(Ir)religiosity

You would do well to pick up a copy of David Bentley Hart's "The Beauty of the Infinite: the Aesthetics of Christian Truth." With the entire work Hart is focused on the violence of ontology and metanarrative as it relates to theology, and one of the last chapters of the book, entitled Eschaton, deals directly with your specific issue.

Thanks, Allen. I'll be sure to check that out.

Interesting post, Blake. If you are finished with school obligations and have some time, I wonder if you could give some more context on the Moltmann quote, i.e. what do you take him to mean by 'the messianism of the modern world'?

I just looked at your post from a few months ago, because I thought I had commented then and I did. I'm still where I was then in not knowing if Christianity is a metanarrative in Lyotard's sense. I've still not read "The Postmodern Condition," and I'm generally not very informed about Lyotard, but I understand "metanarrative" to be self-sufficient and self-justifying.

However, I think there are still some important points raised here, regardless of the specifics of Lyotard's text. One thing that comes to mind for me is ideology and critical theory. Certainly, ideological accounts in religion, especially with regards to eschatology, can be dangerous and violent. But, in response to this, are we supposed to somehow break free of ideology? In other words, do we have an ideologically-free zone in which to speak about ideology? I think this is a similar point to what John Meunier may be getting at by bringing up MacIntyre, albeit with a different avenue.

Someone who has been instructive for me here in the recent months is Paul Ricoeur, and especially Richard Kearney's reading of Ricoeur in the book "On Paul Ricoeur: The Owl of Minerva." In one of the chapters, Kearney deals with Ricoeur's narrative theory, and in particular the narrative shaping of identity. Kearney posits Ricoeur's answer to the ideology question as the best response is a hermeneutic imagination that is capable of critical discrimination. So, instead of negating (or foolishly attempting to negate) an ideological imagination, we adopt a hermeneutic imagination that is first self-critical and then speaks from that experience.

I'm not sure whether I've gone completely afield or else possibly just on a tangent, but in any event I think Ricoeur might be instructive here. I did an independent study of Ricoeur, so I have a decent bibliography if you are interested.

I am done with school, but unfortunately my Moltmann book is about 1500 miles away from me right now. I will check on that when I return home. When I initially read it, I took it to mean the messianisms of various metanarratives quite frankly -- progress, hegemonic reason and so on.

I am admittedly under-read when it comes to ideology and critical theory. Of course I want to reprimand the more violent accounts of religion (oddly enough those tend to be deeply eschatological). Of course I do. But in response I don't believe any of us can enter a "no spin zone," so to speak. Frankly, I doubt that is possible. Which is why I think that all theology and all philosophy is always very interested and deeply persuasive.

Thanks for the Ricoeur and Kearney resources. I have read a little of both, though not the text you mention. I would definitely be interested in a bibliography. One of my last undergraduate classes was on Ricoeur's hermeneutics. Little did I know that would send me down this very odd but wonderful rabbit trail of continental philosophy and postmodern theology.

I think I might have overshot on the description of the bibliography- it's brief and doesn't make any attempt to be systematic, but it's something. The major weakness is that it is focused pretty much solely on books by or about Ricoeur, so it fails to give much insight into current scholarship (which I am ignorant of myself). Anyways, I threw it up on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24391724/Ricoeur-Bibl...

I've been meaning to read Moltmann for some time now. I just recently got the autobiography, and I might be able to get to it over break.

Well, that is more of a bibliography than I have, that is for sure. Thanks! As far as Moltmann goes, I spent quite a bit of time of the summer reading almost all of his stuff. In retrospect, I think the biography is probably the best place to start. I ended up reading it last.

Here's my two cents about eschatology and Christianity. Christianity itself has been moving further and further away from eschatology at its very origin. This is detectable if one reads the NT in chronological order. Notice how the Gospel of John, the last Gospel written, is almost completely stripped of eschatology. Jesus' teaching have started to become about interiorization and the Kingdom of God has been replaced by the otherworldly promises of eternal life (recall 'my kingdom is not of this world'). In, Paul's first letters of 1 Thessalonians (also his earliest preserved epistle), it's obvious that apocalyptic fervor pervaded the early Christians' understanding of the resurrection. As Agamben's title reminds us, Paul and the early Christians had to figure out how to live in the 'Time That Remains'.

