the church and postmodern culture: conversation

The Liturgical Turn: Worshiping Among The Chaos

Earlier this week, David Gelernter posted a really good article over at Big Questions Online that caught my attention. It did so because I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine, who works as an aerodynamicist for a major NASCAR team, that centered on the relationship of entropy to eschatology.  That is, if the world is subject to disorder and decay (Romans 8:20, yes I understand that there is much more to that verse) then what does that mean for the new creation? 

Anyway, Gelernter argues that “the rituals we perform teach [us] more than the Second Law [of Thermodynamics]: they teach us to defy the Second Law.” It does this by having a constant theme in the midst of a seemingly shapeless system.  That theme, in both Jewish and Christian liturgies, is separation.  He argues that separation defies nature by defying death.  Which I take, for him, is the great equilibrium toward which all chaos runs. 

It’s a really good post, but I’d like to go further by saying that worship / liturgy / ritual is much more than simply drawing a defiant line in the sand.  In worship we participate in the overcoming of chaos; the new creation in the making. 

 

The liturgical theologian Aidan Kavanagh argues that in worship we are regularly brought to the “edge of chaos” resulting in “deep change” in the lives of the participants.  These changes or “adjustments” are sometimes obvious and sometimes imperceptible, but the fact is that the worshiping community leaves differently than it was before.  Like the Spirit that brought form out of chaos, through baptism brings new life out of chaos, the Spirit brings a new creation through worship.  This is what happens when God “recreates the World not by making new things but by making all things new.”[1] In fact this is the task of the Church and what happens ultimately in liturgy.           

Kavanagh goes on to suggest that before modernity, cities used to be places of “transactions with ultimate reality.” They were places where ideas were formed and arts were made.  With the coming of secularization, the city became profaned and no longer seen in reference to the world.  The church, he suggests, offers a different view of humanity, the world, and the city.  Kavanagh suggests that the Church because of its liturgy is the “central workshop of the human City, a City which under grace has already begun to mutate by fits and starts into the City-of-God-in-the-making, the focal point of the world made new in Christ Jesus.”[2]  In other words, it is both the Church and the world that have been redeemed by Christ.  The church’s task is that of the reconciliation, which God did through Christ between Him and the created world. And more so, to be the embodiment in the world of the world to come, of the Kingdom, of the new and final age. What he calls the “church doing world” or enacting a “normal” world as opposed the abnormality of a chaotic world. I would argue that the normal world is not subject to chaos, (but I could be convinced otherwise).

In Political Worship, Oxford theologian, Bernd Wannenwetsch takes up this notion of the church offering a redeemed world through its liturgy. He suggests that through the liturgy we see a “double becoming of the world.”[3]. The first is the negative becoming, distinguishing the world in a post-lapsarian sense from a good creation, and recognizes itself as that which does not worship God.[4] The second, is a positive becoming of the world, which follows from the first and has real political significance.  Insofar as worship shows the world its sinfulness, it “simultaneously makes it possible for the world to find a different kind of self-understanding, a new identity.”[5]  This new understanding is that the world is bound to the church’s worship as that which produces it.  It causes the world to rightly order itself in order to make space for the church to be the church.  Without doing so the world ceases to be itself.  He notes that this does not cause the world to become the church, but allows it to become “the world which is no longer hostile to God and now reflects the Creator’s original will.”[6] 

There are differences between Kavanagh and Wannenwetsch.  The former wants to say that the ‘world’ that is done is the church’s worship, whereas the latter wants to talk about the ontological world and its reordering that “springs” from the worship. For my purposes, I think they both help us see a fuller picture of what is going on when a (specifically Christian) community worships. It witnesses and participates in the new creation which (among other things) overcomes chaos with goodness and order. 

I suppose it could be argued that order and chaos don’t necessary equal goodness and badness respectively.  But in response to Gelernter, if chaos is defied in liturgy, why not go further and show how it is overcome it?  Perhaps it comes down to the difference between a Jewish and Christian eschatology?

---

[1] Kavanagh, On Liturgical Theology, p. 50.

[2] Ibid., p. 42. 

[3] Bernd Wannenwetsch, Political Worship: Ethics for Christians, trans. Margret Kohl (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2003), p. 247.

[4] Ibid., p. 248.

[5] Ibid., p. 249.

[6] Ibid.

The End of Enclaves: A Reply to Benson

By James K.A. Smith, Calvin College

ABSTRACT

In reply to Benson’s response, I agree that we should be seeking the dissolution of all enclaves in philosophy of religion—whether continental or analytic.  But I continue to suggest that continental philosophy of religion bears special burdens in this respect.

