Postmodernism, Truth, and Religious Pluralism
25 Apr 2008
Katharine writes… I’ve just returned from the States where I gave a paper at the “Postmodernism, Truth, and Religious Pluralism” conference of the Society for Continental Philosophy and Theology. This theme attracted a diversity of papers across disciplines such as philosophy, theology, psychology, education, history and politics. I thought I’d blog here about some of the papers presented at this conference which might be of interest.
We kicked off with a keynote from Roger Haight (Union Theological Seminary), author of The Future of Christology, among other things. His paper, “The Impact of Pluralism on Ecclesiology,” had a missiological focus, arguing that the growing awareness of our contextualisation in pluralistic cultures leads to the revision of our understanding of the church’s mission. It is moving, he argued, away from mission as the creation of a single church and the conversion of all others, and towards the cultivation of the church as ‘as perfect an agent of reconciliation among persons and peoples as possible.’
Paraphrasing the thrust of his paper, Haight demonstrated that 1.) global fragmentation (which results in both fusion and fissure), coupled with 2.) the impetus of the ecumenical movement, means that it is important to both 3.) reassert the value of unity (which he not unproblematically claimed could be seen in the early church) and 4.) respect differences in communal and individual identities, in order to 5.) re-conceive of mission not as the conversion of all peoples but as 6.) the church’s call to exercise its role as an instrument of human reconciliation, after the fashion of Jesus Christ.
One delegate commented on the discernable idealism in Haight’s paper, noting the existence within pluralistic cultures of persons and peoples who do not wish to be reconciled either with each other or with God. Another interesting question was raised by Merold Westphal as to Haight’s interpretation of the Christian tradition. Is it right to call what Haight talked about Christianity, if it doesn’t insist on conversion to the truth of Jesus’ salvific role – which Westphal suggested is the reconciliation of humanity to God? Is this Christianity disrespecting, downplaying or ignoring its own tradition by emphasising reconciliation over conversion?
Thomas Clarke’s (Stonehill College) paper, entitled “Truth and Castration,” approached the conference theme from the discipline of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Clarke argued that a focus on the truth of God’s existence constitutes a ‘distraction’ arising from an infantile anxiety about our abandonment. In Clarke’s own words, ‘truth, even more than religion, has become a Western obsession and it is getting in the way… Truth and the correspondence theory of truth [that truth is demonstrated by a correspondence to facts] are dangerous and religions are plagued by them.’ According to Clarke, the eternal Truth of Christianity, the divinity of Christ, which appropriated the Greek doctrine of an eternal logos, developed as a way of protecting ourselves from the truth of our castration.
Clarke’s position is that ‘when did I see you naked and clothe you?’ is the only religious question that should be asked, and that ‘blessed be the peacemakers’ is the only doctrine of significance in the pluralistic postmodern world of today. The suggestion that the divinity of Christ is a barrier to peace was met with several raised eyebrows from many of the theological students at the conference. How fundamental is the divinity of Christ to Christianity’s mission to be instruments of reconciliation, as Haight believes its mission should be?
The conference concluded with the second keynote, from Richard Kearney (Boston College). His paper, “Anatheism: Welcoming Strange Gods,” coincided with an almighty thunder storm; read into that what you will!
In some ways related to my paper on A/theism (“A New Kind of Christian is a New Kind of Atheist: Truth and A/theistic Orthodoxy in the Emerging Church Milieu,” see my blog for more details), Kearney argued for the importance of estrangement from God. Providing examples from the three monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), he highlighted the awareness these traditions have in regard to the two options open to humanity when faced with an experience of the Holy, the ultimate ‘Strange.’ These responses are hostility and hospitality. Abraham, for example, is both hospitable (towards the three men who are strangers to him, whom he welcomes as his guest, and are later understood as YHWH bringing news of Sarah’s immanent pregnancy) and hostile (towards Hagar and Ishmael after Isaac’s birth).
