Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gestures difficult

A fantastic quote from Michel Foucault, "Practicing Criticism."

A Critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest....

Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self evident will no longer be accepted as such. Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gesture difficult.

Relating to Postmodernism: A Rough Typology of Evangelical Positions

I'm going to risk making a typology of relations between evangelicals and "postmodernism." It is not meant to represent a fixed and forever stable arrangement, but a way to help us organize our thinking about the topic and more clearly see where people stand. The borders between types are porous and continually under revision, to be sure.

I suggest that three relations between evangelicals and postmodernism can be made out from the ongoing conversations. Each relation is multidimensional. They consist of at least a value judgement (postmodernism is good or bad, inferior or superior) and a movement (a move toward embracing postmodernism, a move away from postmodernism).*

1) Some Evangelicals reject postmodernism as making no sense and they consider it dangerous to their faith.

In a review of a certain book, one evangelical put it this way:

It is a helpful warning about the dangers of postmodernism. But this explicit warning has a subtext not intended by the writers. This subtext is an urgent cautionary reminder of the dangerous direction that the evangelical movement has taken.

Or a critical blogger's view on the matter. In this quote, he questions the evangelical and conservative credentials of an author known to be linked to the Emerging Church movement:

Here’s a bit more information for you concerning Dan Kimball, and I do happen to think he’s a nice guy, which shows he is actually quite dangerous to the historic orthodox Christ faith we know is the Truth.

These two voices define postmodernism and the faith practices and leadership that are emerging from those conditions as dangerous to more traditional understandings. The relationship they establish is oppositional. The traditional view is seen as superior to the emerging views. There is also a movement to distance, to not genuinely engage or try to understand, but to denounce and dismiss.

2) Some evangelicals are more or less attempting to make sense of this new cultural context that people often refer to as postmodernism. Yet this engagement does not render identity. Rather, these evangelicals continue to be grounded by modern beliefs and faith practices.

One of the more popular voices in this camp articulates his view toward postmodern faith practices and beliefs:

Contemporary evangelicals face the responsibility, not only of becoming conversant with the Emerging Church, but of continuing a conversation about what this movement really represents and where its trajectory is likely to lead. Some of the best, brightest, and most sensitive and insightful individuals from the younger evangelical generation have been drawn to this movement.

Echoing the sentiment of other popular authors, he remains critical:

Yet, "Once we have acknowledged the unavoidable finiteness of all human knowers, the cultural diversity of the human race, the diversity of factors that go into human knowing, and even the evil that lurks in the human breast and easily perverts claims of knowledge into totalitarian control and lust for power--once we have acknowledged these things, is there any way left for us to talk about knowing what is true or objectively real? Hard postmodernists insist there is not. And that's the problem."

Evangelicals speaking from this position seem to cast a more ambiguous judgement toward postmodernism and the faith practices that emerge from it. They are closer to postmodernism than those evangelicals in position 1 insofar as they are willing to engage (though somewhat suspiciously). The relation is one of resemblance. This perspective enables them to see that people expressing postmodern practices are complex and layered, with more or less "hard"/rigorous/consistent philosophies in circulation. While evangelicals in position 2 seem to be more willing to engage, they continue to remain rooted in certain modern conceptions, such as propositional truths and their relevance to their faith. Thus, on certain fundamental issues, there are disconnects between positions 2 and 3. One of the key consequences of this paradigmatic gap is misunderstanding and contention.

3) Some evangelicals identify themselves and their faith communities as "postmodern." Not to conflate all so-called postmodern evangelicals into a coherent whole, there are varying flavors and stripes. In relation to positions 1 and 2, however, these evangelicals find postmodern faith practices and ways of believing to make sense. It isn't simply a relativism of the faith, as those in 1 and 2 argue, but a reconstitution of what it means to be Christian and particularly to be evangelical.

As one postmodern evangelical framed the attraction to this new theology:

Deconstructive theology is an excellent rejection of the evangelical-fundamentalism of their youth and all its ills in the face of a radically pluralist, post-Christendom, post-modern world. Many emerging church folk are allergic to anything that smacks of a.) an intolerant judgmental exclusivism, b.) an arrogant, even violent, certainty about what we do know, and c.) an overly-rationalized hyper-cognitive gospel that takes the mystery out of everything we believe. If I have over-stated myself, forgive me. But I too have felt these pangs in relation to my own evangelical upbringing. Deconstructive theology is an excellent avenue of resistance to all these maladies.

Or in the words of another:

Obviously, I feel strongly that the road to inner peace and connection with our Creator is through Jesus. If you are one of the more than two billion Christians in the world, you may feel the same way. But in case you don't.... I'm not going to try to convince you that you can only do these thing if you believe in Jesus--I've seen lots of people try to convince other people about Jesus, and it's rarely successful.

The point seems to be to experience God with others; indeed, to find God in the Other and not just attempt to convert them. The aim is to not assume that we have a Secret, but to recognize that Others can know too. It is about relating to Others, to God and to oneself in a fruitful way. It is about moving beyond the management and confinement of Christ to the religion of Christianity. Evangelicals speaking from position 3 see the possibilities of postmodernism. It enables a liberating break from the foundational and fundamentalist viewes espoused by the dominant traditions articulated by positions 1 and 2.

