If the Lord is Risen, why can't we see Him?
Here is the third of five engagements around Pete Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God.
It is by Geoff Holsclaw, co-pastor of Life on the Vine, who is preparing for a Ph.D in theology and ethics, investigating the intersection of liturgical theology and far left political theory. Geoff can also be found at for the time being.
“If the Lord is Risen, why can’t we see Him?”
…From Post-Metaphysical to Sacramental Theology
by Geoffrey J.D Holsclaw
I don’t know about you, but I like it when people just tell me where we are going. So here it is. After an appreciative summary of Pete argument in Part One of How (Not) to Speak of God, I will offer an immanent critique (a critique internal to his presuppositions) of his project. After this I will outline what I see as a continuation of his project be other means, via sacramental theology, attempting to answer the question implicit in the story of the Road to Emmaus, “If the Lord is Risen, why can’t we see Him?”
So read in the order you desire: if you haven’t read the book, start at the beginning; if you just want the critique, go to the middle; if you just want my augmentation of Pete’s project, go to the end.
Appreciative Summary
beyond the conceptual idol
At the very beginning, Pete offers this summary of the contours and trajectory of his book, making a distinction between “right believing” and “believing in the right way.”
“Instead of following the Greek-influence idea of orthodoxy as right belief, these chapters show that the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way—that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner…Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world.” (2-3).
Pete makes this distinction because he is concerned not only with what we believe, but also how we believe it, taking sides with what he construes as the more Hebraic ‘how’ of belief against the more Greek ‘what’ of belief.
He makes this distinction as way of acknowledging the important postmodern critique of knowledge supplied by the hermeneutics of suspicion and the ‘critique of ideology’ (spurred on by the works of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud). With this critique of knowledge we have come to better see that all our reasoning is culturally situated/mediated rather than objectively neutral, and this includes our conceptions of God. In the wake of this critique emerge two side of the same coin: there is either the conservative reaction denying the mediated status of knowledge/belief, asserting the objective nature of truth, or the liberal reaction of giving up on all God-talk as merely the echoes of the human voice. Pete hopes to offer a third alternative.
Pete hooks up this ideology critique to the biblical critique of idolatry, which includes both the visible fashioning of God in an image and the invisible representation of God in a concept. By this Pete reminds us that this type of critique is internal to our own biblical narrative, and ought to be taken seriously not only as a check against theological speculation, but also as a resource of faith, spurring us beyond our cognitive complacency into a vital relationship with God, because “the God we are in relationship with is bigger, better and different than our understanding of that God” (19). .
beyond metaphysics
With the dual blades of Ideology and Idolatry, Pete hopes to cut through the thicket of metaphysical speculation, opening a space from a true encounter with God. As Pete says, theological discourse comes on the scene in the aftermath of God. Theology comes into the clearing after God has been there, attempting to speak about that which speech cannot contain, because God can never become a mere object for language or comprehension, but rather is always excessive of language and thought. Because the encounter of God is always excessive, theology is properly a/theological as the site of speaking of God while recognizing that speech fails to define God (21).
Pete outlines several ways our God-talk is a/theological. 1) God is always Subject, never Object: Our theological discourse can make God into an object. But because God can never be a mere object of reflection, but rather is a subject of interaction with whom we relate, our discourse is inevitable atheological, a misspeaking of God. Because God is always a Subject, our object based discourse must therefore be a/theological. 2) God as hyper-present: Against the theological discourse that attempts to make God present in concepts and representations, and against the atheological discourse postulating the absolute absence/death of God, a/theology speaks of the hyper-presence of God. God is not absent, but excessively present, for “God not only overflows and overwhelms our understanding but also overflows and overwhelms our experience” (23), exploding the opposition between a fundamentalist reduction to conceptual presence and a liberal resignation to absence. 3) God as hypernymous: We do not lack information concerning God’s identity, making God anonymous. Rather we are overflowing with information and sensation of the God who is both utterly transcendent yet immanent in all we do/have/are. God as the hyper-present, hypernymous, and always Subject, is therefore the God beyond metaphysics, exceeding the comprehension, articulations, and definitions of human intellect.
a/theist
In this a/theological discourse affirm we “our view of God while at the same time realizing that that view is inadequate.” So consequently,
“we act as both theist and atheist. This a/theist is not some agnostic middle point hovering hesitantly between theism and atheism but, rather, actively embraces both out of profound faith…” (25). “This a/theism is thus a deeply religious and faith-filled form of cynical discourse, one which captures how faith operates in an oscillation between understanding and unknowing” (26). “The point is not that our beliefs are inherently problematic but only that they become problematic when held in a manner that would claim more than some provisional, pragmatic response to that which transcends conceptualization.” (26)
This a/theistic approach does not exclude or undermine faith, but rather allows us to maintain an unflinching belief in God (as one believes in a person one trusts) while maintaining humility when attempting to describe what exactly God is” (26).
transformation of truth
All of this leads back to Pete’s central concern regarding the need for a transformative relationship through “believing in the right way” over merely “believing the right thing.” This “believing in the right way” leads Pete to reformulate the typical understanding of truth as “descriptive claims concerning the Real or reality” with the more “Judeo-Christian view of truth is concerned with having a relationship with the Real (God) that results in us transforming reality. The emphasis is thus not on description but on transformation… To know the Truth is thus to be known and transformed by the Truth” (56).
Immanent Critique: all too metaphysical? top
Now it is quite fashionable these days that when you are attempting to refute someone, you point out how they are really participating in the discourse they are attempting to escape. This is the typical deconstructive moment. And I confess I am going to continue this gesture, but not to simply refute, but to move through and farther. I am sincerely grateful for Pete’s articulation of this position (which I think has been rightfully helpful to many people) and I hope that the space he has cleared for a new theological discussion will be fruitfully filled by many voices who not only speak of God, but through whom God speaks.
Critique #1: As Heidegger said of Sartre, and Derrida said of Levinas, to negate a metaphysical statement is still to make a metaphysical statement. Or, to speak against the Greeks is still to be speaking Greek. I raise this critique not because I think it is overwhelming, but to highlight the difficulty and awkwardness of attempting to overcome metaphysics through the use of superlatives (hyper-, excessive, overwhelming, overflowing). And setting up a polemic between Greek (what to believe) and Hebrew (how to believe) mentalities does not really help the situation. “What” to believe and “how” to believe it are inescapably related. But more importantly…
Critique #2: Through his book Pete opts for the Hebrew side of the Greek/Hebrew polemic, yet I would suggest that he reads his Hebrew mentality through Greek conceptions. We can see this in his coupling of ‘ideology’ and ‘idolatry’. Pete does this by linking the Greek usage of ideology as the (conceptual) speaking/logos of the essence/eidos, with idolatry as the (aesthetic) showing of the essence of God (12). But in this Pete reads the Hebrew thru the Greek, making everything about concepts and representation, which seems to be against his project of returning from the Babylonian captivity of Greek metaphysics to a Hebraic relationality. Pete puts the emphasis of idolatry on speaking/showing rather than relating/worshipping. Emphasizing the latter instead of the former would be the more adequate reading of Hebrew idolatry. Idolatry happens in two ways: worshipping a false god, or worshipping the true God falsely. The issue is that of praise/worship, not merely of thinking/seeing. The ‘essential’ issue from the Hebraic perspective is not merely that one cannot (ought not) conceptualize God, but rather that one ought not worship God wrongly, which puts us squarely on the inter-subjective (recognition) plane rather than the merely informational (cognition) plane. Of course, I think this is the very point that Pete hopes to make, but his post-metaphysic polemic obscures it.
