This question has interested me for at least three years and here is why. I entered the door to postmodernity in the mid-90′s (in Doctoral work) through a whole different response than the deconstructionists, a.k.a McIntyre, Hauerwas (who never uses the word postmodern), Lindbeck, Milbank etc.. Personally I learned much from Derrida, his followers, and the rest of the Continental thinkers that have grounded the postmodern critique. I have read them with fascination. I have in large part embraced their critique of modernity. I must admit however that appreciating their critique of modernity has not led me to then embrace their work as the means for doing theology that can lead us in a new faithfulness to Christ for our time. I want the critique, but I have found one or two of the other trajectories (that respond to the demise of modernity) much more promising for theology (Hauerwas, Lindbeck, Milbank and the many derivatives flowing from the Yale, Duke and Cambridge streams). At first, whenever I would talk about this in “emergent” circles I would get “blank stares” like I was some kind of sectarian fundamentalist. It wouldn’t be the first time. But I am far from it. Based on these experiences however, I think some of the reaction to Hauerwas et. al. within the emergent circles is too quick. Perhaps this sector of the emergent crowd lacks an understanding of how these thinkers are respondents to the postmodern malaise of our time before it even became a prominent topic for the N. American theological scene. I don’t know. Now I hear through the grapevine that there is a “Hauerwas mafia” in the emergent theological gatherings. If so, can I be a member?
All of this background is why I was pleased when Geoff over at “Church and Pomo” asked me to write a response to this question “Why is the emerging church drawn to deconstructive theology?” My post can be found here. Preceding me on their own take on this question were LeRon Shults, , Carl Raschke, Tony Jones, Jason Clark. I was honored to be included in the conversation. The conversation provides excellent background to the upcoming Emergent Theologians Conversation 2007. Wish I could be there! But even if you can’t be there, this whole discussion is worth reading for the philosophically oriented thinkers among the emerging church. If anyone goes over there to read it, I’d be interested in hearing what you’re thinking on this question.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
There is definitely a cadre of Hauerwasians in Emergent (I number myself among them). But for some reason there is some strong animosity towards Hauwerwas (and his likeminded ilk).
The other day, I was having dinner with Len Sweet before an event. As I was part of a planning team that had brought him up for a lecture, I got to have dinner with him. This was my first time meeting Dr. Sweet. I casually, at one point in the conversation, mentioned that I was an emerging anabaptist, thanks in part to Stanley Hauerwas. In response, Len Sweet went into a bit of a rant against Hauerwas, anabaptists, and the whole “christ-against-culture” deal. At one point he said that Hauerwas has done a lot of harm to American Christianity.
I suggested that he is perhaps mistaken or wrong about Hauwerwas. (He seemed to read a Nieburian grid over Hauwerwas…which is where most folks get into trouble). And as I tried to articulate Hauerwas’ position he said (and this seems pretty silly to me): “Well, that doesn’t sound like HAUERWAS–that sounds like SWEET.”
People love to hate Hauerwas. I’m convinced that most people misundertand him, even though everyone thinks they have him pegged.
There is definitely a cadre of Hauerwasians in Emergent (I number myself among them). But for some reason there is some strong animosity towards Hauwerwas (and his likeminded ilk).
The other day, I was having dinner with Len Sweet before an event. As I was part of a planning team that had brought him up for a lecture, I got to have dinner with him. This was my first time meeting Dr. Sweet. I casually, at one point in the conversation, mentioned that I was an emerging anabaptist, thanks in part to Stanley Hauerwas. In response, Len Sweet went into a bit of a rant against Hauerwas, anabaptists, and the whole “christ-against-culture” deal. At one point he said that Hauerwas has done a lot of harm to American Christianity.
I suggested that he is perhaps mistaken or wrong about Hauwerwas. (He seemed to read a Nieburian grid over Hauwerwas…which is where most folks get into trouble). And as I tried to articulate Hauerwas’ position he said (and this seems pretty silly to me): “Well, that doesn’t sound like HAUERWAS–that sounds like SWEET.”