In so far as criticisms are positive (i.e. of critical worth), Kearney welcomes the critiques of Christianity which come from such atheists as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (due to the quality of their work, or rather lack thereof, I’m loathe to put Hitchens and Dawkins in the same league as someone like Nietzsche!!!). Kearney welcomes their work because Christianity needs to recognise the moments in its tradition, history, and activities in the world today that are hostile to both God and other human beings. This critique is needed, and therefore good.
However, Kearney speaks of anatheism, by which he signals not the atheism of these critics, but rather a continual movement between theism and atheism, between hospitality and hostility, in which there are moments of ‘salutary estrangement’ from God in order to return to a more liberating understanding or encounter with God.
Might ecumenism and interfaith dialogue be understood to work on an anatheistic model, in which belief is suspended before or during the conversation and returned to in a new light once the exchange is over?
What are your thoughts on the notions of reconciliation, conversion, mission, truth, Christ, estrangement, hostility, hospitality, and anatheism presented by these three academics?
Katharine Moody
Tagged: Ecclesiology, Epistemology, Pluralism, Truth
13 comments
Trackback
Comment by Paul
9.48 am on 25 Apr 2008
I think it was Harvey Cox who made a comment as to which hardened fundamentalist on either side, late at night, shivers and wonders whether they might be wrong and God exists/doesn’t exist…
I wonder if I take myself as an example rather than a movement between hospitality and hostility i have both working in me at the same time – some of God I am open to and some I am hostile too, some of me i have surrendered, some of me i have taken back…
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.39 am on 25 Apr 2008
Excellent picture, by the way, Paul!!! x
Comment by Paul
6.47 pm on 25 Apr 2008
we aim to please :)
Comment by brett jordan
10.53 am on 25 Apr 2008
Plenty of ‘nothing-buttery’ here…
Haight: Reconciliation is the only thing the church should be doing.
Clarke: Helping the poor/reconciliation
Surely there is more to it than this? Even the most liberal/skeptical of scholars. You do wonder why they have chosen these subjects from the plethora of real-life issues the world’s religions have wrestled with in their scriptures and commentaries…
anatheism is intriguing… as a Christian i’m up for salutary estrangement on an intellectual level, and accept that at times it occurs on an experiential level, however the only meaningful context in which this works is one of relationship (however dysfunctional it may be) with the one you are struggling to understand…
if it is solely an intellectual exercise, then it misses the whole point of what belief is all about
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.32 am on 25 Apr 2008
Hi Brett,
In relation to your comment about anatheism being a solely intellectual exercise, I think that it is possible to experience estrangement from God (salutary or otherwise!) as a result of both reflection and experience.
However, I think that Richard Kearney’s presentation of anatheism was intended as a theoretical reflection on our human experience of both hospitality and hostility (whether that experience is intellectual, physical, emotional, unidentifiable, etc…). I don’t think he was trying to emphasise the intellectual aspects of estrangement over the other ways in which we feel God’s absence as well as God’s presence.
I think your point about relationship is spot on. You can’t have hospitality or hostility without some sort of relation happening. Whether it is violent or peaceful is the point (and hospitality can sometimes be violent – obviously, then it’s not true hospitality, but that’s another conversation in which people like Derrida and Caputo revel).
What do you mean when you ask why reconciliation has been chosen by these academics when there is a “plethora of real-life issues the world’s religions have wrestled with in their scriptures and commentaries” ? I don’t have a problem interpreting the example and words of Jesus as a call to reconciliation between persons, peoples, and God. But maybe that wasn’t what you meant? Maybe you were referring to Merold Westphal’s comment that alongside reconciliation there needs to be an affirmation of other aspects of the gospel, for example the salvific role of the person of Jesus Christ?