This emphasis on worship leads me to my last concern.
Critique #3: The opposition that Pete sets up between the Greek “right belief” and the Hebraic “believing in the right way” is centered on his rendering of ‘orthodox’ according to the Greek etymology of ortho- as ‘right’, and –doxa as ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’. Therefore, ‘orthodoxy’ is about “right belief.” Seems simple enough, right?
But the problem is this excludes any kind of Hebraic appropriation of the word ‘orthodoxy’, and instead reads the Greek etymology into the Hebrew usage. Instead, we need to read the Greek through the Hebrew. If we do this, then we look at the Greek translations of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), and notice that doxa is consistently used to translate the Hebrew word kabod, which means “glory”, typically in reference to YHWH’s glorious, and Theophanous, presence (see passages such as “the kabod/glory of God was on Mt. Sinai” or the “kabod/glory of God passed by Moses in the cleft of the rock”, Ex. 24:16, 33:22). Doxa in this Hebrew usage, is always about the terrible, overwhelming, Event of God’s nearest, manifested here on Earth. Or, to continue, we could look at the more common word doxology which in Christian liturgy signals the saying of high praise at the end of a service (“Praise God from whom all blessings flow…”) and which literally means “glorious (doxa) words (logos).”
The real problem that I see (as expressed in both critiques #2 & #3) is that Pete makes the problem of theology principally about “belief” coupled with a concern for knowledge and definitions, instead of flowing from a more inter-subjective perspective of prayer and worship (…and I think Pete’s goal is really to get us back to prayer). Pete argues from a rejection of “right belief” toward a “belief in the right way”, but both of these take “belief” as their normative components rather than being conditioned by ‘right worship/praise/prayer.’
Now, I offer these critiques not because I want to show that the “emperor has no clothes” and go my merrily way, congratulating myself on how smart I am. I offer them because I generally like Pete’s theological wardrobe, but, being the conscientious consumer that I am, I’m concerned that some items might have been made in sweatshops rather than in fair trade factories, and that we need to be discerning about how we dress ourselves.
But moving on…
From Post-Metaphysical to Sacramental Theology top
Now what I want to briefly suggest below is not a refutation by any means, but a pushing farther into what I believe are implicit trajectories in Pete’s thought, especially the concern to move from a informational/descriptive perspective to a personal/transformational perspective concerning theology. Concisely put: Instead of making the transition from informational descriptions to interpersonal encounter culminate in an apophatic, mystical theology, we should attend to the resources already found in Christian liturgies and sacramental theology. To do this I will rely on the sacramental theology of Louis-Marie Chauvet, in Symbol and Sacrament.
Symbolic Order
Briefly stated, Chauvet fully embraced the critique of ontotheology as expressed in the works of Heidegger, Levinas, and Derrida. Part One of his book outlines the shift he hopes to accomplish from a metaphysical sacramental theology to a symbolic understanding of sacramental theology. His book is over 500 pages long, so I will just hit the highlights.
Along with Rollins, Chauvet accepts 1) the critique of ontotheology, 2) the view that reality is always already mediated through language and culture, 3) and that language both builds a ‘reality’ to live into and also alienates us from the ‘Real.’ All of this Chauvet calls the ‘symbolic order’:
This symbolic order designates the system of connections between the different elements and levels of a culture (economic, social, political, ideological—ethics, philosophy, religion…), a system forming a coherent whole that allows the social group and individuals to orients themselves in space, find their place in time, and in general situate themselves in the world in a significant way. (84)
But lest you think this is all so rosy, Chauvet also pulls on board the typically post-structuralist move that the ‘symbolic order’ simultaneously generates the ‘person/subject’ (as in give her a place to talk about reality, articulate relationships and events, narrate histories and so forth), all the while being the place of utter alienation from oneself. This alienation is constitutive because we can never escape mediation, there is always a gap between who “I” say I am, and who I really am; I can never become myself. Because of this essential mediation, the “person” is never completed or finished, but is always in a state of becoming. The human “subject” is always in a process of becoming itself, consenting to the presence of the absence, and persisting in a mode of perpetual mourning.
But, “the condition of being always on the way, which is the fate of the human subject, is not an aimless wondering in a desert waste without landmarks” (99). The emergence of human subjectivity (the ability to inhabit a world and relate to other subjects) is essentially an inter-subjective process, which has a type of logic to it.
Symbolic Exchange
To elucidate this process we must make a distinction within language between cognition and recognition. On the level of cognition, language is used to refer to objects, assigning them traits and definition, always moving toward a certain level exactitude. This use of language is exemplified by scientific discourse. However, on the level of recognition, the “function of language is not to designate an object or to transmit information—which all language also does—but first to assign a place to the subject in its relation to others” (119). Or again, “every discourse can be read on two different levels: either on the level of the symbol, as a language of “recognition,” foundation of the identity of the group and individual, and agent of cohesion…between subjects within their cultural world, or on the level of sign, as a language of “cognition,” aiming at delivering information and at passing judgments.” So the language at the level of cognition concern “things,” while at the level of recognition concerns “persons.”
The emergence of the ‘subject’ is within this level of ‘recognition,’ which is that of the ‘symbolic order.’ This emergence happens through a process of ‘symbolic exchange.’ Against an understanding of ‘market exchanges’ based on the value of things and objects traded to meet needs and desires (which exists on the level of cognition), there is the place of ‘symbolic exchange’ where “the true objects being exchanged are the subjects themselves…[In this exchange] subjects weave or reweave alliances, they recognize themselves as full members of the tribe, where they find their identity in showing themselves in their proper place, and in putting others in their ‘proper place’” (106).
the symbol made flesh
Now all of this might sound extremely abstract, but Chauvet wants to emphasize that it is not, but in fact the ‘symbolic order’ (and the ‘symbolic exchange’ which constitutes us as human persons) is as close to us as our very own skin, our own bodies. Again, drawing on cultural anthropology as well as Heidegger and Derrida, Chaubet outlines that there is an essential corporality of the ‘symbolic order’ which unites our very bodies with cultural and cosmic existence. Each person’s body exists only as woven, inhabited, or spoken by the triple body of culture/society, tradition/ancestral, and natural/cosmic. Our daily existence with our own bodies is an intersection of these three bodies (cultural/traditional/cosmic) integrating and situating the whole person within a network or relationship with their own selves, other people, the tradition of their parent/ancestors, and with the gods. (And, men, if you don’t think any of this is applicable, then just ask a woman about the issues she or her friends have with their own bodies.)
From Symbol to Sacrament
Everything I have laid out so far is in a sense merely prolegomena for Chauvet. But it is a theoretical approach, which when augmenting Pete’s project, help clarify issues and moves forward, issues which I will outline in a second. From this anthropological perspective Chauvet begins his theological reflection concerning the sacraments which I will only briefly outline using his reflections on the stories called The Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) and the “Necrotic” temptation (the temptation find the dead body of Christ).
The basic question of this story is, “If the Lord is Risen, why can’t we see Him?” The answer of the text is that Jesus is found in the stories and gestures of the community he began. At the beginning of the story the disciples cannot see Jesus, something is preventing them. Yet Jesus opens up the scriptures to them and explains how the Christ must suffer before entering into his glory. But it was not merely with scripture that Christ revealed himself to them, but around the table, the Eucharistic table. Only when they entered into his gestures and practices (his ministry of table fellowship) that he had invested with his own body (“This is my Body), did they SEE him. But then he vanishes. Christ is no longer present with them. But he is not exactly absent either.
