On Conversations That Never Land: Clarifying a Few Things on Emergent Theology and Deconstruction
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Forgive me, but I need to clarify my position on deconstructive theology. My friend and co-laborer at "the Vine", Dan Brennan said in a post a while ago about me, "One of the weaknesses in the emerging conversations among Christians, according to David Fitch, is that the conversation keeps going and going, and going, and going just like a energizer bunny, never arriving at the truth."
Let me clarify. First, I never said anything about an "energizer bunny" (I think he was characterizing me from the Uprooted night on the emerging church and evangelicalism). Second, I don't believe that emerging conversations never arrive at truth. If I said that I need to clarify. For I believe that the weakness in deconstructive theology (and my emergent thinker friends to the extent they use it) is that truth never "lands." I think there is a difference. Allow me to elaborate.
To say truth never arrives might be construed as asserting that deconstruction does not believe in truth (truth with a little "t" or a big "T"). I don't think this is accurate. For there is truth, truth "always on the move," truth that is recognized but not controllable. The deconstructive thinkers (which Tony Jones and Brian McLaren find helpful) DO SAY that the truth never FINALLY arrives. Yet I think there is something constructive in this part of deconstructionist philosophy. There is, in a manner of speaking, a way that truth is always provisional. There is, in a manner of speaking, a way that truth (with a small "t") is bound by context and language and is always in process of being embodied. There is, in a manner of speaking, a way in which there are always voices excluded which must be heard which change the nature of the way we communicate truth and highlight parts of it we weren't seeing before. Deconstructionist approaches to truth push for all of this. For deconstructive ways of thinking keep the truth open (in the clearing of Hiedegger's ontico-ontological difference). And so despite the detractors, there is truth here being "manifested" into and beyond the linguistic cultural structures we have been given.
The weakness here however is that because we are ever looking for what is to come, we are forever in a conversation never willing to risk discerning the truth for the time and place we are in (for fear of turning truth into dogma). This is not my critique. This is for example Slavoj Zizek's agitation with deconstructive philosophy when he argues that post structuralism produces "… an endless quasi-poetical variation on the same theoretical assumption, a variation which does not produce anything new … a flabby poeticism …which does not affect the place from which we speak." (Zizek The Sublime Object of Ideology p. 155). In effect we are ever listening to one another, deconstructing, never discerning the truth for this time and place. We never have an impact in real lives, real circumstances, and real society. And so Zizek and Badiou saw little fruit for political revolution in the ongoing never ending variations produced by the Derridians.
We may not worry about this problem when we hold off making discernments regarding the moral status of gay relations in the church (as I think Dan was pointing to in Brian McLaren's now infamous Out of Ur CT piece). But what if we conducted discernment in this same manner in regards to matters of social justice. Here, the fear is, we would ever be deconstructing voices, hesitant to offer moral discernment for times and places where injustice demands it be addressed, and be addressed immediately. I personally think the gay relations issue of our time is a situation in need of moral discernment and concrete engagement for justice in the same way as are the impoverished of the Third World are in need or the victimized of Darfur genocide are in need. Certainly "the gay relations issue"is not as urgent, but it is still as much an issue of justice, reconciliation as are the other issues. Was Brian McLaren's call for a five year moratorium on discerning the "gay relations" issue in the church a revealing of the flaw in deconstructive method? Probably not. Nonetheless, my point is that deconstructive conversation has the propensity to forgo making a landing to give moral direction for those afflicted with injustice or moral confusion (although thankfully this is not how it in fact is carried out in real life). So I think a fair and serious question is, are not the justice issues of the gay relations crisis in the church worthy of as much "on the ground" engagement for justice as the global warming crisis? Are we offering any help to those entangled in the gay relations crisis by prolonging the conversation? Whether it be the social solution that needs be addressed (ala liberal democracy) or the moral confusion?