Read the article.

A Response to Smith's "Continental Philosophy of Religion"

By Bruce Ellis Benson, Wheaton College

ABSTRACT

All of us working in continental philosophy of religion can be grateful to James K. A. Smith for his call to consider which practices will best further the “health” of the burgeoning subdiscipline of continental philosophy of religion. Given that he offers his suggestions “in the spirit of ‘conversation starters,’” my response is designed to continue what I hope will be an ongoing conversation. With that goal in mind, I respond to Smith by considering not only the practicality of each suggestion but also whether adopting practices he suggests would actually improve the health of the subdiscipline.

Read the article.

Alieving the Gospel

I was listening this morning to Paul Bloom's book, How Pleasure Works, while I walked a few miles (still no running yet for me after I broke my ankle six weeks ago playing basketball - "You're not 22 anymore!" my wife and mother said in unison).  

Toward the end of the book, Bloom talks about a handy term some psychologists use called "alief," a variation on the notion of "be-lief." 

Here's the wikipedia entry:

Alief is a concept used by philosophers and psychologists to refer to an automatic or habitual belief-like attitude, particularly one that is in tension with a person’s explicit beliefs.

So, for example, a person standing on a transparent balcony may believe that she is safe, but alieve that she is in danger. A person watching a sad movie may believe that the characters are completely fictional, but his aliefs may lead him to cry nonetheless. A person who is hesitant to eat fudge that has been formed into the shape of feces, or who exhibits reluctance in drinking from a sterilized bedpan may believe that the substances are safe to eat and drink, but may alieve that they are not. And a person who believes in racial equality may nonetheless have aliefs that cause her to treat people of different racial groups in subtly different ways.

So, for instance, someone may be moved and transformed by an account of Jesus' resurrection because they alieve the Gospels (and, perhaps, can't do otherwise), even if they don't actually believe them.

Is this terminology useful? Does it just muddy the waters?

I wonder how many of us and to what extent alieve rather than believe key claims made by the Gospels. 

For my part, though, I'm suspicious that this distinction, even if - especially if? - accurate, may be a red herring in this context, a kind of lure that we might use mostly to distract ourselves and others from what really matters. 

For my part, whether you believe or alieve (or neither?), it's your fidelity to the joyful proclamation that is decisive. 

Continental Philosophy of Religion: Prescriptions for a Healthy Subdiscipline

By James K.A. Smith, Calvin College

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade there has been a burgeoning of work in philosophy of religion that has drawn upon and been oriented by “continental” sources in philosophy—associated with figures such as Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion, Gilles Deleuze, and others. This is a significant development and one that should be welcomed by the community of Christian philosophers. However, in this dialogue piece I take stock of the field of “continental philosophy of religion” and suggest that the field is developing some un-healthy patterns and habits. The burden of the paper is to suggest a prescription for the future health of this important field by articulating six key practices that should characterize further scholarship in continental philosophy of religion.

Read the article. 

A Call for Guest Posts: Violence and Christian Holy Writ

The relation between violence and the Christian religion or the role of violence in Christianity is of course not a new problem. However, like other difficult, controversial, and incredibly important issues, it is often left unaddressed or given scant attention in Christian circles including Christian seminaries.  Thankfully, at least some modern and postmodern theologians, philosophers, and other Christian thinkers—Frederick Douglass, Jung Mo Sung, James Cone, J. Kameron Carter, William T. Cavanaugh have engaged the subject of violence and its relation to and manifestations within the Christian tradition.  Because I personally find this issue difficult, important, and extremely relevant to our current (post)modern context, I have decided to host a series of guest posts on the topic.  My interest in this series, however, is somewhat narrowly focused in a biblical hermeneutical direction.  That is, in dialogue with other Christians via this guest post format, I want to have a conversation about what Scripture itself says, promotes, prohibits, permits or seems to say promote, prohibit, permit about violence, majoring on those difficult passages dealing with genocide, slavery, and the like—all with a view to developing a Christian hermeneutical trajectory that would enable us to intelligently and compassionately engage contemporary issues.  

I have listed below specific topics for engagement and hope to receive two to three submissions per topic presenting different and perhaps even opposing perspectives. I welcome Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant contributors, liberal as well as conservative. (Recently, a number of thoughtful non-Christians and atheists have written excellent works dealing with violence.  As a philosopher, I find these works incredibly valuable; however, for this series, I am looking for contributions exclusively from Christians, as I want the series to serve as a resource of sorts for Christians interested in this subject area and who also find it a challenge to their faith. 

