A Certain Point of View

    I was recently having a discussion with my brother and sister in law.  During our conversation, we spoke about the way some people have particular tastes, and anyone who disagrees with these opinions are wrong or “stupid.”  Granted, we all have tastes and opinions that we hold very dear; however, we live in a world with divers opinions.  In many ways, it's a matter of opinion.  The same could be true with Sacred Scripture.
    Ever since I was very young, my dad always taught my brother and me a lot of the theology he was learning.  One program he enjoyed was “The Bible Answer Man” with Walter Martin.  He even purchased some of his tapes.  Usually these teachings deal with various cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's, etc.).  However, other teachers like John MacArthur taught against the Charismatic movement or Pentecostalism.  Anyway, this is a rather round about way of stating that much Christian dialogue deals with differing interpretations of Scripture and the Christian experience.  In other words, Christians slamming other Christians.
    While I don't mean to demean the contributions of all of these faith perspectives, I am greatly perturbed by this line of reasoning that claims that certain views are “orthodoxy” while others are outside the revealed truth of Scripture.  Moreover, such reasoning fail to recognize the messiness of interpretation and the limits of human understanding.  In her essay entitled "De profundis: Augustine's Reading of Orthodoxy" Carol Harrison refers to diversity as the “dark side” (254) of Christian doctrine.
    This subliminal layer to doctrine is “an unavoidable undercurrent of ambiguity, difficulty, and obscurity; of fluidity, change, and flexibility that, unless it is acknowledged and consciously appreciated, can only lead to unexplained conflict, disagreement, and potentially dangerous fractures and divisions” (254).  In other words, Harrison challenges the notion that Scriptural truth is so “plain.”  Understanding Scripture often emerges from adversity and not simple musings.  Moreover, the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements represent a reaction towards the more modern and rationalistic  Christian practices of Protestant churches.  Whether they simply inherited the Romantic religious view is not something I can speak to; however, they do have a foot stand on in their interpretation and help remind us of God's continual influence and involvement in history.  In some ways, they stand in the mystical tradition of Western and Eastern mystics.  God is more existential than intellectual.  Of course, there's no reason to have one at the expense of the other.  Both can contribute to our understanding of God.  However, in what way can we justify this apparent compromise?  Harrison turns to St. Augustine for some insight.
     According to Harrison, Augustine felt that there was a certain “improvisation” (255) to interpreting Scripture.  Using the 2 great commandments of loving God and loving neighbor as his foundation, Augustine declares that these commandments serves as “rules that effectively enable [us] to freely improvise on the particular details of scripture to arrive at new, shifting, diverse meanings, which, nevertheless, resonate with the faith and do not diverge from its truth – in other words, which are orthodox” (255-56).  Therefore, ideas and doctrines are constantly changing to fit the needs of the present community.  For example, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he stated that “all men are created equal;” however, in practice African slaves were not covered by this ideal.  When Lincoln became president, he quoted this exact line from Jefferson to include those who were enslaved.  While this might not be the best example, we note that it shows how events and development alter the way we view important truths within a society.  This does not mean that we find every absurd interpretation to be valid.  What we mean is that varying interpretations of Scripture should be weighed equally because we know that we are finite of understanding.  This prevents the “me and my Bible” routine and allows the community of Christ's body to determine and grow from their different practices.
    While such an approach does not terminate the arguing and fighting over different views of Scripture, I do think it might help cool some heads about how they debate such issues.  People feel strongly about their faith views, and they should.  There is nothing wrong with debate; however, we should be open to different views because ultimately all knowledge and wisdom comes from God.  As Christ told Peter, “[Flesh] and blood hath not revealed [my Messianic identity] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (St. Matt. 16:17).  It is God who reveals Himself to humanity and not our powers of deduction or reason.  Therefore, if God has chosen to grant someone one understanding of Scripture, then does it not behoove us to have an open ear?  We must not allow our need to be right or correct to silence the voice of God in our fellow brothers and sisters.  Such an attitude does not love her or his neighbor, which demonstrates a lack of loving God.  The authority of Scripture is not something to be wielded by His Church (though at times it may be mediated through her), but through Him that speaks.

Matthew Jimenez is a graduate student at USC with a MA in Theology and the Arts.  He currently lives in Carson, California.

Vivi Ornitier and the Meaning of Life

I just watched the finale of the video game Final Fantasy IX. I remember fondly playing the game back during my undergrad days; however, I was never able to complete the quest. Nevertheless one character really stood out to me – the little black mage Vivi.

