakehuggins — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:53:43 -0000

Hey, thanks for the kind words. Brueggemann has been a significant influence on me as well, especially his book The Prophetic Imagination.

I think you're right, creation shouldn't be about ascribing to some theory about the origins of the universe. I will leave it to the scientist to figure that one out. Creation is about the ongoing work of God, work in which we are invited to participate. The more I think about, the more it seems clear to me that creatio ex nihilo is really more trouble than it is worth. It is beholden to a static notion of God bequeathed to modernity from Greek metaphysics. That is one of the reasons why I really appreciate the work of Caputo and Keller. Both are interested in theologizing outside those confines.

Re: On creation and providence

bindert — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:45:55 -0000

Hi Blake, beautiful new blog. Just a few weeks ago I preached about the same toppic: creation means that God out of chaos creates order a viable place to be. to belief in creation doesn't mean in the first place that you embrace some theory about the beginning of the world, but means that yoy believe in the ongoing work of God: creating again and again out of chaos order and viability. I was highly informed by what Brueggemann wrote in his theology of the old testament. Brueggemann writes:

‘This understanding of creation may strike some as an inadequate claim that seems to concede something crucial to Yahweh’s almighty power. It would appear, however, that such a mater troubled neither Yahweh nor Israel. The more important recognition, it seems to me, is that what may appear to be a theological concession to the stubbornness of “stuff” is in fact a characteristic pastoral strength of Israel’s faith. That is, Israel’s faith is markedly in the middle of things responding to what is given concretely “on the ground.” And what is given – daily and everywhere, in ancient times and in our own – is vexation, trouble, and destructiveness that appear to be untamed and on the loose. Evil is simply there, sometimes as a result of human sin, sometimes as a given, and occasionally blamed on God.’

and:

‘The pastoral realism of Israel’s testimony is enormous. Israel knows how life is in fact lived. And it dares to assert, in its testimony of a world ordered by Yahweh, that the threat of life, so palpable among us, is a threat that can and will be countered by the Creator, who continues the work of governance, order, and sustenance. Creation faith is the summons and invitation to trust the Subject of these verbs, even in the face of day-to day, palpable incursions of chaos. The One embedded in these doxological statements can be trusted in the midst of any chaos, even that of exile and finally that of death.''

Th.O.T. p. 158, 159
blessings,
Bindert, the Netherlands

Re: Best Mac v. PC Video…Ever

swingtrading3 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:01:46 -0000

Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.

Re: What Do I Love When I Love My God?

Terry — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:27:05 -0000

What do I love when I love my God? I love the fact that He is what I am not and what I can never truly be apart from Him. I love the fact that He can love when I normally give up. I love the fact that Christ had the ear of a disciple and was not disobedient when I stumble daily. I love that He is all knowing when I am short on answers. I love that He is patient when I grow frustrated. I love that He is God and that eternity will not be enough to digest all that He is.

Re: On theology proper

Jeremy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:04:57 -0000

I've thought a tad more about this. I feel as if it's problematic to assume we can deduce all of God's character by merely looking at Jesus of Nazareth. I'm assuming because of kenosis you assume God likewise forsakes all-power, all-knowledge to participate fully with his creation. I imagine we're on the same page that it's absurd to pretend Jesus somehow possessed God-like attributes, omniscience about what would would happen after the cross, for instance.

So are you suggesting that we have to forfeit claims to God's impassibility, omniscience, and omnipotence that were solely inherited from Greek Metaphysics? I know I've pressed this before, but would you not concede that the God of the Hebrew Bible is far different from the God you're proposing. I know this claim is getting quite trendy, but how would you avoid an accusation of Marcionism?

I'm not just asking this of you, but also myself. I really don't know how to engage the Hebrew Bible without either dismissing it or admitting that my conception of God does not do justice to large portions of scriptures, not just the Hebrew Bible but the New Testament as well.

In the end, I opt for liberation theology, because at least it's a) Biblical, b) politically radical (unlike, Caputo's bland liberalism re: http://tinyurl.com/ygc9qk4)

Re: On theology proper

Jeremy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:09:36 -0000

One last claim, the reason I distrust process theology is my skepticism (along with Barth) concerning natural theology. In our day and age the idea that one believe in God without revelations seems increasingly implausible (especially w/ the advent of modern science). I remember talking to a friend and we both agreed that without Jesus of Nazareth both of us would be atheist. I have no reason to believe in God save for God's self-revelation through the Son. We don't need God anymore, a point I think Bonhoeffer understood quite prophetically

Re: On theology proper

Jeremy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:58:43 -0000

First off, I wanted to say that I enjoyed your paper. I've read almost all of the books you've cited, and I enjoyed seeing them assembled in a specific manner. I'm left with some questions however.

I don't really understand why process theology is even considered to be Christian theology. I don't think they could even begin justify from scripture their notion that God lacks omniscience. From what it seems to me, process theologians appropriated Whitehead's metaphysics and situated within the Christian tradition. Honestly, I feel as if they've just decided that this understanding of God is more palatable to modern man who has 'come of age'.

Are omnipotence and impassibilty (although I agree that the latter attribute of God is not supported especially from the Hebrew Bible) only rejected because they make explaining theodicy difficult? Do we simply bracket these attributes because we cannot begin to reconcile the problem of evil with attributes of God such as omnipotence?

