On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at tsoft.com> wrote:
> But a science of god? Where's my lighter fluid?
My favourite is people who generate arguments about the nature of god, poetic theology, god as metaphor... they all write in perfect academic prose to say that god can only be understood metaphorically, or poetically. Imagine that, god as metaphor, without using a metaphor to say that god is metaphor. These kind of silly contradictions delight me.
> So theology takes god as an hypothesis? And, we can go back to
> counting the trinity as theory? Ahh, Ken, the trinity hasn't been a
> theory since...
Yeah, well, the trinity kind of counts as a presuppositions, doesn't it?
> It's a like watching ancient history done as cinema noir.
I wouldn't say that too loudly, that last thing we want is to see 60 ft of Nick Cage as Pope Leo.
> I still don't really understand your personal desire to see theology trashed.
Oh. No, I haven't been clear. I don't care. I let my friends in the theological schools trash theology. I'm more interested in the way in which theology situates itself institutionally, as public - and they way in which they discuss politics or theory. I haven't touched theology critically, other than by impression or caricature, since the first year of my MA, when I took a theodicy course (I used Marx, and almost ended up getting kicked out of the course).
> I get the impression you want this stuff to die a horrible, meaningless
second death at the hands of a neo-Enlightenment analysis for some reason. So
let's hear the reason.
Naw. I'm not worried about that. What fascinates me, however, is the point at which theology shifts to social theory... at some point, with some writers, all of the doctrines fail, and something shifts into the politics. We find this in Augustine (a bit) - what is an empire other than a band of robbers? and, more contemporary - Mary Daly, Rosemary Ruether, Schussler Fiorenza, Segundo, Charles Davis, Niehbuhr... I find that point, that recognition, interesting. But I don't take this stuff seriously. Institutionally, I'm kind of get roped into these debates - through invitations to speak about the difference between theology and religious studies. That debate doesn't go away. Then I have to talk about the Devil in Mr. Jones and stuff. For the most part, I pay no mind.
> Wouldn't be nicer (listen to me, waxing liberal) to consider theology more an
historical and cultural study, where different threads of development are seen
as reflecting cultural, social, economic and political history? This is more
along the lines of what I would be interested in reading, given of course I
didn't have to swallow the actual contents.
Peter Brown's biography of Augustine is one of the most enthralling books I've read in a long time. He's also got a book on the body, which is a nice substitute for those would think Foucault is nuts. So, I agree with the above. During my lectures on Augustine, yesterday, I tried to trace the politics nature of Augustine's theology. His notion of predestination... and linking it to his fantastic memory, and the way in which his observations about human feelings as contingent... the way in which he solves the problem of evil, through a notion of moral progress - again, linked to his Confessions... and City of God as a theory of friendship (Augustine, his entire life, was always in the company of 'close' friends)... that kind of thing. It isn't analytic in any sense, but I try to make sense of these things on a political level.
> Why am I arguing for a scholastic humanist approach to theology? I feel like
I am playing Erasmus to your Machiavelli.
The tyranny of evil men... but I'm tryin' - tryin' real hard to be the good shepherd.
ken