As we saw above, just as the human subject is always in a process of becoming because of the essential mediation of language/culture (the Symbolic Order), so too the Christian is always in a process of becoming, of coming into faith. And this process is not accomplished without mediation, but through the symbolic saturation of sacramental practices, which is principally in the Church, the primal sacrament, which is the symbolic body of Christ.
---
I could go on and on (as we all could I suppose), but I will end it here. My basic suggestion is that while we certainly must be suspicious of language that seeks to make God into and object, merely on the level of cognition, but must embrace that language functions not merely as a medium of relation between “things,” but more importantly is a medium of recognition between persons. This medium in which we persisting in the perpetual process of coming into belief through participation in the symbolic exchange of recognition principally within the Eucharist, and generally in the sacraments, where the presence of the Absent One nourishes us.
Thank you Geoff,
I appreciate your engagement as you do not just critique Pete but offer a positive sacramental approach in contrast
I have been recently very
drawn to the Quaker tradition :divine encounter is mediated through the light of Christ in the heart of each individual - (not by Eucharist,sacraments etc)-are such groups not 'becoming' Christians in your theological approach because of the site of divine encounter/revelation is the individual experience and not the sacraments. Would this not be true of charismatics and pentecostals to a certain extent as well?
Your approach raises a whole host of questions for me - I will look foward to other peoples responses.
Posted by: maninthepew | October 23, 2006 at 11:17 AM
GEOFF THAT WAS FRFAKIN AWSOME! OK, sorry...not too "objective" of a response, probably not too helpful. But really, MAN, that got me excited! I got chill bumps, I started making funny blubbering, whispering and whistling noises while staring at my computer screen (I'm sure the folks around me were confused), and, well, I just got all excited.
I found it to be one of the most edifying, clarifying, terrifying and just generally "right-on" and/or "glorious" things I've read in a while! I got to the end, where you "incorporate" the story of the the pathway to Emmeaus ending in the Eucharistic breaking around the tabel, and I was like, "OH my gosh! This is what I WISH I could explapin about this story when I read it with my friends (as well as those with whom relating is often a bit less 'glorious')" One of those momenteous surges of energy where you feel a strong relation to something/someone in which you feel deeply related to and also more deeply capable of relating to another, in which you recoginze many of your past relationships coming together through what's happening (relationships with Jewish mystics, with your pastor growing up who would lead you in the doxology, with your 'enemy' who would read of Jesus' 'suddenly appearing' and then 'vanishing' and be totally confused (the fundamentalist guy), with Brennan Manning who talks about the Cross not as Necessary but as totally "random", alienating and mystifying, and with many others) and stronger possiblilities of the same for what is coming.
I think another similar example is when the disciples ask him if he will be going to Jeruselum for the festivities. He's like, "Naahh..." Then he's walking around with a hood over his head; no one "recognizes" him. Until he stands up in the middle of everyone and starts speaking to them. Not exactly the same, of course, but "showing" similarly what's "happening".
Abundant blessings,
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 23, 2006 at 01:26 PM
"Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying fall
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?
And I have known the eyes already, known them all--
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?"
from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", by T.S. Eliot
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 23, 2006 at 01:32 PM
jason,
thanks for the affirmation...and I've always loved Prufrock.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 23, 2006 at 02:23 PM
I got to thinking a bit. I re-read over the post, and something struck me that I passed over the first time rather quickly. I read the following: "Pete hooks up this ideology critique to the biblical critique of idolatry, which includes both the visible fashioning of God in an image and the invisible representation of God in a concept. By this Pete reminds us that this type of critique is internal to our own biblical narrative, and ought to be taken seriously not only as a check against theological speculation, but also...", and I got to thinking that there are lots of us Christians who would not even agree with our starting point here of conceptual idolatry (or at least would get very squirmish)! And why is that?!" I realize this probably turns us back inside the circle of the metaphysical fallacy we are trying to escape, but...
I mean, the very "nature" of God as the One whow does not appear not ony supports this metaphysical bent that idolizes the concept, but historically I think is part of its "reason". I seriously doubt that any idolater is aware of it, as the problem is that they are fashioning images of themselves.
I think part of the breaking of the bonds of this idol is, as referenced in Geoff's post, of course a new or different relatiionship with the body. This is probably hopelessley obvious, but I pretty much just wanted to share a quote along those lines that I think would be helpful in modeling this new relatinship. Most folks reading this are probalby overflowing themselves with such models, and they are abundant in scripture too, but I would still like to indluge, if you guys don't mind:
"Live body (chros) and dead body (soma) were two different things for the preclassical Greeks – not a single entity, the one animated, the other not. The living human body, as chros, was both a skin or surface and an appearing (epiphaneia). The Christians, very much later, called the divine Child’s appearing Epiphany, but in early Greek understanding such would have been the appearing of any child – of any human being. This was not because the Greeks especially revered human life, in the modern sense: children were systematically exposed at birth if the father deemed them undesirable. Rather it was because of the early Greek perception of, and keen sensitivity to, what was actually given in experience" (from Socrates Ancestor, Indra Kagis McEwen, p. 55).
Interestingly, I have, as you probably noticed, drawn from the resources of folks who the Hebrew prophets probably would have regarded as idol makers. Here, however, I think is still a good and relevant lesson in relating to bodies or mediums, and I think relevant also to Peter's understanding of Event that, as discussed previously, "Happens" not only in Jeruselem. It isn't even OUR "experience", but it is "given". The Greek word for "live body" was very related to their word for "song", the form in which the doxology occurs. By the same token, cognition implies a stoppage, a break into the past, a death of sorts required for objectification (at least in terms of accurate description). "Rather we are overflowing with information AND SENSATION of the God who is both utterly transcendent and yet immanent..."
Also, relevant in a way to Peter's thoughts about revealing and concealing and to the notion of symbolic exchange through which the subejct emerges:
"Once a year the xoanon of the Samian Hera was unbound and hidden in a willow tree, where it was then rediscovered and brought back in the temple. Whatever it had to do, and it was probably much, with the cyclical course of the seasons, this ancient ritual would also have been a yearly revelation of appearing and reappearing as the very essence of all that is divine, athanatos. And lest the significance of the ritual eclipse the physical presence of the artifact, it should be remembered that it was through the statue’s presence that divinity was revealed, and that without it the ritual could not even have taken place.” – Socrates Ancestor, Indra Kagis McEwen, p. 56.
Don't anyone get all bent out of shape. I'm not equating our Christian practices with the practices presented here by the Greeks. I'm just saying they can teach us somthing. It's like they were ritually and actively participating in the order inherent in God's fabric of creation interwoven between appearing and disappearing; and this participation occurs in an world where it is obvious that the only "real" option for the "role" of actions of mortal and finite humans is to point symbolically to both what does not dis-appear (despite our doubts and our metaphysical idols)) and what does not appear. The story Peter used on the road to Emmeaus is probalby a better one, because the Christ who appeared to his disciples in comparison to whatever god referenced in that quote is a bit like the Sun overtaking the moon.
I guess I'm just searching in this conversation for something that has been missing a bit for me, which is the role of the body and appearance in this conversation on conceptual idolatry and revelation, and in particular why fundamentalist of whatever stripe might be so unconfortalbe with subverting the implied role chnages. I felt that Geoff's post was grounds for the search, or even a find. If you guys feel I'm going off topic, feel free to veer in a different direction...
