Well, Then
So via the distractions of life, time's attrition sort of added up and...well...got to a point where I simply stopped blogging. And here we are. I of course do this from time to time. That is, go strong with something and then simply set it aside for a while (ok, a really long while). And now Im back, should anyone be left (I am sort of astonished that my site hit-meter has gone over 11,000, thanks to everyone who is still checking in and my apologies!).
I figured some justification is in order (to myself, at the very least) about such an extended absence. So as a first post, and to help situate myself, here is a rough sketch of what I have been doing, and where my thought has been directed recently.
So what have I been up to? Well, school of course. But specifically I have been reading a lot of books on theology and cultural theory (something I previously was pretty ignorant about, and perhaps still am. Though now I have the nicety of hiding my ignorance behind a wall of citations. Which, I think, is a nice image to summarize how I feel about my academic career in general.) For example I read John Milbank's book Theology and Social Theory and his The Word Made Strange. John Milbank being much maligned in the blogosphere for his recent general insanity I was, when I started these books last year, waiting for the crazy to start. However I have to be honest that despite what can only be described as Milbank's pompous attitude in his books I found both books to be very brilliant and powerful even if I didnt agree with everything he said (or perhaps didnt understand it...these books are @#%$*&ing difficult to read. It was seriously a running theme that Milbank would start some thought with "Now obviously..." leaving me sitting there soaked in the very non-obviousness of what he just said, feeling like an idiot.)
Luckily before I began my harrowing journey through those two books I read Jamie Smiths incredibly helpful Introducing Radical Orthodoxy which generally let me cut through Milbank's seemingly willfully obscure turns of phrase and actually learn something from him (Im sure Milbank is a fine teacher, but you wouldnt guess that from the way he writes his books.) I became very fascinated with the theological underpinnings of western culture, and with Milbank's claims that the secular is itself a construction (rather than a rational, theologically neutral entity) and that it itself represents a theology. By a coincidence (since I knew very little of Milbank) I also began reading Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue which made for an interesting conversation partner, especially since Milbank in ch. 11 of Theology and Social Theory uses MacIntyre as a foil for his own project.
In all of this part of my underlying motivation was the question "what is theology good for?" As a Christian, of course, the first answer is that theology is an attempt to know and serve God better. Yet I continued to wonder, despite the power and truth in this, was theology helping anyone? Was it still a legitimate enterprise providing analysis useful to the public? In some sense I feel a guilt about this question. If what we believe about God is true, then the truth of that should be enough to legitimize the practice of theology. I felt, in a way, like Satan, asking Christ to turn stones into bread: do something useful! I thought. This is an exaggeration of course. Yet still I wondered, does Christian theology have a place for public analysis? Milbank and MacIntyre's work helped me in that regard. Though obviously different, both are concerned with the underlying fragmentation of current cultural and moral discourse. Milbank essentially regards secular sociology as a variety of theologies which have pedigree from the Christian tradition (Milbank infamously calls them Christian heresies) or from a type of neo-paganism stemming from machiavelli and others, while MacIntyre notes that our moral discourse has been fragmented because our moral concepts are simply a bricolage of fragmentary leftovers of the Christian and Aristotelian tradition which have been deprived of the contexts which gave them any meaning. Both authors (in the context of the question that was driving my inquiries) dovetailed interestingly with what I had read of William Cavanaugh's, namely his Theopolitical Imagination, The Myth of Religious Violence and most recently The Migration of the Holy that political systems are in very real ways bastardized theologies. Or in short, to link it to my question: morality and sociology are themselves (to put it generally) theological systems. And as such (to summarize with brutal brevity) theology has every right to interact, analyze, criticize, and help these systems as they are not only basing themselves on metaphysical and theological positions, but indeed their very existence often has a pedigree in a series of historical decisions, theory, and practices which stem from theological and religious roots and are not justifiable otherwise.
All of this wasnt enough, though, I wanted to know more. I finally got around to reading Colin Gunton's interesting (and in my opinion one of his most important books) The One, The Three, and The Many. I also picked up two books by Michael Alan Gillespie, Nihilism Before Nietzsche and, more to the point, his The Theological Origins of Modernity. In both Gillespie, much like Radical Orthodoxy (though with different goals, and different opinions) finds in nominalism and voluntarism a key theme to the emergence of modernity, and ultimately secularism. I also picked up (and am currently in the process of reading, about half way through at the moment and hoping to finish it by the end of summer) Charles Taylor's massive A Secular Age which finds affinities with Milbank, MacIntyre, and Gillespie. I have found Taylor's book immensely helpful. He writes so clearly for such a learned person (Milbank should take some notes).