People love to hate Hauerwas. I’m convinced that most people misundertand him, even though everyone thinks they have him pegged.
Mark you are so right. Most people do not understand Hauerwas. And yes it is because they have a Niebuhrian grid engrained in them. Sadly too many emerging church folk come out of an evangelicalism that had no ecclesiology and the reaction then is to blend completely into the culture-world.
My favorite Hauerwas quote is to the effect “the world needs the church precisely so the world can know it is the world and that it needs redeeming through the Lordship of Jesus Christ, whose body is the people called church.”
Most people have been far too corrupted by the Niebuhrian myth of “Christianizing the Social Order”. I go to Fuller and have even argued with our president that he does not understand Yoder and certainly does not understand Hauerwas, because he is a self proclaimed Kuyperian and Niebuhrian.
Hey David, I’m bummed you won’t be in Philly…you’re definately invited to be part of the Hauerwas mafia. After all you did write a book that makes Hauerwas and the post-liberal school accessbile to evangelicalism.
Peace.
Yeah, I’ve spilt a lot of digital ink doing my best to help correct some of the louder anti-Hauerwas and anti-Milbank voices out there. And the above comments are right: there always seems to be a critical point where they almost insist on reading them wrongly so that they can protest against them. It’s really bizarre. For those that don’t mind re-hashing old conversations, I wrote a post about this here:
Engagements between Hauerwas and the Nation State: A Reply to Steve Bush
It’s somewhat tireless work because the caricature of Hauerwas is such a simple one, but he is much more complex than his detractors want to make out. Similarly, James K.A. Smith goes to great lengths to correct a bunch of misperceptions about Jacques Derrida in his Jacques Derrida: Live Theory, which always must include the biographical beyond just some excerpts out of context (i.e. that Derrida wants to do away with the university and a bunch of other ridiculous claims).
People want simple narratives, but life is complex, and I guess I am continually amazed at the simple (false) narratives that continually get spouted off about Hauerwas, Milbank, et. al. It’s like they’re threatened or something.
Peace,
Eric
Eric, I remember that piece you wrote. Good stuff! Thanks Sam. Are you all (Sam, Mark, Eric) going to the 2007 Emergent Theologians Conversation? I’d be interested to hear the dialogue over some of these issues. I’ll be a the 2008 Emergent Theologians gathering.
Jason .. I’ll try to comment on your reaction to hyperreality over at church and pomo.
David,
Here I am once again playing “devil’s advocate.” As an older architect and Believer, I have seen the “Modern”, “Post-Modern”, “Contextual” and “Deconstruction” movements make their way from the universities to literature, art and architecture, the popular culture and finally to church culture. What I mean by “finally” is that the “Deconstruction” movement was an architectural movement that began in the late 1980′s.
I’m just wondering if the criticisms that seemed to diminish the “Deconstruction” movement in architecture will do the same thing in the church culture. See the Wikipedia entry for Deconstructivism
I completely agree with your assessment of why the ECM is attracted to Deconstruction, but it leaves me wondering… if the general church and popular culture find the new theology (and I would argue that it is “new”) as disturbing as the architecture is…
Peace, Kim
Kim …
It is my amateur philosopher opinion (and popular opinion), post-structuralism has already seen its better day in Continental Europe. The two people most obvious to mention are Zizek and Badiou in this regard. Having said that, its impact still reverberates and one cannot go forward without taking account of Derrida.But I do think Emerging church writers (because they are popularists which is a good thing) have yet to begin to flesh this out for what it means to be a Christian, what it means to be the church.
Peace
DID SOMEONE SAY ARCHITECTURE!!!!
Small rant…
Wikipedia says Eisenmenn and Derrida put in submission to that exhibition, and that Tsumi won…but Tsumi won on account of input from Derrida! Zaha Hadid does ugly buildings that look interesting, but not to bankers; and on top of that they don’t give no chill bumps either. And Rem Koolhause is a shady and sneaky Prizker Prize winning character with a large cadre of young architect-sheep, all of whom later go on with the privelidge of doing ugly buildings, simply beause they worked with Rem Koolhause. Argh!