God bless,
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 23, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Geoff,
I have just read your comments about wishing to keep the complexity of the blog - it is now way above my head (to be honest I only understood the odd bit of your engagement). Your priority of engaging with a niche specialised audience athough it will bring good academic discussion will not be understood by many people like me( Was not the original spirit of the blog for a non-specialised people?. Perhaps you might have tried to answer my earlier question even though it was not academic? Could you not tried to have a balanced approach?) I have tried to join in but will try to find other places on the blogoshere world to participate in postmodern/Christian discussion. I will leave you ,Jason, and the odd other person to join in.
Rodney
Posted by: maninthepew | October 24, 2006 at 05:44 AM
My last comment somewhat saddens me for I have tried to be closely involved in the conversations. I would like to that Pete ( even though i do not always agree with him.!!) Pete has a wonderful ability to talk to you as an equal in discussions even though he is an expert in his subject.
He is a warm generous hearted bloke.
Posted by: maninthepew | October 24, 2006 at 06:04 AM
Rodney, you have a good question about Christ mediating the divine encounter in each individual. I'm not specialized enough to answer your question, but, if my history is anywhere near correct, I think the Quaker's are a mdoern bunch, really. Probably goes part-way to answering your question...
And Geoff, I actually have a question now. Did Chauvet give a name to the "order" given by cognition, as if there are two different orders that belong to cognition and recognition? I mean, in terms of what you are talking about, a scientist's world is ordered and prioritized quite differenetly from Chauvet's, but yet science still happens in a community of folks who relate to each other symbolically. But does Chauvet distinguish, and give a name to the cognition one, or do both fall into a bigger order really (of life and death, Being and Nothing) that happens to truly and properly fall under the only decent name of a real order, the name of a "product" of recogniton - "symbol". So maybe the name of another order would be "sample", "proposition", "hypothesis" or "conclusion". Or is that the problem, that the name of the other order depends on the mode(rn), that it's so shifty (and shady when alone :)?
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 24, 2006 at 10:47 AM
rodney (aka, maninthepew),
I'm sorry that my posted seemed too heady. I probably did slip too much into an academic idiom. This blogging medium really is a tricky thing (not being able to look into someone else's eyes, clarify on the fly, throw in examples, etc). Locally and nationally i've been a big proponent for creating local gatherings for face-to-face interaction around these issues.
As simply put as I can say it...Chauvet illustrates two levels on which language functions. The first is "cognition", of description and valuation of objects; the second is "recognition", of interpersonal relationships. While the same language (i.e. English) is being spoken, you can pick out which level the language is functioning on through social cues, gestures, intonations and such.
If I am sitting with my in-law with whom I don't get along, and I ask for the salt, and my mother-in-law pretends not to hear me, what should I think. Either she didn't hear me; she didn't understand me (level of cognition); or she refuses to recognize my presence. In this case, while the level of cognition is used (using words like "salt" and "please" and "pass"), it is really on the level of recognition, of my personhood, which is at stake. I don't get offended b/c she misunderstood me intention (cognition) but b/c she ignored my personhood(recognition).
This level of recognition, of interpersonal relationships (which I feel that Pete is attempting to make us cognizant of) is lost in his use of superlative against metaphysics.
and lastly, this level of recognition is what I see as expressed through the symbolic mediations of the sacraments, the intersubjective encounter with God.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 24, 2006 at 01:10 PM
Also Rodney,
Maybe others would have something else to say in response to your apparent anger, but I think at least PART of the problem with many folks' understanding of Geoff's language is in the very nature of communicating, relating and speaking. Sort of like what he mentions in his post; there's always a medium. It's always difficult/impossible due to the very makeup of creation to "just say what you mean". You are always speaking THROUGH others. The best and clearest communicators, in fact, speak through, against and in relation to references with whom they are in conversastion (many times implicit, sometimes explicit). If one doesn't know the refrences, they will obviosly miss the conversation. And yet that's the only way to "relate" or "have a conversation"...part of the very idea of both "cogntion" and "recognition". I don't catch them all on this site either, but I try to follow the basic point to which the one speaking is "becoming", which is always incomplete anyway...till "it is finished". Hope things are well,
And also, I think PART of the reason Geoff didn't answer your question is because he assumed you were "on to something" yourself, and didn't need him...it seems to me? It seems to me that you response indicates not that you didn't understand Geoff's post, but that you did. Also seems to me that you just have some loose ends in your mind...
God bless,
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 24, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Oops...I just posted while Geoff was posting. If I'd a read Geoff's post, it probably would have changed or negated my post...
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 24, 2006 at 01:24 PM
and rodney,
in response to your first question concerning Quakers and Brethren fellowships, and Pentecostal and charismatic experiences.
This question is a very important one, b/c it both serves as a counter example to the position I'm outlining, and because much of the next christendom (the 2/3 church beyond the west) is very much Pentecostal.
I would answer in two ways. Concerning the Brethren fellowships, a) they are both anti-sacramental in general, and have a memorialist view of the Lord's Table (i.e. we remember Jesus' death/resurrection, but there is no presence of Jesus, no participation), and b) they generally don't have a sophisticated metaphysical theology. But they do have elaborate communal norms and customs for their communities (even if only implicit) which govern even a private spirituality (i.e. whenever you gather together, have a word/song ready to share; when we make decisions, it is unanimous, closed table of the lord's table). So in summary i would say that while perhaps the mediation of Christ is not sacramentally, there is still a mediation of Christ within these communal practices, rather than merely a direct encounter in the hearts of believers.
concerning global pentecostals, I would say that in practice the non-western culture has retained a primal imagination (as Kwame Bediako says in his Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of Non-Western Religion) which already united the supernatural with daily living, which in a sense is a general sacramentality given specific shape by Christian sacraments. I think it is only within Western Pentecostalism which is generally separated from the historic sacraments (and these forms, interestingly, are very open to exploitation).
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 24, 2006 at 01:31 PM
jason and rodney,
concerning blogging in generally and this site specifically, it is really all about 'cognition' in these posts and in the comments. The attempt at 'recognition' is very difficult and cumbersome, but it is very simple to misrecognitize what someone is saying and become offend (which I am happy to note has happened less here than in many places i've blogged).
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 24, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Geoff and Jason,
I suppose it is very difficult to pitch a discussion at the need to talk about complex issues v a general aspiration to include as many people as possible.
Geoff - sorry for the tantrum and thanks for your fulsome response. In order to pioneer a blog like this you need encouragement and positive/constructive feedback - not tantrums!!!!
Rodney
Posted by: rodney neill | October 24, 2006 at 03:08 PM
I suppose I am also interested in interfaith dialogue and would have a pluralist understanding that
faiths such as Judiasm, Islam and Hinduism are all roads that are a pathway to God. An emphasis on the apophatic/mystical can also lead to an affinity to the 'silence of the Buddha' in Buddhism and the mystical elements in other religions. To place the sacraments as the central/main site of divine mediation would lead to a rejection of the above and quite a exclusivist Christian position. I wonder if there are any other sites of the mediation of God as well as the sacraments? If there are what are they? Do we go back to Petes idea of Event ie ones encounter with God being interpreted any way an individual wants to as it is so indefinable?
random musings
Rodney
Posted by: rodney neill | October 24, 2006 at 03:51 PM
Most of your comments/conversations have been over my head. Alas, why i have not participated. It seems to be a few doing all the deep, intellectual masturbation. i bet there are many lurkers here but none too many commenters because of this. i agree Pete tries to have a conversation on na person's level, but i do better with him in person. i too thought this was to be a place to bring these heady ideas down to an every person conversation. i don't see it and have not experienced it. Also, where are the women? It's another male-dominated conversation! Those in the "know" of what's being said here, enjoy! i will, like man in the pew, have to look elsewhere to converse. Man in the pew, if you find those places, PLEASE let me know! Adele
Posted by: Existential Punk | October 24, 2006 at 10:40 PM
From the "ABOUT" section of this blog:
"all with an eye toward the actual issues confronting church pastors and leaders, rather than the merely academic hair-splitting of abstract issues."