To briefly conclude the typology, I've argued that evangelicals relate to postmodernism in three ways. Where some view postmodernism with critical skepticism and even fear, others embrace it with open arms. The difference is concrete. The question is how to deal with it. Can we relate to difference? Or must it be converted or excluded?




*On analyzing relations between self and other, I drew from Tzvetan Todorov's The Conquest of America

The Challenge of Relativism, or, The Problem Created by Absolute Descriptions

John Piper writes an apparently compelling essay on the issue of relativism. The piece is entitled: "The Challenge of Relativism."

The essay hinges on a key distinction between two kinds of descriptions.

John Piper makes a distinction between two kinds of descriptions, "daily speech" and Absolute Talk. Daily speech deals with issues like height and weight. These are topics that are measured by "human beings." Absolute Talk, however, deals with issues like "sexual relations between two men." These are topics that are judged according "God's will" as revealed in the Christian Bible.

What warrants these analytical distinctions between daily speech and Absolute Talk and between human standards and God's standards? Is it warranted to divorce the question of sexual relations between two males from the daily speech and deliberation between human beings? Can human beings not decide for themselves about the issue of sexual relations?

Piper does not justify the distinctions he makes between descriptions. He simply asserts them as if they were natural, as if talk of height and weight are naturally topics of daily speech and talk of sexual relations is naturally Absolute Talk. It seems that on some issues Piper is content to flesh out the "context or the standard" people are "using for measuring the truth of the statement," while on other issues he is keen to escape from the finitude of one's time and place.

Perhaps the issue of sexual relations can be decided by human beings, just as the topics of height and weight. Perhaps we should say that all talk is daily speech and no talk is Absolute, even talk of sexual relations between two men. In other words, descriptions are descriptions are descriptions. There is no justification in elevating one description above another. They are all descriptions made by someone in a time and place.

Relativism only makes sense in the context of Piper's essay once the distinction between daily speech and Absolute Talk is made. If no distinction is made, then the problem of relativism ceases to be a problem. Because, as Piper makes amply clear in the opening paragraphs of the essay, daily speech is not relative. The problem of Relativism is dependent on the assertion of Absolute Talk.

"The Challenge of Relativism" is really only a challenge if we insist on positing a divide between our daily talk and some kind of Absolute, non-human description that is Valid in All Times and All Places. If we situate all our descriptions in their contexts and we don't try to elevate some descriptions to the status of Absolute Talk, then the challenge of relativism is avoided all together.

What are they saying?

Some Headlines from Stories about Gozales' Testimony:

Senators Chastise Gonzales

On a Very Hot Seat With Little Cover and Less Support

Gonzales Endures Harsh Session With Senate Panel

Al, the President's Man:Alberto Gonzales is bloodied by his trip to the Senate.

Gonzo-Meter:Al, you're not helping.

Will Bush Stand by Gonzales?

Dead Man Walking Gonzales?

Gonzales' Tremendous Credibility Problem

A Disastrous Day in the Senate

Gonzales Would Serve Justice by Moving On

As tragic as the Virginia Tech shootings are, let’s face it: 32 dead is a slow day in U.S.-occupied Iraq.

Should we not cry for all the dead? Why do we cry for some and not those thousands of others?

Woody Guthrie and Jesus Christ

Woody Guthrie said:

I wrote this song looking out of a rooming house window in New York City in the winter of Nineteen and Forty. I thought I had to put down on paper how I felt about the rich folks and the poor ones.

This was quoted the liner notes for "Bound For Glory: The Songs and Story of Woody Guthrie," FOLKWAYS , 1956, p. 8.

The song goes like this:

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land,
A hard working man and brave.
He said to the rich "Give your goods to the poor."
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave,
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff,
He told them all the same,
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what He did say,
The bankers and the preachers they nailed Him on a cross.
Then they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The poor workin' people, they followed Him around,
They sung and they shouted gay,
The cops and the soldiers, they nailed Him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Well, the people held their breath when they heard about His death,
And everybody wondered why,
It was the landlord and the soldiers that he hired,
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preacher and slave,
But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.

Notice how the relationship between the poor and the rich is the focus of this song and how this song emphasizes the economic and class aspects of Jesus' words and actions. Woody's mind wasn't on sexual purity, as many Evangelicals today.

What happened to the significance of this storyline? Why do so few speak of this aspect of Jesus' words and actions today? How did this storyline get overtaken by a far more dominant storyline that focuses on maintaining sexual purity and paternalism?

If at one time in American history there were different kinds of evangelical Christians voicing their interpretations, like Woody Guthrie and his song about Jesus Christ, what happened between then and now?

"War on Terrorism" is Strategically Ineffective

My friend Jesse cued me to this link.

President George W Bush's concept of a "war on terror" has given strength to terrorists by making them feel part of something bigger, Hilary Benn has said.

The international development secretary told a meeting in New York the phrase gives a shared identity to small groups with widely differing aims.