Of course there is another theological direction in all of this. There is a theological avenue to turn onto that inherently keeps the conversation open, which seeks to hear all of the voices, that resists foreclosure on the Truth, that carries within it the thread of "weak theology" in its allegiance to the model of Christ in Phil 2. And I have often pointed in this direction. It is the way of Story, an embodied tradition (McIntyre), open communities of witness (Yoder), Narrative (McIntyre, Hauerwas), the Drama of God's Mission (Vanhoozer), an ethics of participation (Milbank). All of postmodernity's learnings from post foundationalism, the linguistic turn, the rejection of metaphysics of presence, onto theology, power is knowledge is here. Yet there is the necessity of concrete discernment through the Spirit, beneath the canons of Scripture, in community, in the historical extension of the Body of Christ.
I am sure there is good deconstructive theology that engages justice. Indeed I know there is. Derrida himself addressed this issue later in his career. Nonetheless, there is an inherent weakness in deconstructive theology when it comes to forming a politics that engages truth and justice "on the ground." In summary, I want a theology of conversation AND I want a theology "that lands!!!"
Posted by David Fitch | 9:00 AM
COMMENTS:
Man, there was enough substance in this piece to last me a couple of weeks. One question: Is what you want achievable? I'm with you all the way, and I love your neither/nor ideas, but I am pessimistic about actually reaching a place where what you sketch is possible?
11:03 AM
Now you got me all fired up to start working on this thesis. Can I quote your blog in it?
I agree. Deconstruction is not an end in itself. We must "land" somewhere- pray, minister, worship, proclaim, etc. But this involves risk- Risk of getting it wrong. I reckon that anybody who dares to "land" somewhere must also be ready to repent, change, and land again. What scares me, is a church that calls the world to repent, but never itself.
would you then say that most local churches (esp. mega-churches) "land" somewhere, but don't keep the conversation open?
Anyways, I talked with Nathan and he got me hooked up at www.grassrootskingdom.com. thanks. I will be in touch about the paper.
12:04 PM
"chewy" stuff there. thanks for the thought provoking material.
can it be both/and though? for example, as a faith community leader I certainly acknowledge the need to "land somewhere" on lots of things....as we do on a regular basis. But can we land somewhere while simultaneously keeping the lines of deconstruction open and change or move where/when necessary?
Maybe my uneducated naivety is showing through (no peeking *smirk*) but it seems to me something like this in a "pastoral" sense is possible.
then we can leave the ongoing deconstruction to the philosophers and theologians and other "thinkers" in our communities to keep us on task.
I think, for example, that we as leaders of Revolution can make a decision right now how we're going to address same sex unions in our community without making a concrete statement "now and forever" about the issue theologically.
12:51 PM
Hey David,
You know I made it appear as if I was quoting when I alluded to the "energizer bunny" when that was my own insertion. I didn't intend to quote you as saying that. Also, I don't think you said "arrive" and it is an important clarification, for you to make--sound distinction, me eating humble pie.
But I seem to recall that you have said that the conversation keeps "going on and on" which made me think of the energizer bunny. I loved your thought-provoking words here while you clarified!! I do think in many places the conversation does keep going on and on.
I do think we need concrete discernment on the gay relations issue in our day--it is a justice issue. And I do believe we need conversation that humbly acknowledges our epistemological blindspots while also finding places to "land."
7:03 PM
Makeesha... are you the same Makeesha that stops in on Ryan's blog (The Core) from time to time? If so, it's rather ironic that our paths would cross here...
The thing I find intriguing about deconstruction is that it is deconstructive (the short word for that is "destructive"). I don't mean that in an entirely derogatory sense, but in the outworkings of reality, it is essentially taking steps backward--regression, not progression. I think it's fairly safe to say that the "answer" to deconstruction is progressive revelation. Both throw fundamentalists into a frenzy, but from what I've learned and experienced, the latter is actually constructive, while still taking seriously the ambiguities presented by the seeming disconnects between scripture and the now and scripture and itself.