Sure would be nice to see much more of this happening here. Can this happen? i think more people would interact and not feel so intimidated if this happens!
Just my observations!
Adele
Posted by: Existential Punk | October 25, 2006 at 12:33 AM
From "More on the series":
"...As such, the goal of this series is to bring together high-profile theorists in continental philosophy and contemporary theology writing for a broader, less-specialist audience that is interested in the impact of postmodern theory for the faith and practice of the church. Each book in the series will, from different angles and with different questions, undertake to answer questions such as: What does postmodern theory have to say about the shape of the church? How should concrete, in-the-pew and on-the-ground religious practices be impacted by postmodernism? What should the church look like in postmodernity? What has Paris to do with Jerusalem?"
How do we rectify this?
Adele
Posted by: Existential Punk | October 25, 2006 at 12:39 AM
Hi Geoff,
Wow, just like Jason I think there is so much that is interesting in this post.
My first thoughts concerned the nature of the 'symbolic order'. If I understand then this is a definition of 'culture' in which human subjectivity arises through recognition? Perhaps a basically Geertzian shaped framework?
Three questions immediately arose for me, though I'm sure more will as I cogitate:
1. Is this not susceptible to a Milbankian critique of the social (i.e. the symbolic order) or have I misunderstood?
2. How do you relate to the Barthian position in which grasping hold of is obviated by the priority of Gods condescending. I'm thinking here of statements like: 'Only when they entered into his gestures and practices'. I could be wrong but there seems to be a very immanentist feel to the Chauvet project? this is really me trying to orientate myself.
3. Would you have any comments on interacting with Barths view of culture as the space for humanity to be truly, joyfully, creaturely human? I am thinking here of his 1924/1926? paper on church and culture. Does this not take us to the same post-metaphysical prayer/worship position as Pete and yourself appear to be aiming for?
Hope these questions are on track with the nature of conversation envisaged here. I have really appreciated the very stimulating conversations this blog has engendered - long may it continue.
Cheers,
Al
Posted by: Alan Thomson | October 25, 2006 at 06:39 AM
adele,
I can certainly see how it seems we have not lived up to the tag phrase "contemporary philosophy...for the church...in the venacular".
But it is an ideal we hope to strive for. I remember Pete saying in a comment a couple posts ago that technical jargon is useful in saying alot with a few words, but to those outside it says absolutely nothing.
If I tell someone "Play a barred 'G' on the third fret while palm muting by the bridge", this is just jibberish unless you play guitar. But for those who know how to play it is much quicker than saying: "Put the fingers of your left hand here, here, here, and here, while swinging you right hand up and down over the stings while resting your palm on the string to give it that cool muted effect."
Maybe we can all commit to speaking the second way more often, which is in the vernacular.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 25, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Hi Geoff:
I enjoyed your piece and felt it struck a balance between redibility for the laity and the theological acamedician. The "symbolic order" seems to refer to Lacan, Badiou, and Zizek, and like these theorists, subjectivity is the gap in the symbolic order, what's left over. I think all these guys were atheists, so is it possible to posit an emergence of subjectivity through a gap/void and continue to hold religious/ christian commitments. Is it possible that this void has been described as "soul" by the fathers/mothers of religious spirituality? What would Chauvet say?
And by the way Geoff, nice to see you. We corresponded for a time when you had your blog. I'm in Oakland now.
Lowell
Posted by: Lowell | October 25, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Thanx Geoff! Adele
Posted by: Existential Punk | October 25, 2006 at 02:00 PM
I'm sympathetic to some of the comments re: our more "heady" posts of late. And Geoff is right that we want to try to keep things closer to ground level. Perhaps a few observations in this respect:
1. Philosophy in service of the church will mean alot of things, and won't always be 'popular' in the sense of being widely accessible. So some folks are trying to wrestle with Zizek and Badiou because ultimately they're interested in the shape of the church's practices. But there's a 'trickle down' effect that needs to happen, which requires both time and translators. So I can sympathize with Geoff and Pete and others who feel like this is one of the few places to carry on this kind of conversation with an eye on faith and practice (even if, to others, it seems like practice is a long way off).
2. I don't mean to sound like some paternalistic 'voice of wisdom,' but sometimes young, emerging theologians are more comfortable with the technical than the vernacular. (And, to be honest, sometimes there's just a hint of wanting to 'show off.' I'm not saying this is true of Geoff and Pete--take it as a confession.)
3. All that said, I'm glad to be called back to the vernacular and the pew. Watch for us to keep working on that.
Posted by: James K.A. Smith | October 25, 2006 at 07:22 PM
For anyone out there,
A book I have found very helpful for me in connecting all this technical lingo with the practices of the church is by a guy with whom an interview appeared on this site not too long ago. Its called The Great Giveaway, by David Fitch, who I think is one of the pasors at Geoff's church. I'm sure the books advertised on this site would be helpful too, but that's the one of which I've read a good portion, and for me, again, it was very helpful. I think actually a key for me is realizing that all this technical gibberish I think really does center around a pretty small number of key practices in question. Our practices and how we do them point to our ideas of God and self (hence I think the percieved complications in the conversation; obviously God and self can get kinda complex and confusing).
Peace out,
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 25, 2006 at 11:36 PM
I don't have Pete Rollins's book so it's hard for me to tell whose idea is whose. I gather that, for Pete, words and beliefs just don't get you into the presence of God. God's presence isn't hidden behind the words; rather, God overwhelms the words. So there's some kind of mystical union with God that he's after.
Geoff then talks about the Eucharist as a means of achieving mystical union with God. This is Eucharist in continuity with the Catholic tradition: a transubstantiation, an infusion of the material bread and wine with the actual presence of God. Is this also Rollins's idea for achieving nonverbal connection with God?
Creedal statements can either be formulaic statements about God or ways of summarizing the collective experience of God. It's hard for me to see how God would reveal some aspects of himself enshrined in the Creeds without using language; e.g., the idea that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father." I gather that Pete regards all such verbal descriptions of encounters with God as inadequate. The point is to have the encounters yourself, not just to read about someone else's encounters. Geoff disagrees, I think: he regards the Creeds as manifestations of the presence of God to the historic Church,which includes even the current postmodern version.
Have I gone too far back in the discussion? And is this accurate?
Posted by: John Doyle | October 26, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Alan,
would it be possible to unpack your questions into non-academic language ref Barth and Geertz so we could interact with what you are saying?
Geoff and James,
a big thank you for your emphasis on the vernacular
Jason,
thank you for the book recommendation
All,
at the emerging village website I have found a discussion group for emerging theologians involving Geoff which might be of interest to those who want to explore there issues in much greater academic depth.
James KA Smith makes a great point for the absolute need for people like Geoff and Pete to translate complex philosphical ideas in church faith and practice!!
I will post later on my thoughts about what implications their thoughts have for church faith and practice ( imho)
Rod
Posted by: maninthepew | October 26, 2006 at 04:44 AM
Geoff stresses in his engagement that the principal way we are in the process of 'becoming Christians'is through participation in the sacraments - esp Eucharist.
I would disagree with this as it ignores or downplays the role of individual experience in the encounter with God
- one of the main emphasis in the emerging church is the encounter with God in modern culture ie in cinema, poetry, art and music. The secular/profane divide is abolished as God is in the world. Such an approach would be very much part of the the IKON community.