And Peter Eisenmann is a jerk. But a smart one.
And…living in LA…Frank Ghery gets a special place in my heart. HE HAS NO SENSE (linterally)! lol…no sense…literally, ha ha.
As for Libeskind…he’s in a different class from those folks. He’s as fed up with meaninglessness as Zaha Hadid is flippant about it. In fact, after seeing some of the preliminary submissions for the World Trade Tower Complex, he got on stage to speak and pissed all of his “deconstructivist” collegues off by talking about how sick he was of meaninglessness formal games in architecture. He almost got punched out afterwards!
Speaking of langauge as a kind of making…as participation (LIBESKIND IS JEWISH). Libeskind is very interested in the relationship between language and architecture; but for him they are interwoven (successfully, every now and again) rather than mapped over each other (which can never be successful). His holocause museum in Berlin started out as a linguistic study, but lots of people come out of that building on their knees and weeping uncontrollably! I can’t utter its name without getting chillbumps on my BODY.
Oh and D.F.,
I look foward to hearing your response over at churchandpomo.
Jason
One more offering…to Kim and D.F…I think that the “new” theologians are much more attractive to us pissed-at-fundamentalism folks – much moreso than we could be to, say, Zaha Hadid or Derrida – for a similar reason that I am able to be so attracted to Daniel Libeskind, as opposed to my complete and utter distaste and contempt for the likes of Frank Ghery or Rem Koolhause.
For one…see above about language and meaning. But another thing…Libeskind’s “language games” hinge on a specifically Jewish meaning rooted in a Jewish way of living and thinking. Wheras the meaning of Zaha Hadid’s formal games don’t extend past the cigarrette cherry that is so rudely about to fall on her student’s carefully crafted drawing.
OK, I was a bit extreme on Hadid there, but nonetheless. In reality it partially comes down to metaphysics, as well, as you might call it. Libeskind’s museum in Berlin hinges on the symbolism of a God-centered Kenosis (the three voids that form the only orthogonally-orienting straight line in the building), the Star of David (the plan), paradise (the upside-down stair with a light from above), Zion and David again (the higher 50th tree in the center of the orienting/disorienting garden), and a general pathos for living (three pathways leading to two of the destinations listed above)…and a third pathway leading, finally, to…metaphysics (maybe)…a grand slowly-ascending staircase (which leads up to the exhibition spaces).
My point is that I think that Libeskind’s Jewishness offers meaning to us Christians in a similar way that the “new” theologians offer meaning to us Christians, since they are…uuhh…Christian. Similarly, Hadid or Eisenman or whoever can be helpful to us in their decenterings of the self – just like Derrida. But the deconstruction of Libeskind, Rene Girand, and whoever else who is Christian or Jewish or whatever…leads us somewhere. Whereas ultimately Hadid – precisely because there is so much power in her work – pisses me off in its leading us nowehre.
Interestingly in Libeskind’s ultimately setting root in the God who created this stuff we live in…his work interweaves its languistic meaning (or quest(ioning of meaing) with its actually-being-made. His work has a materiality to it. You FEEL alive in his buildings (he hopes). The Felix Nausbaum museum is an excellent example of a work of his that successfully interweaves a linguistic narrative with material relaity of bodily expereince.
This interweaving being an alternative – I think – to the kind of lotsness in literary cogito space that is so characteristic of the other deconstructivist architects on that wikipedia website who are not Grounded in the God who we know, who “give[s] us something [we] can feel”, to quote Bono. I like John Hejduk’s work (Libeskind’s mentor, Catholic), but his scaffolding on the Washington monument I think might have crossed the line. It might have been more like a piece of literature than a piece of architetural work.