I think Lyotard's Postmodern Condition especially called out totalizing, progressive narratives like Marxism or psychoanalysis that can subsume all data under a given paradigm. The thing is, all religions have a judgment day. There's always an eschaton to be found. I have a hard time conceiving of a religion that does not speculate about the end of the world. However, I'm not really sure that it matters whether or not Christianity is a meta-narrative. I think the more important point to ask is, what is the content of the Christian narrative (i.e. gospel)? Although, Lyotard posited that all meta-narratives are violent, the real question to ask is, how violent? What is the degree of violence? I think certain forms of Christianity have an extremely violent interpretation of the gospel. Here, I think is where atonement theory may be the most important doctrine that needs to be reworked (or rediscovered from the church fathers) as a way of making the gospel less violent.

Again, the content of the Gospel is something I'm still unclear about. Who do we turn for the answer? Paul's early letters. Which Jesus should we listen to? John's Jesus or Mark's Jesus? Which historical Jesus scholar, Crossan or Ehrman? Do we trust the Nicene creed? I don't mean to dichotomize all of these options, as if there's no overlap between them. but there are substantial differences. Paul doesn't care about Jesus' life or teachings, he wants to proclaim the resurrected Christ alone. John's gnostic Jesus looks much different than Luke's Jesus who proclaims good news to the oppressed. Crossan and Ehrman have different understandings of the historical Jesus. They ultimately split on the tension between the Kingdom of God being at hand (Crossan) or coming in the future (Ehrman). These are important decisions, albeit difficult ones. I think we have to admit all narratives (meta, or micro, not as if it's clear how to differentiate between the two) are violent. What should concern us is the content of the message and how that leads to non-violent praxis.

Form and especially content are very important, I think. Those are good points. And yes, every narrative is violent. However, I would want to carefully distinguish between that time of violence, and, say, the violence of the myth of modern progress. Now, there is a version (or, versions, really) of Christianity that is really no different than the narratives Lyotard castigates. But the version I am interested in -- and the one you are alluding to, I think -- is one that rejects this sort of codification. In that way, I think the content, or at least a certain interpretation of it, may preclude Christianity from being metanarrative as such. Because the metanarrative is violent not only it is form and content, but in its praxis.

Sorry. Should say: "How does MacIntyre's thinking about rival modes of inquiry and debate look in light of your questions?"

I'm not familiar enough with MacIntyre's work to speak on that, to be honest. As for your second question, I suppose it is possible. There are definitely those on both the theistic and atheistic (for lack of better terms) sides of the conversation that seem to think so. I myself don't believe it is that simple though.

How does MacIntyre's thinking about rival modes of inquiry and debate?

Is it possible that postmodernism and theistic eschatology are incommensurable?

This is an actual question. I do not know enough about Lyotard et al to have my own conclusion on the question.

One has to wonder if such a thing as "THE Christian metanarrative" really exists, the definite article implying that there is only one genuinely Christian metanarrative, to the exclusion of all others. If so, which one? Is it one of the Calvinist ones? Catholic? Wesleyan? Hudgginsian?

Perhaps instead we need to ask what makes the metanarrative by which we orient our lives (borrowing from brutha Tillich) genuinely Christian. Moltmann would probaby say that a hopeful eschatological orientation rooted in the God who suffers right alongside us and in so doing turns our suffering into Resurrection is what makes one's metanarrative genuinely Christian.

But that definition is largely rooted in his personal biography, as is your or my definition. Somewhere in the messiness of our own stories and the occasional conflict of our personal metanarratives we have to be willing to find some common ground and see the face of Christ in the other, based not on some arbitrary categories, but on the conviction that all persons are created in God's image and deserve to be treated as such.

But, then again, that's a metanarrative in itself. We can't really escape that, can we?

I agree. It seems that there is definitely a plurality present. And the more I think about it the more I believe that is intrinsic to Christianity itself. Yet, I wonder, given Lyotard's use of the term, if that precludes us from naming the Christian story as a metanarrative per se. More and more I am thinking that it is neither a metanarrative nor a micornarrative but something different altogether. I'm not sure what to call it. But I think if we allow room for a variety of expression and interpretation like you're saying then, by definition, we cease to be brokering a metanarrative proper.