The whole western charismatic/pentecostal tradition stresses the individual encounter with God (for example the baptism of the holy Spirit).
Is the validity of such groups experience made invalid because it is not through the sacraments? Does this not lead to a rather sharp division of who is in/out as regards Christian Orthodoxy?
- I would contend that God can be experienced in other religions.
Does not stress on the sacraments lead to a deeply conservative, reactionary church separated from society and in danger of terminal decline because of modern disillusionment with institutional Christianity?
These are a few of my many concerns I would have with Geoffs sacramental approach. Perhaps my thoughts of how sacramental theology affects church practice is entirely up the left!!!!!!!!!
Rodney
Posted by: maninthepew | October 26, 2006 at 06:32 AM
John,
Thank you for your summary -
I found it helpful. I will post later why I think Petes theology might lead us into a cul de sac as regards application to church life/practice
Posted by: maninthepew | October 26, 2006 at 06:38 AM
Rodney,
I'll let Geoff give his real answer, but I don't think that the idea of Goeff's sacrament thing is that God can't be experienced outside the sacraments. Meaning also that Geoff I don't think would claim that God is on the island of Fiji, while a Buddhist is on the lesser ISLAND of Hawaii. I do think though that he would/is de-EMPHASIZING the role of "individual experience" in relating with God (as he mentioned earlier). Black box cinema is a good analogy to what that kind of encounter turns (or flickers) into, or turns US into. Again, that's not to say I (much less Geoff?) don't like, enjoy, or encounter God through, cinema (or art, or music, or poetry...shoot, I got that analogy from poetry anyway!).
God bless,
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 26, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Jason,
I did not mean to infer that Geoff said we could not experience God outside the sacraments - I was wondering why we could not have many different sites (of which the sacraments would be one) such as personal experience which would mediate an encounter with God (instead priveledging the sacraments). Such a view would rehabilitate the poor old Quakers etc!!! To quote from Geoff :
'This medium in which we persisting in the perpetual process of coming into belief through participation in the symbolic exchange of recognition PRINCIPALLY within the Eucharist, and GENERALLY in the sacraments, where the presence of the Absent One nourishes us'
Rodney
Posted by: rodney neill | October 26, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Rodney,
Sorry for the confusion. I'll shut up. Although I think you and Geoff are to some degree somewhere running up against each other. I guess at the very place(s) where you are asking your question(s). I'll just hush and let Geoff answer...
Jason
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 26, 2006 at 01:10 PM
As I understand Geoff, he is seeking to move through Pete in the sense that ‘belief’ is still trapped in ‘cognition’ categories rather than ‘recognition’ categories, but it is the latter that will take us into the place Pete is aiming for – namely a transformative encounter with God through prayer and worship. As a toolkit for getting to this point Geoff uses the work of Chauvet, who I am not at all familiar with. The tools used are the symbolic order, symbolic exchange and sacrament. In very crude terms I read these as culture, language and, well sacrament is self explanatory I think.
My questions concern the extent to which this enables us to get around the problem Geoff sees in Pete’s approach but highlights another whole set of issues that actually surround both projects.
First, in that culture is a priority category, ever mediating our encounter with God. I think this is the point at which Milbank has much to say, revealing the neo-pagan and heretical roots of the secular ‘social’, as expressed for example through culture, that mediates in Chauvet’s schema. This is seen, for example, when Geoff comments:
‘As we saw above, just as the human subject is always in a process of becoming because of the essential mediation of language/culture (the Symbolic Order), so too the Christian is always in a process of becoming, of coming into faith.’
Second, I ask how Geoff relates to the basically Barthian position in which grasping hold of is obviated by the priority of Gods condescending, thinking here of statements like: 'Only when they entered into his gestures and practices'. In this I am suggesting Barth as a potentially better candidate for getting around the ‘cognition’ problem, which I define as the attempt to ‘grasp a hold of’ God, as if He were just an object. This is really a question to see if we are talking about the same basic problem or not, or if I have perhaps not understood the thrust of his argument.
Third, and relatedly, I think Barth offers more promise for getting around Pete’s problem though in a very different way. As one component of this Barth tackles the question of what culture (symbolic order) is, taking it as a theological rather than a strictly anthropological matter. Culture is reconceived as the arena of human fulfillment, the space to be truly human, the creature before their God. At least, it is this from the viewpoint of redemption, though the ‘now but not yet’ of reconciliation must still be accounted for.
Sorry to go on so, but I hope this clarifies my earlier post.
Also, I think this is a brilliant forum for the theory/practice struggle to occur in, and the call being made for simpler explanations is precisely the request of the church, and this is a vital step towards it. I struggle with much of the terminology and many of the posts give me a headache (a worthwhile one I think!) as I try to grapple with the issues involved. But I see it as important to do so – so keep it up. I would otherwise never think through some of the questions being discussed here.
Cheers,
Alan.
Posted by: Alan Thomson | October 26, 2006 at 03:18 PM
Sorry about the long absence: by day a humble pastor, by night theologian, and in the early morning I'm a Starbucks employee.
jason: yes David Fitch and I are co-pastors, and I also think his book is very helpful in bring these philosophers and theologians to bear on church practice.
Rodney: concerning my turn to liturgy and sacraments...personally it has been a long journey from Free Church, seeker sensitive worship to having a sacramental appreciation. so I wasn't raising Catholic nor do I intend to convert. And, at least here in America, among the youth, there is a huge return to liturgical/sacramental traditions. The reason for this, i think, is for the reasons you articulate...the need to overcome the sacred/secular divide. Now I thought I answered some of your questions earlier concerning brethren and Pentecostals.
I would say that we need a sacramental perspective which oscillated between specific sacraments (Eucharist, Baptism, Filling of the Spirit, laying on of hand for healing, Laying on of hand for commissioning, etc) and general sacraments (creation, music, art, theater, movies, friendship, parenting). The specific sacraments (with in the Church) give shape to the general sacraments (outside the Church), and vise versa.
let me give an example:
Right now my three year old son, Soren, is learning his alphabet. We always read books together and sometimes they are specifically alphabet book. When we read them I make a point about the letters and quiz him or whatever. But at other more general times, we are just going through the day, and he'll say a word like "Soup" and a light goes off. "Soup begins with 'S', and my name Soren begins with 'S'. They both begin with 'S'" he will plert out. When he had experience in a specific setting, he brought over into his general life. And the next time we read an alphabet book, he will bring that 'soup' experience with him.
So that is roughly how I understand specific sacraments functioning under a broadly sacramental imagination which unites rather than separates the sacred/secular realms.
And for the record: the Eucharist is equally practiced on a mountain range, with a crumbly loaf spread out on a napkin, and a canteen of wine; in a Pub with a pizza and a mug; and in a sanctuary with a wafer and chalice.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 26, 2006 at 03:56 PM
Geoff,
'I think it is only within Western Pentecostalism which is generally separated from the historic sacraments (and these forms, interestingly, are very open to exploitation').
My spiritual journeys involves the charismatic movement which I have a love/hate relationship with (my wife and many friends are still involved in). I will probably join the Quakers who stress the light of Christ being experienced directly by an individual irrespective of the sacraments. Also many people are leaving mainline chuches in droves and are experiencing God on an individual basis in informal network groups. I feel your sacramental emphasis sets up an unhealthy in/out boundary relegating these traditions/groupings like these to an inferior status.
All Christian traditions are open to abuse/exploitation - it is not just the special preserve of Western Pentecostalism!!!!!!!
Posted by: rodney neill | October 26, 2006 at 05:23 PM
All,
I will no longer go on about Geoffs emphasis on the sacraments - I have probably mentioned it too much already.