Comment by brett jordan
7.33 am on 26 Apr 2008
hi katherine, yes, my problem was with the tendency of some scholars to reduce everything down to one ‘vital’ topic (often the one that they have an obsession with), ignoring the many other important topics that exist in the body of work they are studying (especially the ones they have intellectual/emotional/aesthetic issues with)
I heartily agree that Jesus considered reconciliation as an important part of his mission… but it was not the ONLY thing he was interested in, and it does violence to the Gospel texts to imply that he was merely proposing that we all do our best to get along a bit better!
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.21 am on 25 Apr 2008
The link to the post about my paper, “A New Kind of Christian is a New Kind of Atheist” doesn’t work for some reason. Here’s the URL for anyone interested:
http://opensourceresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-kind-of-christian-is-new-kind-of.html
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.24 am on 25 Apr 2008
The link to the post about my paper, “A New Kind of Christian is a New Kind of Atheist,” doesn’t work for some reason. Here’s the URL if anyone wants to read it.
http://opensourceresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-kind-of-christian-is-new-kind-of.html
Feel free to email me at k.moody1@lancaster.ac.uk if you’d like to read the paper itself.
Katharine x
Comment by Helen
1.23 am on 26 Apr 2008
Clarke argued that a focus on the truth of God’s existence constitutes a ‘distraction’ arising from an infantile anxiety about our abandonment. In Clarke’s own words, ‘truth, even more than religion, has become a Western obsession and it is getting in the way… Truth and the correspondence theory of truth [that truth is demonstrated by a correspondence to facts] are dangerous and religions are plagued by them.’ According to Clarke, the eternal Truth of Christianity, the divinity of Christ, which appropriated the Greek doctrine of an eternal logos, developed as a way of protecting ourselves from the truth of our castration.
Clarke’s position is that ‘when did I see you naked and clothe you?’ is the only religious question that should be asked, and that ‘blessed be the peacemakers’ is the only doctrine of significance in the pluralistic postmodern world of today. The suggestion that the divinity of Christ is a barrier to peace was met with several raised eyebrows from many of the theological students at the conference. How fundamental is the divinity of Christ to Christianity’s mission to be instruments of reconciliation, as Haight believes its mission should be?
Very interesting. I’m not sure about the psychoanalytical stuff but in general what he says lines up with my own experience.
When I became unsure of God’s existence I was very afraid of him not existing. Then I learned not to be afraid of that anymore.
I agree with him about the obsession over Truth and about the only important question but for me it’s because I’ve become convinced I can’t know what the Truth is, but I can act in kind ways and serve others.
Is he agnostic or does he say he’s a Christian?
Comment by Katharine Moody
8.51 am on 26 Apr 2008
I don’t think I can speak for Clarke regarding whether or not he is a Christian, sorry Helen.
A bit part of my thesis revolves around the transition from concerns about truth to concerns about justice, so I’m glad that move reflects some of the experiences you have been through.
Comment by Helen
2.35 pm on 26 Apr 2008
Thanks Katharine. I just requested your paper by email – I’ll be interested to read it.
I’ve thought for a while that Jewish people lack the obsession about truth which pervades some forms of Christianity. This is evident from their practice of making up other stories which elaborate on the ones in the Bible (Torah) – midrash. The point is not whether those stories are true (the made up ones clearly aren’t) but rather, what lesson do they teach? What can we learn from them?
Which seems like a much more useful approach to me. It’s also more realistic because there are many things we can’t prove beyond a doubt anyway.
Along with that, “What can we do [to help]?” – the social justice question – seems like a much more useful question than ones about what’s true.
I respect those who disagree with me – I understand they have reasons for doing so.
Comment by Katharine Moody
3.23 pm on 27 Apr 2008
Hi Helen,
I haven’t had an email from you as far as I know. Hope you get in contact soon, as it’d be great to hear from you.
Katharine x
Comment by Helen
3.27 pm on 27 Apr 2008
Katharine I tried using the email address you gave on this page but my emailbounced back as undeliverable… :(
You can email me here if you like and then I’ll have your address to write back to :)
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comments are now closed.