All this probably sounds purely semantic. But -- getting back to the Moltmann quote -- I think it is very important, especially if we are to speak of a Christianity that is not linked to the various myths of modernity.

So I guess what I am wanting to do here is maintain the uniqueness of the Christian story (over against a meta or micro narrative) whilst making room for plurality and and difference. I'm just not sure how to get there yet.

For what its worth, I think you've hit a nail right on the head AND missed something:

Hit: "if we allow room for a variety of expression and interpretation like you're saying then, by definition, we cease to be brokering a metanarrative proper. "

That is a huge key. Especially in the area of missiology, where we have to consider who it is that we serve.

Miss: "Purely semantic." I presume though, that this is short hand, since you have talked elsewhere about how important interpretation is into theology. The link between interpretation and doctrine is close and doctrine in turn affects millions who are spurned by, or encouraged by churches across the world depending on doctrinal stances.

You're quite re: the semantic part. I only brought that up because when I kick these ideas around "on the ground," so to speak, that is the response I usually get: that I'm just playing with words (I like to play with words, to be sure, but that is beside the point!). I think while it may seem that way on its face what we're talking about here runs much deeper than the mere prefix I decide to attach to -narrative. It involves pulling out some deep sub-level assumptions we've held for a very long time.

So I am finding myself looking at metanarrative and micronarrative and thinking that neither of them really fit here. It seems that we may be talking about a different story altogether. And, again, it seems to me that this is perhaps more contentious in eschatology than anywhere else.

And our eschatologies absolutely influence our ethics. How it is we think about the end shades how we think about the now.

Indeed, which is one the reasons why I dislike the compartmentalizing tendencies of systematic theology. All of these loci deeply intertwined.

Thanks for this Blake, especially your comments with Chris re: blank slate. It helped to tip me in the direction of yes... You inspired a post from me: http://ow.ly/M7Pj Many thanks.

No problem, Callid. And thanks for the link and the shout out.

I don't have much to add to the discussion, except to say that I have been asking the very same questions in the second half of this semester. I'm glad you posted them.

This is something I've been internally struggling with lately. Well, one of the things. I think that there is such a push to eliminate anything that resembles Evangelical theology that I'm beginning to be afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Part of my struggle with that is that I don't have enough grounding in academic theology to even have a starting point (wish I had taken Shelly's class now, big time). Maybe it's time for me to read Moltmann? Whatever it is, I'm really uncomfortable in my theology right now. I know many things I believe pretty firmly (mostly that anything that doesn't involve love isn't of God), but on more specific doctrines I'm not really sure. I find it easier to determine what theologies are flawed and dangerous than what I ACTUALLY believe. Eschatology is DEFINITELY in that category. And I don't know where to start most days.

The very fact that there have been so many attempts at defining a meta narrative points toward its existence. Post-modernity, exposing our finitude, warns us that we might not nail it quite down. In other words, while we all work from within a particular meta narrative (knowingly or unknowingly) we should not impose it as universal.

I think eschatology (our view of the future) is an indubitable element of ANY meta narrative. While we cannot tell for sure the details of the future we should not give up on wrestling to peak into it and get a glimpse. It gives us meaning and a sense of purpose and direction.

I've been out of the game for a little while, so my insight may not be applicable here. One of the greatest strengths of postmodern thought, I always felt (and I may be conflating with existentialism here), is its willingness to approach the world from a position of ignorance. Lyotard's incredulity toward metanarratives can't really push forward if there is gnosticism at its core. Otherwise, it's merely another way of pushing a metanarrative.

With that in mind, perhaps it is in the interest of a postmodern eschatology to strip away the details of the Christian metanarrative (I do see it as a metanarrative). The resulting statement, in layman's terms, might be something like, "The end is coming, but I don't know how, when, why, or from what source." The remaining core idea might be something like nihilism, but it need not be ethically void. Without the limitations of "how, when, why, or from what source," the eschatological event can--and probably must be--an ongoing event to the postmodern Christian. This may be something like the position Paul was writing from, but I don't know enough about his letters to make a sure statement about that. Regardless, if the eschatological event is ultimately unknown, it can be seen in the vagaries of colonial occupation, war, neglect of the most neglected, and on and on. God's judgment becomes constant and, therefore, something that cannot be avoided through acts like penance, conversion, or deathbed confession. The pertinent feeling, then, would not be remorse over unavoided sin but aversion to sin before it is committed.