John,
thank you for your clarification !!
(Pete is away in Dublin - I hope he will contribute again when he is back.
He is currently writing a book called 'Faithful Betrayal')
Posted by: rodney neill | October 26, 2006 at 06:06 PM
OOOOOps
Sorry,
Alan (not John) - thank you for your clarification !!
Posted by: rodney neill | October 26, 2006 at 06:09 PM
I get the sense that both Geoffrey's sacramental and Pete's (for want of a better word) existential encounters with God present the opportunity for some kind of interpenetration of matter by spirit. Using language to describe what occurs in such encounters is presumably futile. Is it possible to describe the nature of the encounter itself? I.e., do you reclaim some of the medieval language about transubstantiation? Is there any language available to those who do not knowlingly experience such encounters, or who wonder whether their experiences are really spiritual and not just emotional? Is it pointless to draw distinctions between Christian mystical encounters and those of other religions?
Posted by: John Doyle | October 26, 2006 at 11:09 PM
I generally just babble about my mystical encounters. No one understands it if I speak coherently in some way anwyay.
:)
Posted by: Jason Hesiak | October 27, 2006 at 03:33 AM
Hey all,
Since I was mentioned in the comments, so kindly, I thot I'd add a hearty affirmation to the necesssity of taking philosophy, especially that of the Continental variety, and making sense of it for people of the church. I am sure there are many gifted philosophers able to talk between themselves,and many gifted pastors able to preach and lead congregations, but I have always considered utterly brilliant those who can make philosophy make sense to the church world.For the church is often either over confident or isolated fromt he forces shaping current thought, universities, theology and most importantly itself. The fact that this blog would attempt such a thing is admirable if not crazy since it really takes two, three times the work. This is why I try to read Jaimie Smith, and of course Holsclaw whenever I can. The question that occurs to me is how does Holsclaw have the time to write such a thing he posted above? He's a pastor for Pete's Sake!
Speaking of Pete, I shamefully have not read his book. Nonetheless, this discussion just proves how fruitful the exercise of this blog can be. Because truely, for those raised in American evangelicalism like myself,we are either tempted to go with Rollins or Chauvet. We either seek to postpont he real and go ineffable, excluding no one and no thing. Or we just submit ourselves to the linguistic world as presented to us by thge historic practices of the church. I am sure Rollins, if he follows Caputo/Derrida, finds the Millbank/Pickstock moves (and Chauvet) towards liturgy as the constitution of ourselves in Christ's body inherently exclusiionary or violent. But as those of us who find affinities with Milbank, radical Orthodoxy, the only way out of an "ontology of violence" .. is the narration of a different ontology ...in the Eucharist. The fact that so many students (I meet) in seminaries in their twenties seem to be following one of there two directions indicates this blog might be worth a read.
I appreciate this blog greatly, and hope to contribute on the blog more in the future, when Holsclaw starts working harder and I have less work to do.
Posted by: David Fitch | October 27, 2006 at 02:26 PM
David,
Thank you for such an excellent post. In outlining the 2 different approaches you have succintly summarised and clarified all my somewhat bumbling and hesitant efforts in what I was trying to say. To be honest I do worry about the exclusive in/out boundaries which follow from Geoffs sacramental line and Petes line ends in a cul de sac too(imho - Adrian in previous posts has explored this at length). Is there not an alternative middle way between these approaches?????
Thank you again for being so ably to summarize a lot of this whole debate and what I have been trying to say.
Jason,
I still wish i could do your smiley faces
Geoff,
We have had a rather sharp exchange of views in this engagement. You probably think - its that idiot Rodney again hogging this board when you take time out of your busy schedule to read comments. I do once again want to thank you for all the time and effort you have spent in the midst of your pastor/family and job commitments in running this board.
Rodney Neill aka maninthe pew
Posted by: rodney neill | October 27, 2006 at 03:38 PM
Dear Geoff,
Thanks for your rich and illuminating post, which significantly advances the debate. Kudos.
Although I don’t wish to acquire the reputation for being a one-note Charley around here, I feel compelled to remark that I think you are being too easy on Peter on the question of third-person language about God. Although conceptual idolatry is always a risk, fear of falling into us should not lead us to dismiss such language, which is part and parcel, though not the sum and substance, of Christianity.
Paul speaks of the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This expression implies, it seems to me, that God identifies himself as, and definitively commits himself to being, the One who raised---really---Jesus from the dead. This self-commitment then enables us to speak about God in the third person, as the One who raised Jesus from the dead.
I am not proposing this as an alternative to your account, but as a complement. I would bring our two emphases together by situating the profession of the creed in the eucharistic liturgy as a kind of public self-commitment to the God whose self-commitment in Christ is re-presented in the Eucharist. The analogy is marriage. The marriage vows are acts of personal self-gift---and public, set forms of words that state what the self-gift consists in. Personal encounter and propositions, Greek truth and Hebrew covenant fidelity, are one.
Third-person language about God is not necessarily and always a declension from the encounter with God. On the contrary, precisely because that encounter is not merely an individual affair, but is also a public act of the Church before the world and for the world, it is also a matter of witnessing to the world about God. Of saying: “God has definitively committed himself in the story of Jesus---a story that goes thus and so---and we acknowledge that commitment by becoming participants in the story through the Eucharist” (which obviously does not rule out individual encounter with God).
Greek and Hebrew are one in Christ, and Heidegger’s critique of onto-theology itself needs to be critiqued.
Cordially,
Adrian
Posted by: adrian | October 27, 2006 at 04:12 PM
(it seems I wrote this while others were commenting...o'well)
Thanks, David Fitch, for the encouragement and insight into these issues (although I'm not sure everyone is interested in our co-pastoring relationship or in the inner workings of our church...but maybe they are).
There are a couple of questions hanging out there that I want to address.
Alan asked a couple of insightful question: Alan wonderings if in getting around problems in Pete's project, have I fallen into a bunch of others (well I probably have...we all choose our poison, at least that's what my sister says about marriage). Alan raise the critique of 'secular reason' by John Milbank, wondering if Chauvet is using something other than theology to tell theology what to do or think. I would answer that Chauvet does not let anthropology dictate theology, but always reread his anthropological investigation theologically. For example: in his investigation of gift-exchanging societies, humans can only be givers and then receivers, but never both at the same time to the same person. however God is both the giver, the reciever, and the gift. It is much like Milbanks understanding of "reciprocity" and 'non-identical repetition."
Second he asks when Barth's (or reformed theology) understanding of God "condescension" might better suit the theological task than what he sees as my sacramental "grasping hold of" God. I don't remember how it came out in the paper, but I know remember emphasizing this "grasping hold" idea. Anyway, I wouldn't want to and neither does Chauvet. In fact he has an entire section on the "necrotic" temptation, the tempation to find the 'dead' body of Christ, instead of the Living, Risen Lord. This temptation happens in 3 ways: Propositinally, where we think in our doctrines we can grasp Jesus, make him into an available object of investigation. When we do this, all we find is a dead body, not the Living Christ. This is the Fundamentalist/Evangelical tempation. Ethically, where we outline a system of morality and codes for conduct which will insure imitation of Christ. But this is a dead letter of the Law. This is the Liberal tempation, but can also be seen in the holiness codes of conservative groups. Sacramentally, when we begin to understand the sacraments in a magical sense (divorced from faith and action), conjouring Christ according to our whims. This is the High Church Temptation. Each of these temptations, when separated from and elevated above the others, lead toward a grasping for the dead body of Christ, something you could touch, instead of the Living Christ, in whom we believe and whose presence is no longer direct, but mediated as the Body of Christ, the Church.