     I found Vivi's story really compelling. Throughout the game, we discover that Vivi is a product of the villainous Kuja, who creates black mages for the Alexandrian Empire. Moreover, Vivi discovers that the mages expire after one year. Naturally, this sends Vivi on an existential quest in the midst of stopping the Kuja from destroying the planet they inhabit. In fact, Kuja's quest stems from his own disillusionment with mortality.

     For Christians who hold to the promise of the resurrection, questions of mortality seem misplaced. Yet, the older I get the more I understand the course of my own life running its course. Just as there was life before me there will be life without me. The idea of death (or “stopping” as the black mages understand it) unravels anyone who thinks about it long enough. I must admit my own night terrors thinking about the prospect of non-existence. Reviewing a game like this causes me to further reflect on this issue as well as the validity of video games. Granted, not every game is this dense (FF IX is surprisingly lighthearted despite this theme). The game then presents the player with facing their own purpose in light of death.

While death is a frightening thing, it can enable us to view life with greater gravity. Speaking from personal experience, I often took life for granted and assumed that things would simply fall into place due to some master plan. As an adult, I realize that life is a struggle. Now, I know that my struggles pale in comparison to many in the world, but these are still personal struggles. Anyway, death allows me to remember the short existence that we have on this planet. As Paul directs us, we should “[make] the most of our time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5.15). While Paul may have other things in mind, I think there is a principle that we shouldn't overlook. We should make the most of the lives we have been given. If we believe in God, then we understand life to be a gift. Thus we should not waste the gift given to us. 
    How, then, should we spend this gift? Well, for Vivi life existed on touching the lives around us. The little mage found friends, adventure and a home. He was grateful for what little life he had and his life touches any gamer well after the credits roll. I do believe that the game makes a great point. Life is too short for grudges and strife. We should enjoy the company of our friends and family knowing that it won't last forever. I know I have greatly neglected many of my friends. I should rectify that. Moreover, as I get older so do my folks. I must admit that I had a recent altercation with my father. I guess we both feel very strongly about things, but I can't help realizing that I still want a sense of approval from him. Funny thing is that I already have that approval. So, why fight? Why not enjoy the rest of my time with him.

     I know I sound like I'm pushing my folks into the grave, but I really think that death ought to make us celebrate life. So, as I re-watch the end of this game I notice Vivi's thoughts appear before various scenes of all the other characters in the game. As they all reconnect with friends and love ones, we see the point of life – relationships. God created a man and a woman to grow together in love. Unfortunately, pride and will defeated such devotion and plunged humanity into a cycle of covetousness and violence. As Christians we believe that Jesus' death and resurrection frees us from this catastrophe and reconciles us back to God and each other. He has torn down the hostility. May we then enjoy life in spite of death and live in peace with each other (Eph. 2.11-22).

Matthew Jimenez received his BA in English Literature at Biola University. He received his MAT in Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. He currently teaches Sunday School at Calvary Community Church in Torrance, CA.

Howard Thurman meets Gandhi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGX4-Wv9UD0

I started this morning to watch and listen to Youtube videos of Howard Thurman.  I have often seen his books on my suggested Amazon reading list but with the structure of PhD studies I have tried to basically focus on what will actually go in my dissertation for the time being.  At this point, I just have to finish writing the dissertation so I have been free to read and write generally what I want.  

Listening to Thurman speak has been a real treat.  I have also started rereading James Cone so for the last week my love of theology has been renewed somewhat.  There are a number of Youtube videos featuring Thurman but an interview where he reflects on his life is amazing and grabbed my attention.

I was simply glued to my computer screen when Thurman talked about his meeting with Gandhi.  There is just so much important history here (of course it is the kind typically missing in History class).  The way Gandhi requested to hear the hymn below "Were You There" from Thurman's group illustrates the way Christianity as generally practiced among the British could never be an option for him.  

When I have students read Gandhi's biography and see his discussion on religion they have a hard time identifying with him.  How can he like Jesus but see Christians as hypocrites they often ask?  The dynamic of colonialism is something I and my students can never truly understand and no manner of apologetics can convince someone of Gandhi's experience that official Christianity has too many problems to be profitable for his cause.  However, like Bonhoeffer, Gandhi recognized the authenticity of Black theology.  