This probably includes a lot of misunderstood concepts from Christian thought, and I would love it if you corrected my understanding. You've posed a really interesting question.

This is really interesting, but I'm curious about a couple of things. First, I have no firsthand experience with Moltmann's writings so this may be a dumb question, but how can the Christian narrative not be a totalized narrative? Secondly-- is a postmodern eschatology the actual breakdown of the metanarrative/metalanguage, or is it something else?

I spent quite a bit of time reading Moltmann's work over the summer. While I haven't exhausted his corpus completely just yet, I think I can say with some degree of confidence that, unfortunately, he ultimately comes down on the side of totalization (though he would hardly speak of it in those terms). That makes his statement above all the more interesting, but it seems that he doesn't really unpack it or comment on it much more.

What I'm trying to do is exactly what you state, to theologize in the wake of the delegitimization of the metanarrative. And I'd like to find a way to speak of eschatology from that vantage point. I'm slowly beginning to realize why no one else -- at least as far as I know -- has touched it yet...

So do you disagree with Moltmann, or do you just wish he had found a way not to come down on the side of totalization? I guess this has me wondering if the delegitimization of the metanarrative can actually be an eschatology. It would seem that any eschatology would, at the very least, incorporate an historical regression or progression, yes? And of course this, in its very essence, would be a metanarrative?

thanks blake! this has to be the most important question that is getting little or no airplay like a good punk rock b-side, eschatology grits and contains our truly deep resounding questions... with only harsh realities for answers... the consistent imagery of John's Vision seems to be first the lamb then the white horse... and i think the same echoes for us... i think moltmann's quote speaks truth back into a people looking once again in a victor separated from a cross... i want to side with your earlier argument about metanarrative and pray that at least it is an "expansive-narrative" a genre blending people defying movement that builds for itself its own identity and not one based in myth or singular identity...

I like that -- "expansive-narrative." I was just re-reading Lyotard this morning and once you get the sound of the critics charging him with pure nihilism out of your head, I think he allows for the possible of something just like this.

i guess anything to avoid the "trajectory trap" (not that i think it is a terrible perspective but is problematic for some)...

expansive-
it just seems to fit inline with scripture to see God's grace as a growing tide as time progresses which also seems to smack in the face of both election and free choice...

Blake,

Wrong question.

When discussing ANY Biblical topic, especially one as important as the study of the Last Day, You must first begin IN the Word of God. Those Things that God has revealed about the Last Day and the time of the end stands all by itself and must be studied apart from any preconceived post-modern ideas about 'totalizing narratives'. After all, the Biblical text was written long before Post-Modernism was ever conceived of.

What does the Text Say? What did God the Holy Spirit Reveal? How Does What the Holy Spirit revealed in the Text of Scripture challenge the ideas that I have about God and How I think He operates? What ideas about God and the End does scripture require me to repent of? ... these are first and foremost the questions that need to be asked and definitively answered and those answers are found no where else than in the inerrant and inspired text of scripture and those answers were true LONG before Post-Modernism made its appearance on the stage of history.

Hey Chris, thanks for the pushback. I get what you're saying but I don't think it is quite that simple. In the first place, I think it is impossible for anyone to simple "begin in the text" or pose the question "what does the text say?" I don't think the text or us as readers exist in a vacuum. To be sure, this doesn't mean I don't take the text seriously, on the contrary I would argue that such an admission demands that we take it very seriously and allow it to challenge us. But it is much more complex than approaching it as a "blank slate," so to speak. I think that is impossible.

Anyway, I think all this will basically come back to how each of us view the authority of the text. I believe it is inspired yes, but hardly inerrant or infallible. I've written some on this in the past (though I've changed my mind a bit since then). My most recent thinking on revelation and authority can be found here. Thanks again for the feedback.