John Doyle, asked about transubstantiation and mystical communion. Neither i nor Chauvet hold to a position of Transubstantiation. While Chauvet is Roman Catholic, he is offering an understanding of the Eucharist as Symbol Exchange (the site where recognition between God and make occurs, among many others) against the Transubstanitationist understand. And concerning mystical communion, while Pete is, I think, leaning toward this idea, I would not say that the Eucharist is the site of mystical communion. I'm not against mysticism, but I not advocating mystical union through a sacramental emphasis. Rather we are in communion with God in the Eucharist, although it might feel quite ordinary..."The body of Christ, broken for you..." some bread in the hands..."The cup of the new covenant..." some juice on the lips.
A really great book that I have recently read that bears on this issue of communion with God, as well and the apophatic/mystical tradition vs. the Eucharistic tradition, is Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism, And Divine-Human Communion. It outlines the theologies of two Eastern Orthodox theologians, John Zizioulas and Vladimir Lossky. It's amazing.
Posted by: geoff holsclaw | October 27, 2006 at 04:15 PM
rodney,
I hadn't thought anything negative about your comments. The have been very valuable in moving the conversation along. I've dodge the inclusion/exclusion questions, as well as those regarding universalism/pluralism, b/c they are such big questions it would be hard to know where to begin. I don't think a sacramental view in inherently exclusionary, nor need it be excessive institutionally oriented. But those two claims would take alot of ink to substantiate.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 27, 2006 at 04:22 PM
adrian says:
"Greek and Hebrew are one in Christ, and Heidegger’s critique of onto-theology itself needs to be critiqued."
I would agree to this entire statement.
In my third critique of Pete I want trying to show that when the Church Father's argue for "right belief" against heresy, that it wasn't merely a matter of cognition, but of prayer and worship (of recognition), because "orthodoxy" is better rendered "right praise" instead of belief. The Creed's are not merely for right thinking, but to safe guard right "worship" to the God who in Christ was reconciling the world. Theology build up from the worship of the Church, primarily as it grapped in the first 100 years what it meant to say both "Jesus is Risen" and "Jesus is Lord" (Lord=God of Creation). To say this is to say a human was really God.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 27, 2006 at 04:33 PM
As a layman interested in postmoderism/Christianity ( esp in talking to Pete) so much authority is attached to 'Heideggers Critique of Onto-theology' it almost seems to have become absolute truth - I am not not too sure what onto-theology means but it is great that it can be critiqued
Rod
Posted by: rodney neill | October 27, 2006 at 05:27 PM
OOOps
I meant heideggers critique can be contested.
rod
Posted by: rodney neill | October 27, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Dear Geoff,
It's 1:30 here in Germany, but, since I'm having trouble sleeping, I'll make a couple of comments.
First, I agree that doctrine flows from worship. All I'm saying is that the propositional/cognitional dimension is part and parcel, though not the sum and substance, of Christianity. We cannot afford to dispense with it, at the risk of making Christian proclamation---"Jesus IS Lord"---meaningless.
Second, I am not sure that we can so easily set aside the question of what happens to the bread and wine during the Eucharist. My point is not that you should believe in transsubstantiation---though I think that the R.C. doctrine is true---but that (1) the issue of being of the Eucharist cannot be dodged, any more than the question of the being of Christ can and (2) that talking about the being of Christ or of the Eucharist is not in and of itself a yielding to the necrotic temptation.
What transsubstantiation really means is that the presence of the Risen Lord in the Eucharist is pneumatic---so not available to fleshly grasping---but without ceasing to be physical. It is physical with a physicality that is not simply an item in this world, but the principle of a new world free from the slavery of corruption---and so more, not less physical, on account of being pneumatic.
In any case, I think this kind of pneumatic realism is necessary to avoid the temptation of turning the Eucharist into a cypher for a religious phenomenology.
Cordially,
Adrian
Posted by: adrian | October 27, 2006 at 06:37 PM
Dear Rod,
I quite agree about Heidegger. It seems to me that there is a big danger of demonizing third-person language about the being of things, which is really to demonize the human condition, since we are using third-person language about being all the time. The way the demonization often works is that someone identifies third-person language about the being of things with some bad version of it---say Descartes---and then throws the baby out with the bathwater. This is not to say that third-person language about the being of things isn't risky, and in that respect Peter's approach is an important reminder that it's not all baby, that there's bathwater, too. But I just don't see how the human condition, not to mention Christianity, is possible without the possibility of making third-person statements about the being of things in good conscience. It's not that I think that this possibility is the sum and substance of things---it's just that I think that it is something that any serious discusssion of the kinds of issues we are talking about simply cannot side-step, but has to account for. By, for example, integrating it into the type of worship-based understanding of truth Geoff is outlining.
Cordially,
Adrian
Posted by: adrian | October 27, 2006 at 06:46 PM
Adrian,
I think we are in much more agreement that it appears, but I can see how my post would make it seem that I was trying to discard the cognitive side, replacing it with a recognitve (intersubjective) understanding. My actual intention, an intention latent in my post, but now activiated by your comments, is to gather up the cognitive aspect (what you are calling the 3rd person language) by realizing the positive (or even primary) recognitive aspect of language.
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw | October 27, 2006 at 09:57 PM
Hey there
Sorry for my absence. I have been away for a bit and then, when I look in it takes so much time to catch up on the conversation that I have not had time to contribute. First off, thanks Geoff for a great reflection on my work (insightful, generious and thought-provoking) and for introducing me to a thinker I have not read yet.
I agree with the fashion of saying that a person who critiques metaphysics is themselves too metaphysical! I would however say that I rather like the Greeks and would not like to distance myself from the metaphysical tradition too much. I speak within it, too it, out of a certain respect for it. If a post-metaphysical discourse is even possible or desirable I think we are a far way from it (as I think Heidegger would say). I guess I am attempting to be a Jewgreek and I would say that the overcoming of metaphysics is a happening within metaphysics that never abolishes it but which makes it impossible in its very activity (I am aware that might seem a little abstract – sorry).
In terms of your second and third critique I would agree that I read Hebrew through Greek eyes. I am just not sure whether any of these discourses in their purity really exist – the Jews have a little Greek blood within them and visa versa. There is no pure blood among us. Of course there are degrees. In my own writing I am attempting to write into the moment I find myself in and think that my ‘heretical orthodoxy’ is itself an attempt to reclaim the idea of ‘orthodoxy’ as glory giving rather than principally conceptual (just like the ‘radical’ of radical orthodoxy or the ‘generous’ of generous orthodoxy may be said to ultimately be superfluous, so too the ‘heretical’ of my heretical orthodoxy will hopefully erase itself in time). I think the point you bring up about idolatry is interesting – perhaps I should have made a distinction between an ‘idol’ as making visible the invisible and ‘idolatry’ as worship this image. Although I think that is a good point of clarification but not a critique of my approach.
Anyway, that enough for now but I am keen to get my teeth into the creedal questions, to close I will relate the story of the Buddhist monk who went to meditate each day in the temple but who was prevented from doing so by a troublesome cat. As a solution he tied it to a tree each evening before mediation. He was an old man and died a few years later. His disciples however continued to tie the cat to the tree during mediation. Eventually the cat died and so the disciples went out a purchased a new cat. This went on for generations with new cats replacing old ones. Eventually the tree died and in its place was planted a new one. Then the scholars began to write wonderful treaties on the symbolic significance of tying a cat to a tree at a certain time each evening…
:)
Posted by: Pete R | October 28, 2006 at 04:48 AM