I thought it interesting that Gandhi would have thought that they would turn out to be attracted to Islam instead (good point for those out there that paint a negative picture of Muslims).  However, as the conversation developed the theme of human suffering and misery found in the crucified Christ is what linked Gandhi and Thurman (and Bonhoeffer, King).

On another level, this discussion also reminded me of my general dislike of Christian music.  I actually enjoy older hymns and spirituals because of the identification with the suffering Christ (granted, a lot of hymns are also NOT very good).  I have seen Black, Hispanic communities that can identify with the gospel in these songs (the same goes for people at the Mission I go to every now and then).  It is to take the narrative of the Bible and apply it to the experiences of the people.  There is no detached attainment of truth here.

Were You There
Were you there when they crucified my Lord
Oh were you there when they crucified my Lord
(Oooh sometimes it causes me to tremble) tremble
Were you there when they crucified my Lord

Were you there when they nailed him to the cross
Were you there when they nailed him to the cross
(Oooh sometimes it causes me to tremble) tremble
Were you there when they nailed him to the cross

(Were you there when they laid him in the tomb
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb
Oooh sometimes it causes me to tremble) tremble
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb

Well were you there when the stone was rolled away
Were you there when the stone was rolled away
(Oooh sometimes it causes me to tremble) tremble
Were you there when the stone was rolled away

The Shadow Knows: Jungian Psychology and Final Fantasy IV

I've been doing a bit of reading in Jungian psychology. Jung, of course, is well known for his relationship with Freud and his unique perspective into the human psyche. If I'm reading Jung correctly, the Swiss psychologist asserts that various personalities make up the fabric of the human psyche. In order to define these “personalities” Jung used archetypal language. One of these personalities is the Shadow.

This personality represents the darker aspects of the unconscious and presents itself in divers guises like a demon or foreigner. However, the Shadow represents those aspects of our personality that creates guilt, denial or projection – or so says the Short Introduction to Jung. Jung believed that the Western obsession with morality created a large Shadow that would ultimately threaten society. Once more, on a personal level, projection often leads to hostility towards other undesirable persons despite the fact that the Shadow belongs to the accusers. In order to create wholeness, the Shadow needs to be brought to consciousness. The Shadow is not necessarily “bad”, but it needs to be acknowledged and controlled. I found a good example of this in Square-Enix's game Final Fantasy IV and its sequel The After Years.

In Final Fantasy IV and the After Years, 2 major characters confront their own Shadow in a mirror chamber. One character is the protagonist Cecil Harvey. The other character is Kain Highwind. Nevertheless, both characters resolve their issues in drastically different ways.

In the original game, Cecil leads Baron's Red Wings, an air fleet comprised of specially designed airships. The game opens with Cecil leading his fleet in order to steal a crystal from a town. This is done to bolster the power of the Kingdom of Baron. Cecil, however, becomes riddled with guilt over obeying this command. To make a long story short, he eventually begins a quest to find redemption. Furthermore, he needs to face his Shadow, which he defeats passively (just defend and heal and you'll be all right). Nonetheless, in the After Years Cecil becomes controlled by dark forces and must defeat his Shadow once again. The objectives appears to be obliteration of the Shadow ( see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT52NwstF5E&list=FLot7RWVin8EPUr9Cnmx8Vzw&index=28); nevertheless, the first attempt apparently failed. Even Kain observes that the return of the Shadow isn't really unprecedented, and Cecil along with his family need to defeat the Shadow again (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwgaDq1ueWI&list=FLot7RWVin8EPUr9Cnmx8Vzw&index=30). With that, we can turn to Kain.

Kain is probably the coolest character in the game and the most flawed. In the first game he spends most of his time under the influence of dark forces. However, we learn that the dark forces utilize existing angst and jealousies in order to manipulate him. Eventually, he is freed from that control, but he is left with the need to expunge himself of his Shadow. Unfortunately, things don't go over so well for Kain. His Shadow breaks loose and tries to abduct Cecil's wife Rosa, whom Kain also loves, and murder Cecil. Then, the other Kain (we'll call him Persona Kain) catches up with Shadow Kain. The 2 face off and Persona Kain defeats the Shadow; nevertheless, Persona Kain does not destroy the Shadow. Rather, he acknowledges his Shadow's existence and owns him. At this point Kain becomes whole (represented by becoming a Holy Dragoon). Then, a voice proclaims that justice has been done (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8cSM-Y4o0I&list=FLot7RWVin8EPUr9Cnmx8Vzw&index=31).

