Theological Networks

Global society has shown us that it is not connected through hierarchical relations.  Instead, it is connected through networks and associations that have fluidity.  We can see this in financial trading as the value of the US dollar changes depending on its valuation relative to other currencies. There is no external standard by which their values are set.  The system of trade is supported and maintained by its infinite regress of reference and the production of desire for it.  To give a specific example, the value of the US dollar is maintained because it is infinitely self-referential (a sign is always a sign of a sign) and desire for its continued existence is produced by intersecting networks (such as the nationalist identity of the US).  How does this situation translate into theology and the church?

Theology is always a network; more precisely it is a network of many theological concepts.  In this manner, a particular theology is seen as a name given to a particular configuration of these concepts.  However, this network is in motion; the network always changes.  Even the most systematic theology changes over time.  This phenomenon is common in computer networks: Systems dislocate and reorganize: link.  This is the same effect in the theological network where concepts move to have the optimal connection.  For instance, Luther's reformation reconfigured theology so that the concept of salvation was detached from any kind of deed—sola fide!

The theologians of the future will interact with this model of networks and interact within networks. This change has been seen decades ago in the abstract writings of thinkers such as Deleuze and Guattari (e.g. rhizomic structures vs. arboreal structures), Baudrillard (“The real is produced from miniaturized cells, matrices, and memory banks, models of control”, Simulacra, 2), and others.  The other response to networks is that of fundamentalism: those that absolutize difference so that their particular brands of theology can remain constant over time.  The future of Christianity lies in its ability to engage networks and let the transcendent God interact with humanity immanent.  This is the radical (re)turn to the Gospel.

Comments

[Jon Corcoran]

rhizomic--interesting idea. I am new to this space, but it seems that the use of rhizmic is problematic. Take an actual iris. Its tuber--rhizome--grows and produces more of itself. An able gardener digs it up, splits it into sections, and replants the genetically exact "children." The use of rhizomic structures, semantically lends it self to self propagating, fundamentalist structures. Cross pollinating may be a better metaphor for exploring the convergence and exchange of ideas.

[Christopher Roussel]

Jon, you are correct about the growth of tubers, but as you mention, the "children" are genetically identical. To take this back into something like fundamentalism, isn't that exactly what we see: groups splintering and separating while still being genetically identical? Have we ever seen a fundamentalist group split from its parent and be radically different with respect to their genes? From my experience, this has only happened when groups merged together (perhaps we can allude the botanical grafting?). For the "garden" of theology to survive the "weeds," it itself has to become more weed-like (perhaps a strawberry or potato?) or wait for a gardener to remove the weeds and hope it survives.