I think Makeesha's partly right--and you seem to have insinuated this, Dave--that there is a give and take between deconstructionists or periods of deconstruction, and constructionists (under which category pastors must inherently fall if they are to stay true to their calling) and periods of construction on firm foundations. The well-trodden cliche that theology is for stodgy intellectuals, and largely irrelevant to daily life reveals the grave fact that so many 'Christians' are walking blind. What I am finding more and more is that the deeper I plunge the depths of God, the more what I learn demands of my life. In other words, theology matters. And it matters because it demands a response. Real people living real lives have to make real decisions every moment of every day. Issues of justice, as you mentioned. Issues of stewardship. Issues of love for others (which are myriad and complex and gut-wrenchingly difficult). Issues of magnifying (or belittling) the name of God. My worry (and I am as guilty of this as anyone) is that we can spend so much time talking that we leave so little of our precious time for being the hands and feet of Jesus. If we invested as much time in building committed relationships with people on the margins as we do writing, publishing, blogging, speeching, etc. about social justice, we be a lot farther down the road of making a real impact. Granted, "there is one Body but many parts" and some of those parts are thinkers and writers (and bloggers), but the temptation is to "join in on the conversation" and get stuck there, going and going and going... like you so eloquently said, Dave. ;-)
I was thinking about this a couple days ago... What's more missional, to talk about being missional, read every book about being missional, travel to every conference about being missional... or to call someone up and be like, "Hey, let's go to a Cubs game" or "Hey, so and so could use some help with such and such" and then doing it? The Lord knows I need accountability to "not simply listen to the word and so deceive [myself]...do it!"
Even still... I enjoyed the post. Nice and meaty. :)
8:38 PM
As an ordinary non academic pew dweller who has read a bit on destruction I ask the question: is there not part of the Christian faith whose truth is non-negotiable: the REALITY of a GOD outside of language who loves us? Salvation? How can we as Christians say with any degree of confidence 'I am not ashamed of the gospel as it is the power of salvation for those who believe' when so much of our core beliefs are deconstructed into a vapid nothingness in the emergent conversation. If we have little confidence that the Gospel is Gods Good News that can change peoples lives as it dies a death of a thousand qualifications we can we offer?
Rodney
4:47 AM
Thanks for all the comments ... so many .. and so well said ... Dan #2 ... I didn't take your energizer bunny comment seriously ... that's just the way it cam out on the post... I wish I were that creative! Thanks for being a continual dialogue pertner here and at the Vine ...
Rodney ...
you get to the heart of the matter ... and something that speaks to what Mak and beloved are aiming at as well... and frnakly what the whole descontructive theology thing is all about in the emerging church ... how do we speak about orthodoxy, the truth, in a way that allows for openess... For me, I cvan plainly speak the truth ... plainly proclaim the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ ... while at the same time firmly recognizing the "history" I am grounded in, the tradition from which I am speaking ... the idea of progressive revelation (beloved's words) means we are always building and refining and extending ... the truth's consistency and constancy must still be defended in a Narrative way, an intratextual coherence (Lindbeck) ... This is where I think the works of theologians like I mentioned ... as well as social philosophers like Charles Taylor and some of the recent theologians that emphasized the economic in the immanent trinity, can all help ...
As for those who wonder whether this is possible in a church ... I believe it is ... but it is a new paradym in some ways ... but I could give examples even now of denomionations being forced to revise, renew doctrinal stances ... by calling on the ancient resourses... to extend the truth within the tradition to new times and places and challenges...
Here truth is not static but ever developing and open yet defined and grounded in a defined history beginning of course with the determining historical reality of the person of Jesus Christ
Peace ... Dan#1 get going on that paper
3:25 PM
Dave,
I wonder what your thoughts are on the relatively recent emergence of the field of Biblical Theology as distinct from Systematic Theology. It seems that this is a big step in the right direction, and I think folks like NT Wright would applaud it... letting the Bible speak for itself and to itself and to us as we see the grand Drama unfolding and find our place in it.
7:06 AM
"how do we speak about orthodoxy, the truth, in a way that allows for openess... For me, I cvan plainly speak the truth ... plainly proclaim the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ ... while at the same time firmly recognizing the "history" I am grounded in, the tradition from which I am speaking ... the idea of progressive revelation (beloved's words) means we are always building and refining and extending ... the truth's consistency and constancy must still be defended in a Narrative way, an intratextual coherence"
Can you break that down in lay-man's terms? Does that mean that the truth of the Christian faith is always changing, and if it is, how do I know who's got it right? What standard do I hold it up to?