Another question I have with postmodernism or process thought is the way the historical claims they make are structurally parallel to those of the 'radical orthodoxy' thinkers. Basically, process theology believes the entire history of western thought went off course because the concept of a static being was prioritized over an emerging becoming. Likewise, radical orthodoxy argues that since the voluntarist God of Duns Scotus, theology has gone down the wrong road ultimately leading to the split between faith and knowledge and the sacred and the secular. Finally, it's common to hear these days that Christianity betrayed itself by absorbing Greek metaphysics in the early church and the New Testament (especially the gospel of John) or perhaps Constantine is lambasted as the guy who royally screwed over the church (Hauerwas and friends).

All of these historical claims strike me as odd. What I find exceptionally interesting is how radical orthodoxy argues that all of these Jerusalem vs Athens debate are ultimately over-exaggerated, and that to preserve a distinct Christian metaphysics we must employ the ontology of Neo-Platonism. On the other hand, we have the almost exact opposite claimed being advocated by the likes of Caputo who has somewhat discreetly employed Crossan's historical Jesus, which is well-known for emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus. Read his latest review over at churchandpomo to see his critique aimed at Zizek/Milbank for completely ignoring Jesus but fetishizing Christ.

I would still argue ultimately the true betrayal of Christianity is the not the adoption of Greek philosophy, but the forsaking of apocalyptic thinking itseif. Jesus and Paul were true apocalyptic thinkers. Something we've only in the last century have truly discovered through the exceptional Biblical studies of Schweitzer. Honestly, without the Hellenization of Christianity, I imagine it would have just died out like any other marginal Jewish sect. Paul's brilliance was to universalize the claims of Christianity, which would gradually lead to metaphysical understandings as beautifully illustrated in John Chapter 1.

My one last question is do you think the Jews and Christians who are worshipping God as recorded by the Scriptures believed in a God that lacked omnipotence and omniscience? I really don't know enough about Biblical studies, but I have a hard time believing they didn't conceive of God as all-powerful. Perhaps they were wrong, but acting as if that understanding was alien to Jews and early Christians before being tainted by Greek though sounds a tad unbelievable

Thanks for the paper, it really got me thinking. I thoroughly enjoyed the synthesis of so many great thinkers: Motlmann, Kearney, Caputo, and Bonhoeffer. Sorry for the long-winded reply.

Re: Friday Video: There’s Nothing Wrong With Being a Good Little Consumer

swingtrading2 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:42:00 -0000

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.

Re: I don’t know how you feel

John Meunier — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:08:02 -0000

Reminds me of discussions of the word "compassion," which means - IIRC - being with someone in their suffering or grief or turmoil. The goal is not to "identify" with them - whatever that means - but to be present with them in whatever they are in.

I'd agree that "I know what you feel" is often wrong and not helpful to the person. It is an "I" statement, which makes the speaker the subject of the sentence. How about "Tell me how you feel" or "What happened"?

Re: I don’t know how you feel

lizdyer — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:48:44 -0000

Blake - I meant to ask - did you enjoy Rob's presentation? We have tickets to see him in the Dallas area in Novemeber.

Re: I don’t know how you feel

lizdyer — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:46:57 -0000

Blake - Thanks for putting into words something that I have been feeling in my gut for a while now. I agree with Robbie that we would do well to be gracious with those who express their empathy with "I know how you feel" dialogue as their attempt to connect is probably sincere - but, I would say that we should encourage one another to recognize we (humans) have a tendency to relate to others from a place that is self-centered and if we can resist that tendency we have an opportunity to become better comforters and encouragers.

Re: I don’t know how you feel

jonathanbrink — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:49:34 -0000

Blake, Maturana and Varela wrote in the Tree of Knowledge a great piece about this. It's the idea that we live on the razor's edge between solipsism and complete empathy.

Research is now discovering the bodies mirror neurons that actually mimic a large part of the other human's experience. We see what the other person is going through and then our neurons actually re-experience the same emotion. It's how we relate to a large extent.

I think the value of, "I know you feel" is in not trying to go too far towards false empathy. Recognizing the difference actually may draw two people together closer by opening the doors to talking more about it.

Re: I don’t know how you feel

Robbie Porter — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:42:31 -0000

Very interesting. I had never thought of it in that respect. I had always thought that I was being empathetic in saying or feeling that I knew how another person felt. I thought it built a bridge between their feelings and mine. It is so true that we all come from such different experiences and perspectives that it really isn't possible. There may be some similarities but no way of truly knowing how another feels. I will think of this differently from now on.

I guess the best thing would be to listen, just listen.

But on the receiving end we can realize that we are all human and fumble around with our feelings. Although some gestures of empathy may not be comforting, we may need to be forgiving of those attempts if they are truly sincere although misguided. It may be an effort to build a bridge.

Thanks for making me think and I will try to be considerate in a whole new way.

Re: My Suspicisions About Systematic Theology

tim wai — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:43:18 -0000

I think the problem is not that systematic thinking is bad. But the problem is, those who like to be systematisians tend to have subtly corrupted minds... thus the current situation of systematic theologies.