I think a lot can be gained from these insights. Many Christians have grown up in very conservative homes, which tend to be highly moralistic. Moreover, morality can often lead to both condemning attitudes and hypocrisy. For Jung, the emphasis on Persona masks and hides the Shadow. This gives the Shadow power over out unconscious. I believe that if we are more honest about our own personal demons we might be better equipped to handle some of the issues facing American Christianity and politics today.

 Matthew Jimenez received his BA in English Literature at Biola University. He received his MAT in Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. He currently teaches Sunday School at Calvary Community Church in Torrance, CA.  

What Makes Barth's thought Dialectical?

Since Bruce McCormack's work on Barth, one should read Barth less as a representative of neo-orthodoxy and more of a modern/orthodox thinker.  Kenneth Oakes recently even sees no problem in calling him orthodox/liberal because of Barth's continual use of the theoretical format he learned from the Neo-Kantians and Wilhelm Herrmann specifically.

McCormack has insisted that Barth was a dialectically critical-realistic (Realdialektik) theologian.  God's existence is the transcendent real that humans come in contact in a dialectically veiled/unveiled revelation with God as both the Object (Sache) and Subject of the matter.  Barth interpreter Paul La Montagne lists 7 points to illustrate what exactly this means:

1. Barth takes God's existence and God's self-revelation for granted.
2. His theology is nonfoundationalist (not anti).
3. His theology is critical and self-critical (This is a KEY point often ignored by Barth's readers).
4. We cannot speak of God, but we refer to God in our theology.
5. Our knowledge of God is mediated and indirect.
6. Our language of God is fallible; it is actualistic witness at its best.
7. Theology as a science is of a hypothetical character.

The Beginning of Historicism: Chladenius & Möser

Johann Martin Chladenius and Justus Möser are two names that one does not hear in many households (especially the ones inhabited by Anglo-Americans).  However, in Beiser's new book on the German Historicist tradition, he makes the claim that these two are the grandfathers of Historicism. This is important because most  begin with Herder.


So what is so significant about both of them?  They both begin to look at history outside of simple confessional history or the history of the elite.  They also notice the importance of context and perspective in viewing the past. Because of their attention to history some may place them outside of the eighteenth century Enlightenment and see them as forerunners of nineteenth century movements.

Möser especially deserves mention here because he rejects Wolffian rationalism for its emphasis on reason and turns to the action and emotions of real historical actors. Chladenius seems to turn away from the relativism and perspectivism that may form from a historicist understanding of history because of his orthodox Lutheranism.  All in all, they are both pioneers in asking critical, modern questions about history.

Barth's Nietzschean View of History

I am half way done with Richard E. Burnett's book Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis.  The main reason I am reading this book is because he spends a fair amount of time describing what Barth's reading style (his hermeneutics) is like.  He does this by seeing Barth's Romans (I and II) as breaking from the hermeneutical tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey and also the higher criticism of his contemporaries.

The Eureka moment I had is when Burnett pointed out that Barth quotes (in his unpublished preface to Romans) Nietzsche's book The Use and Abuse of History.   Here is the quote (see page 114):

"You may only interpret the past out of the highest power of the present: only in the strongest efforts of your noblest qualities will you divinize what in the past is great, worth knowing and preserving.  Like through like!    Or else you will pull the past down to yourself!  It is the mature and preeminent man who writes history.  He that has not passed through some greater and nobler experience than his contemporaries will be incapable of interpreting the greatness and nobility of the past. The voices of the past speak in oracles; and only the master of the present and the architect of the future can hope to decipher their meaning."

This helps one of my recent points (which is probably not too original) that Barth follows in the genealogy with Nietzsche's and Burckhardt's school of history.  For these three, they held a skeptical view of the progressive reading of history at the end of the nineteenth century, and they wanted a separation between science (its appeal to objective, detachment) and the other disciplines in the humanities.  Following this quote, Barth appeals to Nietzsche in the way the dynamic between the past and present is important for practicing history; thus, their is no detachment with regard to the past.