Generally speaking, the posts should be between 500–1500 words, with a strict maximum limit of 1500 words (see below for contact information and topics for proposals). I've already received several excellent proposals; however, there are still slots open for mini-essays for (2) and (3)--African American or Afrocentric hermeneutical readings are especially welcome.  Regarding (4), I need a counterpoint mini-essay arguing against an Anselmian-based view of the atonement--Eastern Orthodox and (post)modern theological readings are especially sought, though other views are welcome as well. Thus far, I have not received any proposals for (5), but my hope is that posting the announcement here will generate a few Girardian-related proposals.   

Specific Topics

1. How should a Christian interpret the divinely commanded mass killings (genocide) commanded of the Old Testament (e.g. Joshua 6, 10, etc.)?  Should we read these allegorically, literally, or what? Other passages on violence may be engaged as well.
2. How should a Christian interpret passages in the Old Testament (e.g. Exodus and Leviticus) that at least appear to permit slavery?
3. How does a Christian make sense out of seemingly opposed views on slavery (e.g. Philemon, and I Cor 7:23 verses 1 Peter) in the New Testament? 
4. Does one’s view of atonement make a difference in how one interprets the violent acts recorded in Scripture?  If so, how? 
5. A Girardian dialogue related to any of the above topics or focusing on particular passages of Scripture is quite welcome

If you are interested in participating, please send me an email or post a comment on my blog: cynthia.nielsen@gmail.com. 

Seminar: "From Worldview to Worship: The Liturgical Turn in Cultural Theory"

Next summer (June 20-July 8, 2011) I'll be directing a 3-week seminar for scholars and advanced doctoral students, as well as select practitioners, under the auspices of the Seminars in Christian Scholarship at Christian College.  Full information for applicants is available at their website. 

DESCRIPTION

"Religion” has received increased attention from both social scientists and journalists over the past decade. But the phenomenon of religion has also been reconceived: rather than focusing simply on beliefs and doctrines, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers of religion are increasingly attentive to the role of practice and ritual as fundamental to religious identity. So rather than merely distilling the “worldview” of religious communities, scholars exegete the understanding implicit in worship practices. Thus one could speak of something like a “liturgical turn” in "cultural theory” –an appreciation for the formative role of cultural practices in constituting communities of meaning.  This can be seen in the philosophical work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor; the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu and Christian Smith; research in social psychology as seen in the work of Timothy D. Wilson and John A. Bargh; and the theological developments in the work of Stanley Hauerwas, Graham Ward, and Craig Dykstra. This has important implications both for the study of religion, including Christianity, as well as for critical reflection on faithful religious practice.

WHO MAY APPLY

This seminar could appeal to a wide range of scholars and practitioners, and we’re hoping to bring together a team of both.  For scholars, the “liturgical turn” has implications for how we account for and explain religious phenomena in the social sciences (sociology of religion, political science, and psychology of religion), philosophy of religion, and theology.   For practitioners, attention to the" practiced” nature of faith-and hence the religious nature of some cultural practices (“secular liturgies”)-requires renewed intentionality about the shape of worship and spiritual formation.

As such, the seminar aims to bring together a mix of scholars and reflective practitioners to grapple with some of the primary texts behind the “turn to practice” in order to consider the implications of the liturgical turn for their area of research and practice.  The seminar should particularly be of interest to scholars in sociology of religion, political science and political theory, philosophers of religion, and theologians working in liturgy theology and ethics. Practitioners could include pastors and worship leaders, campus ministers, even perhaps artists, writers, and journalists.  Advanced PhD students are welcome to apply.

Continental Philosophy of Religion: The Future of the Discipline

Mike Peterson, the managing editor of Faith and Philosophy, has kindly permitted us to reprint a symposium on continental philosophy of religion that appeared in the October 2009 issue of the journal (vol. 26, no. 9).  So beginning next week, we'll roll out the three articles (pdf reproductions of the published versions):

Tuesday, Sept. 7: James K.A. Smith, "Continental Philosophy of Religion: Prescriptions for a Healthy Subdiscipline"

Wednesday, Sept. 8: Bruce Ellis Benson, "A Response to Smith"

Thursday, Sept. 9: James K.A. Smith, "The End of Enclaves: A Reply to Benson"

This might be interesting reading for those planning to participate in the upcoming Postmodernism, Religion, and Culture Conference at Syracuse University: "The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion."