(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

What does it take to be a theologian?

Comments

Slavoj Zizek in Liverpool, cropped version of ...
Image via Wikipedia

There is a really interesting post over at the Church Postmodern Culture blog contesting Peter Rollins’s claim that Slavoj Žižek is a “dialectical materialist theologian.”  Geoffrey Holsclaw suggests that to call Žižek a theologian is to “misunderstand Žižek’s project” as an atheist (albeit a certain type of atheist which should be carefully distinguished from the new atheist fundamentalists a la “Ditchkins“) and to “seriously downgrade theology.”

Interesting. And strong.

Which raises the question: what does it take to be a theologian?  What are the qualifications, prerequisites, and prior philosophical convictions to which one must assent in order to claim the title theologian?

In the case of Žižek, I find it a bit odd to dismiss him as theologian purely on his being an atheist and possibly tainting theology.  First, such a stance supposes an unvarying notion of atheism.  Žižek is not your normal (modern) atheist and would undoubtedly detest the idea of being grouped together with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in the same way that progressive Christians dislike being painted with the same brush as Christian fundamentalists.  So I think that charge lacks the proper nuance and care.  Furthermore, aren’t we all atheists of some sort?  Don’t we all reject certain gods?

Second, the accusation that naming Žižek as a theologian does the theological enterprise itself a disservice supposes a very rigid definition of theology and may give Žižek more credit than is due.  As far as I can tell, Žižek rejects any notion of transcendence, a tenet that Holsclaw believes to be central to the aim of theology.  He writes:

If theology is merely the sociology or anthropology of religion run through the Lacanian registers of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real, then I might as well become a stock broker.  If theology is merely explication of the immanent infinitude of human subjectivity, the void of the cosmos, the height and depth of reality, then let’s own up to that (which I believe Žižek has).

Why should these things be off the table?  I for one would like to keep the channels of conversation open here rather than demanding that all theologizing acceptance some idea of transcendence.    Here is a question:  does a theologian need to choose between the two, between transcendence and immanence?  Is one acceptable and the other out of bounds?  Does one need to accept a certain definition of God and ultimate reality before being allowed a place at the table that is theology?

Setting Žižek aside, I’d like to go back to that original question.  What does it take to be a theologian? Who qualifies?  At the superficial level, I’m tempted to say that everyone is a theologian whether he or she realizes it or not.  Our mode of being in the world will always already be emblematic of our belief(s) about God and ultimate reality whether we overtly confess that belief or not.   But I understand the need to zero in on something more precise.  I just wonder if placing superfluous limitations on what it means to be a theologian is more of a reflection on our own notions about God, religion, and divinity than the larger enterprise itself.  I become deeply suspicious once we start taking things off the table for questioning.

I’m interesting in your thoughts on this.  How would you define a theologian?  What does it take to be one?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Written by Blake Huggins

June 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

«
»
  • ashmansfield
    i reckon... theoligists are people WHO HAVE THE DEGREE. :/
  • brianbiggs
    "Furthermore, aren’t we all atheists of some sort? Don’t we all reject certain gods?"

    This seems to be a rather popular idea. The point seems to be to emphasize what atheists and theists have in common: the rejection of the existence of most "gods". I dislike this idea and the variations of it because it seems to advocate a commonality by glossing over what I would consider to be a fundamental difference.

    I don't believe in Zeus. Neither does Dawkins. However, Dawkins doesn't believe in Zeus because he categorically *rejects* the idea of deity. I reject Zeus because I *affirm* of the existence of the Christian deity.
  • I agree with you insofar as, contra Ditchikins et al., I am not willing to categorically reject much of anything when it comes to discussions likes these. However, I would wager that these so-called "new" atheists rely upon the Enlightenment Project, hegemonic Reason, and the myth of Ultimate Progress in ways that seem curiously religious (in fact, I might dare invoke the word "faith" in that respect). I only make that comparison to shed light what -- following trends in continental philosophy of religion since at least Heidegger, perhaps even Kant -- I believe to be an now untenable distinction between "atheism" and "theism." That seems to be a binary dependent on the legacy bequeathed to us from modernity. I tend to think those boundaries are much more permeable and porous. Or at least more nuanced. And I think Zizek, John Caputo, and even Jacques Derrida demonstrate that albeit in very different ways.
  • I would suggest that any theologian could be simply defined as a person who is wrestling with ultimate meaning. As a Christian theologian, a certain modesty is required of me-- a modesty that recognizes the inadequacies of my language and its ability to express anything about the Ultimate; the inadequacies of my tradition to express the fullness of the Ultimate; the inadequacies of my humanity to experience the Ultimate.

    So, perhaps anyone who is wrestling with Ultimate meaning-- a la Zizek, quantum physicists like Frank Wilczek, et al-- can also be counted as a "theologian".

    After all, we don't really think that God is just a big one of us, do we?
  • In Norway, the term for theologian ("teolog") is a so-called "protected title": it refers exclusively to people who have a particular degree, and qualify to be a priest in the Church of Norway. I often lament that there is no term in the language for people (like me) who think about theology without the degree.
    At the same time, I think that the term does require a certain definition so that we are then able to engage in theological discussion, and evaluate theology. Defining theology, and delimiting what theology is not will then allow us to identify mistakes in theology. If anything is allowed in theology, then no theological discussion is possible. If the proposition "God is darkness" can be replied with "but daisies are white", and both count as theology then the enterprise has failed.
    We must therefore identify a shared project (rather than "just claiming to do theology") so that a conversation may go on, and we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing. It may be commendable to make that conversation radically open, but we must also guard against producing a language that is so open-ended that anything is possible and nothing refers.
  • In the eyes of a theologian, everyone is "doing" theology whether they know it or not. The question is, who gets to say who is *not* a theologian?
  • I think your statement "everyone is a theologian" is correct. Not everyone uses the language of philosophy or sociology or some other academic discipline to frame their thoughts about the divine and the foundations of existence. And most people don't put a lot of energy into their thinking about these things. But I think everyone thinks about them and organizes these thoughts ideas in some way.

    I would distinguish among the practice of faith (the way we participate in the community of belief through symbol and ritual), the way we live (which reveal a real but perhaps unconscious belief system) and theology, which I think is the intentional reflection on and organization of ideas.
  • Well, it's certainly a mad rush to get the 'rights' to the label...

    At any rate, I would suggest it requires a willful decision to engage in dialogue re: god, gods, God both for or against. Further, it assumes a conscious interest in the subject that is evidenced by reading, listening, observing and reflecting what others have said on the subject.

    or anyone who understands what "the Simpsons" is really about.
  • For what it's worth, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that theology has to begin with Christology, because then we have to come up with a new name for Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindu theology, and so on - many other religions do consider people who study/teach their deity/faith to be theologians, rather than some other term.

    None of these religions are necessarily interested in anything to do with incarnation or Christology in any way. I think transcendence, while it does cause problems in a definition of theology, has more presence in theology beyond Christianity than incarnation/Christology. It is as important for us to be aware of theology from other religions as it is to be aware of theology from atheism.

    Certainly I would agree that Christian theology has to begin with Jesus, but I don't think we're dealing with that in these conversations, or we wouldn't be talking about atheist theology.

    For myself, I have always appreciated a short definition of theology (which admittedly has its own problems): critically chasing after the heart of God. Anyone can do it, but not everyone does.
  • I agree that couching it in terms of Christology/Incarnation causes problems for other religions. I would only want to use those qualifiers for a distinctively Christian theology, which, though I failed to state it, is what I was referring to here. Mainly because that is the direction the post over at Church and Pomo Culture was going (and that is what Zizek's "theological" works deal with).

    I'm still not sure about transcendence though. I'd have to think about it a bit more. Without a doubt it is central to the Abrahamic religions, but when I look to the East I'm not so sure (I'm no expert there though). Then again I think there is at least a superficial difference between Eastern and Western religions here when it comes to actually using (and defining) the term "theology."

    Either way, I'd definitely agree that if we are speaking in general terms and not zeroing on Christianity in particular then we need to opt for the lowest common denominator.
  • But then, I don't think Zizek is a "Christian theologian" unless he is a Christian, right? As the quote from Pete Rollins says, he certainly can contribute things into Christianity, but so can the Dalai Lama, but no one would call him a Christian theologian.

    In the conversation at Church and Pomo Culture, I'll grant that he doesn't use the phrase Christian theology either, but by excluding an atheist from it he does limit his definition.

    But by Pete's including of Zizek within "theology", I think we have to broaden our definition of theology to also include other religions in addition to just atheism (I have the utmost respect for Pete, of course, and understand that he focuses a lot on dialog with atheistic thought), and then look at whether or not Zizek fits into it, and if so what that means for theology.

    In that case, we have a really broad definition of theology as anything that contributes to understanding of religion, I guess. This would, I guess, exclude a lot of practitioners of various religions who do not contribute to the understanding of them. Most of us, at one time or another :).
  • Theology is the process of applying systems of rational thought in an attempt to resolve tensions between the sacred reality of deity and cosmos.

    It takes discipline and training to explore the nuances and variables, and previous ways of doing this process so not everyone can become a "theologian" but to some degree everyone who believes in deity does the work of theology.

    It is important not to confuse types of theology with the substance of what theology is and I sense that is what happened here.
  • Mark
    Okay, sure, we are all theologians theos (God) Logos (Talkers), in some way. At the same time if we are all theologians than none of us really are. There are levels and a spectrum: Pure Academic, German and Latin Reading, Doctorate level people who call themselves and are comfortable with the title Theologian---------------------Small Babies (Matt. 21:16) who goo goo and gaa gaa about their parents, life, creation, God etc. who do not even know they are God talkers.
    I like to analyze why my girlfriend only likes dark comedies and apocalyptic movies. Does that make me a psychoanalyst? Are all people who wonder why people do and say certain things Psychoanalysts? What if I was just getting out of high school and I said to a real psychoanalyst (one who had been to school for ten years n $150,000 in debt etc) and I told her I was a psychoanalyst? I might be in some sense but in another sense it would be just silly, if not an insult to her. There are levels and spectrums and I think everyone acknowledges this which is why I think this is a silly dialogue.
    Sure Zizek is doing theology (talking and writing about God) but he would not call himself a theologian (although he is on some level) and neither should I be called a psychoanalyst (even though I am trying to analyze why I am writing this short piece right now, lol).
  • Mark,

    The reason why a psychoanalyst would be insulted is due to arrogance and a sense of entitlement. A humble psychoanalyst would recognize how ridiculous it is to think that she is superior simply because she spent ten years in an institution and racked up 150k in debt. I mean, truly, how intelligent can a person be who does something like that!

    I go back and forth about my own debt in getting a master's degree in biblical exegesis. It certainly does not entitle me to a sense of superiority, to be insulted when someone with less education thinks they might have something to say about the biblical text.

    I can certainly connect with your desire to respect someone who has dedicated themselves to research and study of a particular topic, but our current state is one of hyper-specialization, everyone and their mother is collecting degrees and specializing in this or that. So, sure, let's respect each other's work, but it doesn't give us an entitlement to having a special categorization or to say "I'm a specialist, so only I can have the title of THEOLOGIAN."

    But that's just my thought. As I said earlier, if a person wants to more narrowly define titles like "theologian," "biblical scholar," or "psychoanalyst," then that's their prerogative, of course.
  • I do think those differences are important and I'm not necessarily trying to brush them aside. In the case of Zizek though I think we're talking about something more than a 'practical' theologian. And, to be sure, Pete noted in his comment over at Church and Pomo Culture that Zizek claims the title theologians for himself.

    What worries me is the tendency for those on the 'inside' as part of the group of esoteric 'experts' to feel the need to validate someone else in order for them to qualify. That tends to happen with thinkers who occupy the weird space between theology and philosophy (John Caputo is perhaps the best example here).

    So I don't want to do away with the distinctiveness of academic theology. Rather I want the forum to more open and less homogeneous. I think that can be accomplished without diluting enterprise itself.
  • Great post and discussion.

    I tend to like KDH's thought that if someone considers herself to be a theologian, then she is a theologian......So, the term "theologian," like all label and all language is somewhat artificial and dynamic: always shifting and changing....However, in keeping with this spirit of relativity and respect for each theologian to define "theologian" as she sees fit, I also tend to think that each theologian (self-proclaimed) should have the freedom to define "theologian" in a way that is as narrow (or wide) as she sees fit.

    So, Geoffrey Holsclaw defines "theologian" in a certain way: some are in, some are out. I'm not sure if I fit into his parameters.

    It's also a matter of how many seats each theologian wants to have at the table. The more narrow one's definition of "theologian," the more intimate one's company will be, while those with a highly inclusive definition will find themselves surrounded by a numerous band of diverse perspectives.

    As such, it's less about what is the "right" way to define "theologian" and more about what kind of company one wishes to keep, whether "theologian" is an exclusive country club or a public park.

    Thanks again for the post and discussion.
  • "As such, it's less about what is the "right" way to define "theologian" and more about what kind of company one wishes to keep, whether "theologian" is an exclusive country club or a public park."

    Excellent point. I haven't thought of it in that way until now. So perhaps defining it narrowly might not be so bad -- just as long one accepts that that definition is provisional and not totalizing.

    Thanks for the thought!
  • Hey

    Thanks for the link to the discussion. I think you pin down the issue perfectly in the post which starts,

    "The crux of the issue, at least based on the post at Church and Pomo Culture, seems to be transcendence. Zizek denies it as a materialist and the author of the post believes it to be central to any type of theology. Personally, I find it odd that of all the things theology could be narrowed down to transcendence was chosen as the most important"

    This is what myself and Kotsko, among others on the site, are also saying. If one did want to put provisional demarcations on what a professional theologian is I would be more likely to link it to Christology. Here Zizek fits very well. Indeed it is only when I treated Zizek in theological terms (rather than as a Feuerbachian type philosopher or religion) that I began to understand his use of Christianity in his project. BTW by 'professional theologian' I broadly mean one who thinks systematically over prolonged periods of time through interrogating, building upon and critiquing others in the field, to distinguish it from the insightful and important idea that the body of believers are all theologians.
  • Hey, thanks for the link as well. And for pointing out the new comments. I wasn't able to find a comments RSS feed over there and missed a whole string of insightful comments.

    The issues of transcendence is curious to me. It seems that if theology is reduced to it alone, rather than Christology or Incarnation, then the entire enterprise itself is diluted to a narrow type of philosophy of religion. In that way I think Holscaw, in his demarcation, is guilty of the very charge he levies against Zizek -- "downgrading theology."

    I appreciate your definition of a 'professional theologian.' On the one hand it distinguishes between the community of believers as practical theologians and those of us -- and I don't mean this in a pompous way -- who are engaged in academic and philosophical discourse. Yet is still avoids reserving that title only to an elite group of 'experts' who may or may not stand guard over orthodoxy as the arbiters of truth. In other words, defining the title in that way still retains some sense of the distinctiveness whilst keeping the forum open rather than requiring that one be validated by an 'inside,' esoteric, or homogeneous group in order to claim the title. From the outside looking in it seems that that tends to happen in 'professional' theology circles, which may be why thinkers like Captuo and Kearney (and Zizek, perhaps) don't get the credit they deserve from 'the inside.'

    Thanks for the feedback. I love your work. It has been very influential on my own thought. I'm looking forward to more where that came from!
  • KDH
    My basic response is that a theologian is anyone who claims to be a theologian. A rather simple solution. This is not to say that anyone who claims to be a theologian is a theologian worthwhile to listen to. One can still make value judgments, of course. But I am careful not to claim anOther as a theologian. Such a the term posits that one is a theist and that that/those god/s is/are male. I think to call an atheist a theologian is to do violence to his or her episteme. It does not allow for the other to speak for her/himself.
  • Agreed. I should also point out here -- and I didn't realize this when I posted this originally -- that apparently Zizek claims the title "dialectical materialist theologian" himself, or so Rollins claims in his comment.
  • I get the idea that wrestling with God is kind of like doing theology, but by this same logic you would say we are all economists (we think about money), we are all doctors (we do stuff to be more healthy), and we are all physicists (we drop stuff and note that it falls).

    And so on.

    All these statements are true, but we create terms like "theologian" to serve specific functions and mark out certain things. So, I'm wary of being suspicious of attempts to define the term or rules things outside the term.

    For me, I don't have a real problem saying a theologian should actually believe the subject of his field on inquiry exists. Maybe I'm off base here, but there is my contribution to the conversation.
  • I get that. And that's why I said on a superficial level we're
    all theologians. I understand the need to be more precise. But it
    seems to me that the article contesting Rollins's claim is like a
    Keynesian economist saying that a Marxist economist isn't really
    practicing economics because he doesn't accept the same basic
    principles. Or a hardcore Newtonian physicist rejecting the validity
    of a quantum physicist. Demarcating the bounds of the field so
    narrowly that anyone who dissents is excluded entirely isn't very
    useful in my opinion. I think we can differentiate between different
    schools or types or subsets but I don't see the reason to
    categorically reject someone or a certain idea simply because it
    doesn't conform to someone else's idiosyncrasy.
  • I don't know enough about Zizek to accept or reject your analogy. It does seem like there is a lot of ground between "anyone who dissents" and someone who denies the existence of the central figure in the field. But I am certainly an outsider to meta-discourse about theology.

    Indeed, as I think about it more, I don't know enough about contemporary theology to know if being an atheist should exclude someone from the field.

    Atheist theologian sounds like an oxymoron to me. Maybe I'm not educated enough to see why I'm wrong about that, though.
  • The crux of the issue, at least based on the post at Church and Pomo Culture, seems to be transcendence. Zizek denies it as a materialist and the author of the post believes it to be central to any type of theology. Personally, I find it odd that of all the things theology could be narrowed down to transcendence was chosen as the most important.

    Zizek's works on Christianity deal with the significance of the Christ-event and its impact upon history. He suggests, to grossly oversimplify, that transcendence died on the cross (which is interesting, I think a more compelling vantage point to make that argument would be the incarnation, but that is a separate issue). To be brief, he argues that divinity "lives" on (he wouldn't use those words) after that event through the "Holy Spirit community" (e.g. he suggests that we take Christ's words that 'where two or more are gathered I am present' very literally). Ironically, Milbank, in their co-authored book, argues for transcendence but makes little use of Christ (I haven't read all of the book yet, but that seems to be what is happening).

    The author of the post I linked to claims that Zizek cannot be a theologian since he denies transcendence. So, the question is can theology be done without transcendence. I think it can, albeit in a heterodox manner.

    I think another important part of this conversation is that suggesting that someone is a theologian or one of his specific works deals with theology is different from suggesting that theology is that person's primary field or main title. I wouldn't say that about Zizek. He is primarily a philosopher (so is Milbank, in my opinion). But that doesn't mean that does not deal with theology (he has at least 3 works that deal with it explicitly) or that he cannot claim the title "theologian" secondarily. He deals with -- at least in some of his works -- the overlap between the two fields as do John Caputo and Richard Kearney (and more popularly, Rollins). What is odd is that both the purely theological and philosophical circles tend to frown upon that. I don't really see the need for such rigid segregation between the two. Of course, both have a function in and of themselves, but I do think there is some interesting overlap that both tend to ignore.
  • Thank you for the brief education. I see how thinking about such things can be very stimulating.

    It sounds like he certainly is dealing with theological topics, and so I understand why you would not want to exclude him. His notions of divinity are certainly beyond my understanding.
  • Chadholtz
    John, point taken.
    However, I would argue that each of the analogies you offer are subsets to theology. When we think about money we are, whether we realize it or not, making choices that reflect where God fits in our lives. The same can be said for our health and for our reflections on the physicality of the world. This is why, all the way up until the Enlightenment, theology was seen as the queen of the sciences- all things lead back to God. We are all theologians in that we all come from God and will all return to God (some of us are just more aware of this than others). We are not all economists, doctors or physicists because those are vocations people carve out for themselves within the grander economy of God.

    Just my 2 cents.
  • Chadholtz
    Well, I tell my congregation that they are all theologians - they just may not know it.

    I think that is right. People use to say that theology was the queen of all sciences. This is still true, I think, it's just most of the world doesn't recognize it as such anymore. All things lead back to God - even our denials of God. So in this sense, I'd say we are all theologians - the questions is: are we good ones?
  • "So in this sense, I'd say we are all theologians - the questions is:
    are we good ones? "

    Yes, definitely. And is our lived theology consistent with our
    spoken/confessed theology. Too often the two are wildly different.
  • Chadholtz
    agreed. I just posted a comment on Jonathan's site about violence (I see you have as well). That subject highlighted for me the fact that there are areas in my life where my ivory tower musings are not consistent (or perhaps, might be found inconsistent in certain situations) with my reality. Perhaps this is, in part, what Paul means by us seeing now through a glass dimly? The hope and joy is that one day we will see "face to face" and know as we are known.
  • At the most basic level I'd say that anyone who has any thoughts about God/gods/any sort of ultimate reality is a theologian in their own way. So even those who reject the idea of any sort of ultimate reality/god are doing the work of theology by wrestling with those concepts. Professional academic theologians often take exception to this, but pastorally I find that when people think of themselves as theologians, a new depth is added to their discipleship.

    My apologies for tooting my own horn, but I blogged on a similar question recently: http://matthewlkelley.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-p...

    Good post. Thanks for sharing!
  • Thanks for the feedback, Matt. I agree. To me, if you are wrestling
    with theological concepts -- even in the most radical and
    unconventional way, like Zizek -- then you are doing theology and, at
    least in some sense, a theologian. I tend to get a little torqued up
    when we start saying that things are out of bounds like that. Thanks
    for the link to your post!
blog comments powered by Disqus