I think this liturature/cogito-space issue might be connected to what Dave was saying over at his churchandpomo post on mystery and simulacrum. I look foward to hearing his response
In the linguistic arena, Hejduk and Libeskind are interested in symbols and iconic emblems which IMPRESS upon, ultimately, our senses. The traces of linguistic meaning in Hadid, however, again, lead nowwhere. And Ghery and Eisenman, with their “computer manufactured” designs (in the world of simulation) start off nowhere in the first place…and end up there too! Libeskind starts with actual pieces of paper, atual lines from a paint brush, lead (earth) from a pencil
WAIT…I don’t think Hejduk did that scaffolding anyway! That didn’t feel right in my soul. I think it was Michael Graves, that sellout! I just looked it up; it was Graves. Which just makes my point all the more. He’s Target’s company designer now! Sorry for the confusion. Sorry Hejduk…rest in peace.
Hopefully helpful links:
Libeskind’s Holocaust Museum in Berlin:
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/projects/pro.html?ID=2
Where the folks weep uncontrollably…
Libeskind’s Felix Nussbaum Museum:
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/projects/pro.html?ID=4
Where language and reality come together.
Frank Gehry’s “special place” in my Los Angeles Heart:
http://you-are-here.com/architect/disney.jpg
Zaha Hadid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vitra_fire_station%2C_full_view%2C_Zaha_Hadid.jpg
From the inside of this building, it’s clear that Hadid is “deconstructing” the ancient notion of divinity-laden “perspective”, discovered by Brunelleschi in 1404, leaving only traces of its former glory. Its basically two intersecting triangular spaces that collide, shaped to hold two folks staring blankly at each other.
Bernard Tsumi’s Park de la Villet design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parc_de_la_Villette
I couldn’t find some of more explanatory images. But basically he just played with forms in a way completely separate from function, so as to deconstruct the modern “rule” that “form follows function”. It’s actually kidn of itneresting, because the inhabitants of the buildings adapted to their odd environments.
Michale Graves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graves
http://www.walsh-construction.com/image_tier/image_project/project-large/washingtonMonument.jpg
The comedian himself.
John Hejduk, Libeskind’s mentor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hejduk
“Eventually, John Hejduk’s ‘hard-line’ modernist space-making exercises, heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright and Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, moved away from his interests in favor of free-hand ‘figure/objects’ influenced by mythology and spirituality, clearly expressing the nature of his poetry. The relationship between Hejduk’s shape/objects and their surroundings is a controversial subject, raising questions similar to those raised by the early houses of Peter Eisenman.”
Hope that helps put the pieces together from all my crazyness above. I think I got carried away, sorry. So now with this comment I figured I should bring my audience in a bit.
Wow, Thanks, to my new friend Jason! I think a very well written critique of Deconstruction from the architectural perspective can be found here:
Thursday Architects
Of course, much of the critique is aside from architecture and addresses the ideas put forward by Deconstruction. The author quotes Solzhenitsyn, de Tocqueville, Chesterton, CS Lewis.
Jason, you might have a problem because the author also quotes and holds Gehry in high regard, but please set that aside for the moment and read the whole thing through.
Recently, I wrote elsewhere:
This emergent/fundamentalist rift is part of what’s been making me so melancholy of late. I believe a large part of what has driven the ECM is the arrogance, the lack of humility, compassion and empathy that we fundamentalists (yes, I’m including myself there for now) have shown on the home front and in the public forum.
I’ve described the “arrogance” (as opposed to the humility that would have been desired) as:
“What I know is true. It’s logic is irrefutable. I do not value your point of view, where you come from, what you bring to the table, or what your personal experience is. What you think and feel is not relevant. Truth is immovable, set in concrete and unchanging, etc.”
This has driven the next generation of Believers to the place where they have embraced Deconstruction
I’m praying that we can turn towards grace, forgiveness, non-judgment, peace, humility in unity in love as you put forward here.
Blessings, Kim
Ohh, hahaha, Jason, for some crazy reason I thought that it was Gehry you weren’t fond of. Of course, it was Graves. So, you shouldn’t have any problems at all with the critique. Also, please note that the date of this piece is 2004, some time ago now.