On top of this I took an class with Dr. Paul Metzger (who has authored and edited several excellent books, including a book on Barth's theology of culture called The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: The Sacred and the Secular in the Theology of Karl Barth). The class was called "Principalities and Powers," and it was an analysis on the themes of principalities and powers in the bible and in the world today, and how theological analysis can help analyze and potentially heal these systems of oppression. This intersected nicely with some of the previous themes, e.g. how can theology apply to life? How can it analyze society? Does it have a legitimate say? etc... In the course I read a lot on capitalism (which, to my shame, I had never really previously thought much about) and was sort of floored both with some of the monstrous practices associated with it, but also how philosophical and theological themes really drove the capitalist system (pretty obvious to many of you out there, Im sure, but Im doing my best to catch up). I had the pleasure of reading Naomi Klein's two fascinating books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine along with Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce both of whom, though not Christian, gave fascinating (and often hilarious) analyses of the ideological (and ultimately metaphysical) underpinnings of capitalism and marketing practices, and the disastrous results often stemming from it. For the class I also read Cavanaugh's heart wrenching Torture and Eucharist and Daniel Bell's informative (but very dry) Liberation Theology After The End of History.
One book that runs sort of parallel to my driving theme (but which I read just because it looked so damned good) was Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea. I had previously read Cunningham's difficult Genealogy of Nihilism and was refreshed that he had toned his prose down a bit while retaining his ability for ridiculous amounts of citations. Seriously. I think this man has read every book ever written. For those of you who have read either book, youll have noticed Cunningham's proclivity to copious endnotes (in one chapter of Darwins Pious Idea he reaches over 500) and (my favorite tendency of his) to post incredibly intriguing quotes at the heads of chapters and sections drawn from his vast reading. I hope to post a review of the book in the coming weeks as I just ate it up. It is an absolutely fascinating attempt at a theological and scientific interpretation of contemporary evolutionary theory, and how Dawkin's and company (whom Cunningham labels "ultra-darwinists") dont even represent the scientific community at large in regards to many facets of evolutionary theory because their own (anti) theological and dogmatic interpretations of evolution are driven by unstable and ultimately reductionistic ideas. But more on that to come.
Well, then. Thats what I have been up to for about the past year. There have been more meanderings than listed here but you get the gist. Im trying to finish up Taylor's massive book. A few books that are next in line for completion are Louis Dupre's Passage to Modernity, Michael Buckley's At the Origins of Modern Atheism and Amos Funkenstein's Theology and the Scientific Imagination. Should I ever have time de Lubac's The Drama of Atheist Humanism is also sitting on my shelf. I have to be honest Im not quite sure where Im going with all of this. I find these books fascinating but so vastly learned my brain is having trouble synthesizing and/or comparing them. If anyone is reading this, I would love to hear any insights on theology and culture you have gleaned from these or other books.
And look for more posts in the coming days and weeks. Im back. At least I think I am.
I figured some justification is in order (to myself, at the very least) about such an extended absence. So as a first post, and to help situate myself, here is a rough sketch of what I have been doing, and where my thought has been directed recently.
So what have I been up to? Well, school of course. But specifically I have been reading a lot of books on theology and cultural theory (something I previously was pretty ignorant about, and perhaps still am. Though now I have the nicety of hiding my ignorance behind a wall of citations. Which, I think, is a nice image to summarize how I feel about my academic career in general.) For example I read John Milbank's book Theology and Social Theory and his The Word Made Strange. John Milbank being much maligned in the blogosphere for his recent general insanity I was, when I started these books last year, waiting for the crazy to start. However I have to be honest that despite what can only be described as Milbank's pompous attitude in his books I found both books to be very brilliant and powerful even if I didnt agree with everything he said (or perhaps didnt understand it...these books are @#%$*&ing difficult to read. It was seriously a running theme that Milbank would start some thought with "Now obviously..." leaving me sitting there soaked in the very non-obviousness of what he just said, feeling like an idiot.)
Luckily before I began my harrowing journey through those two books I read Jamie Smiths incredibly helpful Introducing Radical Orthodoxy which generally let me cut through Milbank's seemingly willfully obscure turns of phrase and actually learn something from him (Im sure Milbank is a fine teacher, but you wouldnt guess that from the way he writes his books.) I became very fascinated with the theological underpinnings of western culture, and with Milbank's claims that the secular is itself a construction (rather than a rational, theologically neutral entity) and that it itself represents a theology. By a coincidence (since I knew very little of Milbank) I also began reading Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue which made for an interesting conversation partner, especially since Milbank in ch. 11 of Theology and Social Theory uses MacIntyre as a foil for his own project.