Prepping for Spring Semester 2013:On History

I have been away from the blogging game for a few months while I wrapped up Chapter 2 of the dissertation.  Here are a few things I have on my agenda for the coming year:

The relationship between what historians call micro-history and macro-history, social-cultural history and just general trends in historiography.  I am assigning some Jared Diamond and then some Robert Darnton/Natalie Zemon Davis/W. E. B. Du Bois to illustrate some of the differences.  Also, attached to this debate is the role of German historicism and its attention to historical hermeneutics.  I definitely have Burnett's book on Barth's early hermeneutics in mind.  German historicism is a subject that is ill defined especially in the English speaking world, so I plan to read what I can on exactly what was at the heart of this movement and where Barth fits in this world (or how he fights against it).  Some of the figures I want to cover are: Droysen, Rickert, Troeltsch, Dilthey, Meinecke, Cassirer, and Heidegger.

I wrote a lot on Deleuze during my early doctoral seminars, and I am looking to create something out of that research since it is not particularly relevant to my dissertation.  I'm thinking about looking at Fernand Braudel's book On History as a catalyst for comparisons (since Deleuze does refer to Braudel from time to time).  My educated hunch would be both have a view that tries not to favor the anthropocentric viewpoint.  Part of the challenge is to teach World Civilizations as less the struggle of important characters and events, but to look at long periods of time to establish why things changed over time and why some things stayed the same.  In order to do this correctly, some argue, is to downplay the human element.  My first step toward this is to lean on the interpretations of Kenneth Pomeranz and Robert Marks and the popular work of Jared Diamond.

To wrap things up, I want to correlate all this stuff on history and ask how does this translate over to my work at my local church or in theological discourse.

The good thing is that I have spaced out my doctoral work to give me more time to potentially write a journal article or two, be better prepared for lectures and enjoy the birth of my second son!!!

Jack Goody on the Other

Some sound advice from anthropologist/historian Jack Goody:

"We need always to be on our guard against the misrepresentation of others, whether of the Oriental other or of the other next door (or even the other in our own house).  The total avoidance of misrepresentation may well be beyond our capacities.  But that is no reason for withdrawing from the task, especially since the process of representing the other will continue, whatever we think or do about it.  School children will be taught history and adults will make judgments about other cultures.  It is surely our task in the Universities and elsewhere (or one of our tasks) to make certain those products and those judgments are the best that it is within our power to make: not to conclude, as some have done, that the way out is to throw up one's hands in despair or to take refuge in the indulgence of frankly fictional or personalized accounts.  That may be a way out; it is no way forward." 

Helpful definitions on Republicanism and Natural Law theory in Rousseau's context

On page 241, Rosenblatt, in her study Rousseau and Geneva, gives a couple of helpful definitions of republicanism and natural law theory.

Republicanism: "The republican tradition is based on the ideas of virtue and community and sees love of one's country and identification with the community as the essential conditions for a just political order.

Natural law theory: "The political doctrine of natural law is based on the notion of self-interest and sees the main role of the State as being the protection of private interests."

The Importance of Rousseau

I am currently working my way through Helena Rosenblatt's study of Rousseau.  I have previously read her essay on the Christian Enlightenment in my studies of the Religious Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.  Here is what I am learning from the book:

1.  Rousseau's social-cultural context of growing up in eighteenth century Geneva is an understudied aspect of his life.  Rosenblatt is following in the footsteps of Skinner and Pocock in emphasizing this context to understand Rousseau better.

2.  The Geneva of Rousseau was one of economic and political turmoil.  There were great changes since the time of Calvin's Geneva.  Even the Reformed theologians preached a more pragmatic message to fit with the changing world.  Moreover, a separation among an oligarchy and the bourgeois was developing, which directly impacted Rousseau's family.  His upbringing brought him to admire the republican virtues of the Western classics over against the cultural admiration of everything French in Geneva.

3.  Things changed for Rousseau when he became a man of letters in France.  This middle period of his life before he wrote his greatest works was the time period when he hung out with the other French philisophes.  He abandons his love of republicanism and Geneva.

4.  Upon writing the First Discourse, Rousseau begins his turn back to being a "citizen of Geneva."  This is also his turn toward sociological interpretation of humanity and his anti-philisophes writings.  Many commentators like Jonathan Israel see a betrayal of Radical Enlightenment principles, yet perhaps it is better stated that Rousseau is trying to attempt a republican renaissance through classic virtues...

More to come...

Gary Dorrien's new book on Kant's influence on Modern Theology

A brand new book is out that features the way theologians wrestled with joining the Enlightenment(s) and Christian theology.  For Dorrien, Kant is the main thread to the story that covers both Schleiermacher's and Hegel's reaction to Kant along with the later reaction from Barth.  If you want to really understand Barth's program, you must know Kant (and Hegel too)...