I’ll be honest. I was being sarcastic when I said Ghery has a “special place” in my heart. He does, but its not exactly one of special fondness. Partially because his Walt Disney Concert hall is typically considered a “speical place” in Los Angeles. I haven’t yet read that critique on deconstructivism yet, though. Soon…
Jason
Kim,
I read that essay. Rather than proceed by my habitual mode of operation and blast into it with the sensitivity of Don Imus and the hoped for power of as many as sizeable sticks of dynamite as possible, I will instead proceed by first asking questions. The first series of questions will be genuine questions in hopes of better understanding where you are at, on your own terms without my own interferance (or as little as possible). The second set of questions will be more of a probing in an effort to bring something to light that was left in darkness through the entirety of that essay; more of a set of questions with an agenda, I guess you could say.
1. Why have you been melancholy? Seriously, is it the simple fact of a percieved split in the Church? Is it the percieved untruth in which your “post-structuralist” spiritual brothers and sisters reside? Is it because you feel your own “foundationalism” possibly crumbling when confronted with deconstruction?
2. What is the relationship between the story of Babylon and Sputnik? Between Sputnik and the Holocoust (hint, think of the foudational platform of the Nazi movement)? What are the implications for the story of Babylon on modern metaphysics? By extension, then, for Sputnik? By extension, then, for modern architecture’s relationship to technology?
As well, I would like to simply clarify some points of fact which seem to have either been missed or misconstrued in that essay. Or that would be too-easily missed upon a “foundationalist” reading of it.
A. With all the talk of power and “self-expression” in relation to the post-structuralists, the author seems not to realize that Heidegger assumed that Neitche had carried the will to its death. Its highly questionable to me whether even Deleuze really had a whole lot to do with the “will”.
B. With “The privilege and the wound of individuality is the wisdom of the Judeo-Christian west,” the author reveals his modernity – a claim that is almost, or at least possibly, completely separate from any necessarily “post-structuralis” interpretive framework.
C. Gehry does not “do something special with the ordinary”! Who the author kidding!?
http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca35302.jpeg
Blessings…maybe, again, we should continue this conversation elsewhere?
Jason
David,
No, as far as I know, I won’t be attending the ’2007 Emergent Theologians Conversation’, sorry! When/where is it? I think I missed that somewhere…
Peace,
Eric
Jason -
Though your questions were directed to Kim, I’ll reply to part of the second one. What is the relationship between Babylon and the Holocaust? Both attempted to transform a cultural preference into a universal ideal. Implication: Babylonian isn’t the master language; Aryans aren’t the master race. With respect to human institutions no totalizing move is justifiable.
I suspect the commonality you had in mind was the substitution of human standards and aspirations for God’s. Such that the postmodern architects, having abandoned the universal basis on which true architecture is built, are reaching above themselves. The question, though, is whether God has a preferred architectural aesthetic. How would you be able to tell that you weren’t trying to turn a human preference into a universal absolute, a “master architecture” that should dominate all other inferior forms? Even Sputnik isn’t the only spacecraft design that can get to the moon. Nor is landing on the moon a desecration of Allah’s heaven.
Or maybe I’m missing your point altogether.
John,
Where in other circumstances I think we’ve spoken the same language to say different things, I think here we might be speaking different languages to say very similar things but that are ultimately different. I had in mind the Incarnation. So I jive with basically what you are saying about the Babylonian language and the Aryan race, but at the same time, though, in my mind Christ’s kingdom reaches across linguistic, racial, territorial and sensible limits and/or boundaries.
I’m not sure, though, what you mean when you say: “I suspect the commonality you had in mind was the substitution of human standards and aspirations for God’s. Such that the postmodern architects, having abandoned the universal basis on which true architecture is built, are reaching above themselves.” I guess, in regards to my above paragraph, you are saying that I am saying that postmodern thinkers and/or architects are taking hold of something they don’t know about by saying that it’s not there. What’s not there being either a universal basis for truth, meaning or architecture, or God’s standard’s for which some of us aspire.
So, for me the phrase “substitution of human standards and aspirations for God’s” seems to shift the meaning ever so subtly of what it was I was saying. Not “altogether”, I don’t think, but subtly. For me the thought of “substitution” implies far too much of a kind of completion or closure on the act in question. The image that comes to mind is the Tower of Babel’s being left unfinished, undefined, incomplete. I consider that incompleteness to be not only present in the environment that inspired the Tower in the first place, but to be the very central reality giving the urge to go ahead and try to build it.