Mr Benn said: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone.

"And because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives."

It is "the vast majority of the people in the world" against "a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common", he said.

"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others, without dialogue, without debate, through violence.

"And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."

A while back I picked up The Concept of Dread by Soren Kierkegaard. I would like to share a bit taken from the final chapter. It is entitled: "Dread as a Saving Experience by Means of Faith."

To catch you up to pace with Kierkegaard's thinking, dread is not a result of an objective thing out there in the world. Rather, "man himself produces dread." "Dread," he says, "is the possibility of freedom." Dread and possibility go hand and hand. In relation to dread, however, there is "the smiling." This is faith, the "infinite" possibility beyond the rationally explicable.

Encountering dread one may "misunderstand the anguish of dread" and turn away from faith. He is thus "lost."

On the other hand, he who is educated by possibility remains with dread, does not allow himself to be deceived by its countless counterfeits, he recalls the past precisely; then at last the attacks of dread, though they are fearful, are not such that he flees from them. For him dread becomes a serviceable spirit which against its will leads him wither he would go. Then when it announces itself, when it craftily insinuates that it has invented a new instrument of torture far more terrible than anything employed before, he does not recoil, still less does he attempt to hold it off with clamor and noise, but he bids it welcome, he hails it solemnly, as Socrates solemnly flourished the poisoned goblet, he shuts himself up with it, he says, as a patient says to the surgeon when a painful operation is about to begin, "Now I am read." Then dread enters into his soul and searches it thoroughly, constraining out of him all the finite and the petty, and leading him hence whither he would go

It is this continual dance with dread and faith, the intertwining and mutual constitution that is so important here. To have faith, one must also dread, to have doubt about the existence of God, to not loose touch with the angst of finitude. To never doubt God, in other words, is to never really have faith. Turning toward faith in the constant face of dread, making that leap, that choice in everyday situations to affirm faith. In Kierkegaard's words: "Now the dread of possibility holds him as its prey until it can delver him saved int o the hands of faith."

Beating Around the Ontological Bush

Tom Gilson, over at the Thinking Christian, posted this link to a great discussion (by John Mark Reynolds) of the relationship between science and religion.

Much of what Mark writes is agreeable to me. When he says, for instance:

If all sides of the religion-science debate admit that they are at best telling “likely stories,” then they can go about their work in peace. Each side can continue to use their own philosophic assumptions to spin new theories to explain the ever-increasing amount of data collected. Each side can tell their own story and the intelligent “neutral” can decide for himself.

But I would like to make two critical comments about the working philosophical assumptions/assertions that structure Mark's argument. My aim is simple: to make space for alternative possibilities and ways of thinking about the relationship between science and Christianity.

One: Mark's argument asserts/assumes a dualistic ontology. Though, it should be noted that his dualism is more tempered than a straight up Cartesian dualism. What does this mean? To use Mark's words, this means that:

The truth may be out there, but it can be hard to know....

The truth about the world is there. The world is real and it is knowable. It is not, however, knowable with absolute certainty. This Cartesian certainty is just not available to humans after the Fall. Humanity is cut off from the world and from each other. The mere use of language to communicate guarantees that misunderstanding and mistakes will occur.

In other words, at its ontological foundation, Mark posits a metaphysical divide between the subjective observer and between the objective observed.

Two: Mark presupposes that language is at base a vehicle for communication. He uncritically assumes a correspondence theory of truth. Mark is working from a referential epistemology, wherein subjective observers tell stories that more or less accurately match/mirror/correspond to Reality. The Truth of something, its essence, is Objective and Timeless. But because people are fallible, theories and communications between people can never perfectly mirror Reality--stories can only approximate Truth.

Where do we go from here? We've identified that Mark is working from a dualistic ontology and that he employs a correspondence theory of truth. My next move is to suggest that while Mark is articulating one ontological-epistemological combination that has a rich history in Western metaphysics, there are other possible combinations.

Instead of a dualistic ontology that posits a divide between subjects and objects, we might assume a monistic ontology. This ontology does not posit a divide between subjects and objects. On the contrary, I argue that humans and their beliefs cannot swing free of their surroundings--they are intimately bound together. It is not subjects and objects, but combinations of relationships that give form and shape to concrete realities.

Epistemologically, a monistic ontology calls forth something other than a correspondence theory of truth. If there is no gap between subjects and objects, the problem of corresponding words to things isn't much of a problem anymore. On this view, words and stories are not primarily referential, but constitutive. Words and stories work as social bindings that tie people to their surroundings, giving them meaning and form.

So, we have a monistic ontology and a non-referential epistemology, which contrasts with Mark's dualistic ontology and correspondence theory of truth. These two different ontological-epistemological combinations work as philosophical groundings that enable us to spin different kinds of stories about different topics.

Thus, we have two kinds of stories about truth.

Instead of saying that the truth is "out there" and it is our duty to search it out, I would propose that the truth is immanent and it is our duty to make it happen here and now.

The fruits of truth are to be born out of our acts toward others. And it is from our conduct, our heart and our way, that we are judged (Jeremiah 17:10).