Dorrien is known for his work on social-theological ethics and a great book on Barth's theology, as well.  The asking price for the book is over $100 bones, so I'm hoping to get a hold of a library copy soon.

Status of Summer work...

Since my work has taken the turn to the historical, I thought that this would increase the amount of time it would take for me to finish this bloody dissertation thing. Instead I am about 55 pages completed with three other chapters on the horizon. Here is some of the progress of my work:

 I have explored the work of recent theologians and philosophers for the last couple of years thinking about how this actually has helped my overall work.  First, struggling with concepts is rewarding in and of itself, but what my reading of thinkers like Zizek, Agamben and others have taught me is that they are often leaning on older thinkers within the philosophical tradition. The main figures, who are obviously having an impact on theological thought today, are, for me, Hegel and Spinoza. One of the things I have taken from both philosophers is that, one, labeling them in a particular school is hard and sometimes anachronistic, and, two, I found that it is better to see their historical impact and appreciate their contribution than to whine and complain about how they took things down a wrong turn or that they need to somehow be overcome. Their discussion of theological matters has had an important impact in all factors of human thought (see Jonathan Israel's majestic work if you think Spinoza is not important).

 Again, exploring the history of this tradition (and yes, I think one can see a flow from Spinoza to Schleiermacher and Hegel) has moved the trajectory on how we have historically thought about God, among other things. One can judge the merits of this turn, but, as I just start to wrestle with this history, I must admit that I stand with a certain awe of the so-called Spinozian line and the way Hegel wrestled with post-Kantian thought.  Hegel and Spinoza are very difficult thinkers that need real dedication to understand their ideas, but I have a feeling that the payoff is extremely rewarding.

 Where does Barth fit in? Well, for some who follow the neo-orthodox argument he really does not, because he is anti-modern; but if Bruce McCormack's recent interpretation of modern theology is correct then it helps lead Barth to a more actualistic understanding of God, which is very modern because it is built around a terminology that came from both Spinoza and Hegel (and Kant).  I think that my driving point here has been to articulate a thoroughly Protestant theology and to see an intellectual history that moves from the late seventeenth century into the twentieth century.  However, even against a certain Barthianism, I want to follow a sort of German tradition that notes how much Barth inherited his ideas from the nineteenth century tradition he is so noted for taking on.

Cohen on Judaism and Christianity

Enlightenment, Kant and Race

I have been buried deep in historical works on the Enlightenment, paying close attention to the issue of religion and the eighteenth century (also issues of secularization).  One aspect I will at least try to incorporate is the way the Enlightenment has been challenged in the last thirty years from the postmodern, postcolonial ans subaltern studies; from what I can tell, some of these works border the ahistorical and the imaginary.  However, J. Kameron Carter's work Race does a good job in making the point that modern racism has its roots in supersessionism.  Here is a key quote on his damning chapter on the Prussian philosopher:

For Kant, the teleological movement toward the perfect race—carried out by white flesh and contrasted to the limitations of the black race—is not yet complete. Indeed, his project, I claim, from the great critical and moral philosophy, with its account of aesthetics and its teleology of culture, to his political and religious outlook, is an attempt to work out how Aufkla¨rung as humankind’s stepping out (Ausgang) of immaturity into maturity is the sociopolitical process by which the project of whiteness is to be completed as the project of reason. The reconstituted and enlightened body politic completes the task of the (perfect) ‘‘race-ing’’ of the body (90).

Israel's work on the Enlightenment

I finally decided to dive into Jonathan Israel's enormous work.  He has written 3 large tomes numbering around 3,000 pages total on the Enlightenment.  His major contribution to modern scholarship is to define the time period along its intellectual bearings.  He classifies it by two categories: the moderate and the radical.  The radical Enlightenment is the one he favors because it is more democratic and egalitarian and has its roots in the thought of Spinoza.

What I am really looking forward to with regards to his last of the trilogy, the Democratic Enlightenment, is his attempt in defining the Enlightenment itself in the first chapter.  This is a serious, well-researched book that  non-historians who think in the shadow of the Enlightenment should at least be aware of.  The more we take the historians seriously when they produce massive works of erudition then the more we will not continue the silly, generalized statements about the Enlightenment.

My article on Barth and Zizek in new Vol 6:1 (2012)

My article on Barth and Zizek and Dialectical Theology is now in the new Zizek journal.  Check it out!!!

http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/360/431

It's all Nominalism's Fault???