So, for me, its not like the view from the top of the Tower “substitutes” God’s view in any way. The Tower is never completed. No one ultimately ever gets that view. “No one has ever seen the Father except the Son.” Hitler (and the shooter at Virginia Tech, my alma mater) killed himself before his enemies ever even got to him to even try and stop his Tower-building for him.
Actually…I guess maybe we ARE saying the same thing? Maybe this is exactly what you meant by: “Even Sputnik isn’t the only spacecraft design that can get to the moon. Nor is landing on the moon a desecration of Allah’s heaven.” But that can be taken two ways: either its not Allah’s heaven, or its still a human who has the viewpoint from the moon.
As for God’s preferred architectural aesthetics…I don’t really know what that means. I’m pratially being viscesous
But I’m partially totally serious, based on the above.
Jason
Man, I wish I had more time to comment here. I hope David doesn’t mind our diversion into architecture, but I do think it is very relevant to the ECM. As it is, I can barely keep posting to my own blog. Jason, John, David and anyone else who cares to visit and comment is very welcome to visit there Preparation 4 Eternity
I had never heard of the ‘Hauerwasian Mafia’ until tonight.
Where does one go to get ‘made’?
It’s frustrating how Hauerwas/Cavanaugh/Yoder have blown my mind and bent me more radically toward being truly Christian and yet how others don’t get it at all.
Even N.T. Wright, one of my heroes. I saw him speak at St. Anthony’s in California, and my brother-in-law asked a question about Christian exercise of power within democracies..mentioned Hauerwas. Wright had his one moment of smug carelessness, issuing the tired completely debunked ‘Hauerwas and Yoder are separatists’ line.
I’d love to join the Hauerwas Mafia. I’m a water/spirit born Mennonite who loves Yoder’s stuff (read almost all of it, understood about half of it) and finds Hauerwas and Cavanaugh equally agreeable.
If you like their stuff, try getting into the Polyglossia series that Chris K. Huebner has been putting together. There are some great titles that keep pushing at the envelope in a Yoderian way.
As for me, everything is fully satisfied.
buy tramadol cod accepted believing buy no prior perscription Lasix privildge online pharmacy tramadol homework buy xenical cheap realizes cheap cod fre soma Dictatorships veterinary canine tramadol dosage chart beforethe Wellbutrin buy tramadol online overnight fedex delviery Pedro bar buy xanax Johnson buy discount viagra perscription drug videographer Diflucan without prescription COD Autobiographical buy Provera without prescription controversial buy Zyprexa next day cod beings accepted cod Aricept Automaton buy Cephalexin next day exceptions buy Testosterone online cash on delivery spaceshipSomebody ambien discount begins buy medicine online Seroquel Wrights cheap cialis in uk silvaafpc viagra pills for sale Retire Diovan hydrocodone overnight no prescription electric Tetracycline ambien 10 mg Griggs
[url =http://brandys.t35.com/497.html]watch bizarre porn[/url]
[url =http://brandys.t35.com/index2.html]free animated sex videos[/url]
[url =http://brandys.t35.com/279.html]church upskirt[/url]
[url =http://brandys.t35.com/32.html]hijab sexe amateur video[/url]
[url =http://brandys.t35.com/353.html]irql_not_less_or_equal blue screen[/url]
NiksViva say: I congratulate, what words…, a remarkable idea
_____________
{cealis
buying
8
[url =http://minifalda.t35.com/302.html]french girl roxanne having first time fuck in bedroom[/url]
[url =http://minifalda.t35.com/369.html]mlf sex[/url]
[url =http://minifalda.t35.com/320.html]big bubble butt brazilian orgy 12 zip[/url]
[url =http://minifalda.t35.com/438.html]free pron tubr sites[/url]
[url =http://minifalda.t35.com/378.html]young teens movies galleries[/url]
Skate Longboards