Thanks
George
10:45 AM
beloved - yep, I don't think there are many other makeesha's in the world much less in the emerging church ;)
2:14 PM
The architecture of deconstruction is an architecture of "disjuntion" from the "land" :)
http://www.archidose.org/Feb99/020199.htm
Interestingly, the forms are red. Its not part of the known story when you visit the Parc, but the land on which the project was built was previously a grounds for cattle slaughter. But its only a trace. That past is lost when you go there, unless you happen to know some outside info.
More to my point, though...the architecture of the project is "disjoined" from the "land." I think this corresponds to derrida's hovering landing pad for truth...which I think corresponds to the disjoined relation to the body in his philosophy...
On risk...there are a number of instances in the hebrew scriptures where prophets are being dragged out of the king's quarters saying "IF i heard the word of God..."...and the word "understanding", I heard, comes from the master mason's standing-under an arch as his helpers remove the scaffolding. He is literally risking his life, putting his life in the hands of his knowledge of masonry. Interestingly it seems that the authority of the prophet comes at least partially from his "character".
:)
6:02 PM
Funny, but reading this discussion this morning what hits me is not the outline of the debate but the quality of participants, and the beauty of faith. That all theology.. much less language.. is situated.. doesn't this in the end push us back to the place Barth arrived at.. "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so." And at another level, back to the community and the inward witness of the Spirit. In the end we are cast back to our confidence that God is at work in history and in our midst. We are carried by Him. "I stand amazed in the Presence.."
8:19 AM
George - I wanted to respond to your question "Does that mean that the truth of the Christian faith is always changing, and if it is, how do I know who's got it right? What standard do I hold it up to?" It is the question of orthodoxy. The truth of the Christain faith grows.The Story continues. We know more about God today, than Abraham knew, if for no other reason than God revealed Himself further in Christ. But also because the Story continues, revelation progresses. The longer the Story goes the more we learn and understand. Yet extending the Story does not mean the past is disqualified. Indeed, the constancy and intratextual coherence with what has already been revealed is what enables the Story to be navigable. Truth isn't static, it is dynamic, engaging the future. Hope this little bit helps.... DF
7:45 PM
Ok thanks David. Where do you see the Bible fitting into that?
I'm believing the Bible is the ultimate standard for Truth.
Do you believe that? Is there new truth out there, about God and what He has said or is saying, that I won't already find in the Bible? If so, how will I know if the new truth is really true?
George
8:28 AM
Wow, you people are way smarter than me . A simple question.
Are some conversations over . We can add no more?
Is Jesus the son of God?
Is Jesus the final revelation of God as my Muslim friends would ask in Egypt or Turkey or is Mohammed?
Tim
3:07 PM
David,
Right spot on here. This is as much of what Kierkegaard reflected upon with his understanding of truth and the notion that we are always wrong and quite absurd before God.
That is to say, when we think that we somehow possess the Truth in its full essence, we are very wrong at that moment. What is sad is that we are unaware of our very limited nature before the Truth itself. That is, the Truth is that which has us and therefore that which we never really have.
To comments such as the bible is the Truth, etc. How is this actually conceived? It is as if there is some raw objective reality out there called the Bible that is not apprehended, even through divine command or inspiration, by a personal knower - a human subject. It is as if meaning is somehow suspended without a personal knowledge of it (I am framing this using language from both Derrida and Polanyi). The truth is that the Truth is meaning acquired by a meaning maker namely, a person who has a subjective apprehension of it. This is precisely why Truth is something that we are arriving at, but never fully acquire. This is Fitch's point here.
Finally, I have written a bit, in a couple of published articles, on the problem with postmodernism and how it deconstructs, but then does not make any attempt to reconstruct hence its tendency towards nihilism and despair (DeBord and Baudrillard are perfect embodiments of this attitude). I find that pragmatism and critical theory offer a nice balance since it asks the question at the end of a deconstructive task, "How can I live my life better this way?" Calvin Schrag offers a nice corrective of this tendency of postmodernism and I think Habermas does this as well through communicative rationality. Critics of modernism such as Kolakowski and Weil also do a fine job of teasing out the deconstructive task but with a novel balance of living a good life as an end to such a critical task.
12:07 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home