In all of this part of my underlying motivation was the question "what is theology good for?" As a Christian, of course, the first answer is that theology is an attempt to know and serve God better. Yet I continued to wonder, despite the power and truth in this, was theology helping anyone? Was it still a legitimate enterprise providing analysis useful to the public? In some sense I feel a guilt about this question. If what we believe about God is true, then the truth of that should be enough to legitimize the practice of theology. I felt, in a way, like Satan, asking Christ to turn stones into bread: do something useful! I thought. This is an exaggeration of course. Yet still I wondered, does Christian theology have a place for public analysis? Milbank and MacIntyre's work helped me in that regard. Though obviously different, both are concerned with the underlying fragmentation of current cultural and moral discourse. Milbank essentially regards secular sociology as a variety of theologies which have pedigree from the Christian tradition (Milbank infamously calls them Christian heresies) or from a type of neo-paganism stemming from machiavelli and others, while MacIntyre notes that our moral discourse has been fragmented because our moral concepts are simply a bricolage of fragmentary leftovers of the Christian and Aristotelian tradition which have been deprived of the contexts which gave them any meaning. Both authors (in the context of the question that was driving my inquiries) dovetailed interestingly with what I had read of William Cavanaugh's, namely his Theopolitical Imagination, The Myth of Religious Violence and most recently The Migration of the Holy that political systems are in very real ways bastardized theologies. Or in short, to link it to my question: morality and sociology are themselves (to put it generally) theological systems. And as such (to summarize with brutal brevity) theology has every right to interact, analyze, criticize, and help these systems as they are not only basing themselves on metaphysical and theological positions, but indeed their very existence often has a pedigree in a series of historical decisions, theory, and practices which stem from theological and religious roots and are not justifiable otherwise.
All of this wasnt enough, though, I wanted to know more. I finally got around to reading Colin Gunton's interesting (and in my opinion one of his most important books) The One, The Three, and The Many. I also picked up two books by Michael Alan Gillespie, Nihilism Before Nietzsche and, more to the point, his The Theological Origins of Modernity. In both Gillespie, much like Radical Orthodoxy (though with different goals, and different opinions) finds in nominalism and voluntarism a key theme to the emergence of modernity, and ultimately secularism. I also picked up (and am currently in the process of reading, about half way through at the moment and hoping to finish it by the end of summer) Charles Taylor's massive A Secular Age which finds affinities with Milbank, MacIntyre, and Gillespie. I have found Taylor's book immensely helpful. He writes so clearly for such a learned person (Milbank should take some notes).
On top of this I took an class with Dr. Paul Metzger (who has authored and edited several excellent books, including a book on Barth's theology of culture called The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: The Sacred and the Secular in the Theology of Karl Barth). The class was called "Principalities and Powers," and it was an analysis on the themes of principalities and powers in the bible and in the world today, and how theological analysis can help analyze and potentially heal these systems of oppression. This intersected nicely with some of the previous themes, e.g. how can theology apply to life? How can it analyze society? Does it have a legitimate say? etc... In the course I read a lot on capitalism (which, to my shame, I had never really previously thought much about) and was sort of floored both with some of the monstrous practices associated with it, but also how philosophical and theological themes really drove the capitalist system (pretty obvious to many of you out there, Im sure, but Im doing my best to catch up). I had the pleasure of reading Naomi Klein's two fascinating books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine along with Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce both of whom, though not Christian, gave fascinating (and often hilarious) analyses of the ideological (and ultimately metaphysical) underpinnings of capitalism and marketing practices, and the disastrous results often stemming from it. For the class I also read Cavanaugh's heart wrenching Torture and Eucharist and Daniel Bell's informative (but very dry) Liberation Theology After The End of History.
One book that runs sort of parallel to my driving theme (but which I read just because it looked so damned good) was Conor Cunningham's Darwin's Pious Idea. I had previously read Cunningham's difficult Genealogy of Nihilism and was refreshed that he had toned his prose down a bit while retaining his ability for ridiculous amounts of citations. Seriously. I think this man has read every book ever written. For those of you who have read either book, youll have noticed Cunningham's proclivity to copious endnotes (in one chapter of Darwins Pious Idea he reaches over 500) and (my favorite tendency of his) to post incredibly intriguing quotes at the heads of chapters and sections drawn from his vast reading. I hope to post a review of the book in the coming weeks as I just ate it up. It is an absolutely fascinating attempt at a theological and scientific interpretation of contemporary evolutionary theory, and how Dawkin's and company (whom Cunningham labels "ultra-darwinists") dont even represent the scientific community at large in regards to many facets of evolutionary theory because their own (anti) theological and dogmatic interpretations of evolution are driven by unstable and ultimately reductionistic ideas. But more on that to come.
Well, then. Thats what I have been up to for about the past year. There have been more meanderings than listed here but you get the gist. Im trying to finish up Taylor's massive book. A few books that are next in line for completion are Louis Dupre's Passage to Modernity, Michael Buckley's At the Origins of Modern Atheism and Amos Funkenstein's Theology and the Scientific Imagination. Should I ever have time de Lubac's The Drama of Atheist Humanism is also sitting on my shelf. I have to be honest Im not quite sure where Im going with all of this. I find these books fascinating but so vastly learned my brain is having trouble synthesizing and/or comparing them. If anyone is reading this, I would love to hear any insights on theology and culture you have gleaned from these or other books.
And look for more posts in the coming days and weeks. Im back. At least I think I am.
Comments