Part of my dissertation preparation is to read as many books on the "theological" origins of modernity like the recent books by Michael Allen Gillespie and Joshua Mitchell.  In other words, to look at books and essays that note how important religious issues were at the beginning of modernity until the present.  Even the Enlightenment itself was a contest of competing religious options and not simply the triumph of science and rationality over superstition (even though it was probably the French that popularized this particular narrative).

I guess in some cases of popular wisdom, religion has ceased to be a major factor in the continual quest of Western societies quest for modernization.  However, research has shown that the narrative that says religion will be passed by because of growing secularization is a myth.

Now the more and more I read about this issue, the more and more I come to the conclusion that 1) religion is here to stay because it is adaptable (much like many other things in society-see Giddens post on tradition) and 2) in many cases, the religious element has learned to correspond with the secular elements quite well.  In short, it is a very complex relationship between the secular and religious forces.

The problem with books by theorists like Gillespie and others is the need to boil down this complexity to a single, overarching problem.  He claims that it was the Nominalism of Ockham, later inherited by Luther, that led Western society into secularization.  Now Gillespie joins a host of other thinkers (not typically historians, I might add) like Milbank and the RO, who lay blame for modernization at Nominalism.

A recent discussion with George Hunsinger led me to see this move toward the Nominalist bogeyman to be a traditionalist account of modernization.  In other words, when one pulls out the Nominalist card it usually is a catchword for "Catholic" defense of religious traditionalism where the Church is still the controlling center of society (I detect even some of this in Protestant thinkers like Pannenberg).  The fact that modernization and secularization has decreased religious influence in society is frowned upon by many of this group, but I think otherwise.  There is still religious influence in society, sometimes it crosses over the church/state borders, but again, I think that is due to its complexity and in a democratic society with competing structures, it is up to its subjects to work the messiness out.

Finally, of course Nominalism had a part to play in the beginning of modernity, but I do not think it had the central part.

Giddens and Tradition

As I get closer to actually writing my dissertation, I have really tried to look at all the possible ways to analyze "my" actual methodology.  Because of my experience in studying historiography, I have lately developed a sort of love affair with sociology.  Mind you, this is not a "Christianized" sociology, much like I don't like to talk about a "Christianized" history.  Since I will be teaching Historiography in the Fall, I will be dedicating much of my summer time to exploring important sociologist with regards to modernity.

A couple of sociologists I have warmed up to are Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens.  What makes both of these figures special is that they fall somewhere in the middle with regards to the structure and agency argument.   Being the Barth guy that I am, I believe that Barth is also somewhere in the middle of the two; one can see his late work on Christian witness as an effect in light of the Spirit's previous work in giving humans real agency but without losing the focus of our place in societies structures.

I have only read a little from Giddens; I have just purchased his Consequences of Modernity and just read his short book Runaway World.  One thing that stood out to me is his important words about traditions and the Enlightenment:

"In my view, it is entirely rational to recognise that traditions are needed in society.  We shouldn't accept the Enlightenment idea that the world should rid itself of tradition altogether.  Traditions are needed, and will always persist, because they give continuity and form to life." (62-3)

The valuable point Giddens makes is that traditions will never cease to exist, yet, in the globalized world, traditions will find it difficult not to change, adapt and reinvent themselves in order to survive.  In fact, tradtions have historically always adapted to their environment.  One of the mistakes that the "secular" Enlightenment made were to make superstition and ignorance synonymous with tradition.

Zizek Reads Barth

Seems like Zizek has read a little Barth (specifically from God Here and Now, which was one of the first books I read by Barth).  From his most recent books, Zizek writes:

"With Christianity, it is the obverse-not "God proposes, man disposes," but rather, "God (first) disposes, (and then) man proposes."  What this means is that, although the Event has already happened, its meaning is not decided in advance but is radically open.  Karl Barth drew the consequences of this fact when he emphasized how the final revelation of God will be totally incommensurable with our expectations:

God is not hidden to us; He is revealed. But what and how we shall be in Christ, and what and how the World will be in Christ at the end of God's road, at the breaking in of redemption and completion, that is not revealed to us; that is hidden.  Let us be honest: we do not know what we are saying when we speak of Jesus Christ's coming again in judgment, and of the resurrection of the dead, of eternal life and eternal death...continues long quote...see pages 45-6 of God Here and Now).


See God in Pain pages 223-5 for Barth references