(Ir)religiosity

Introduction:  Getting Clear on What You (Really) Believe

Philip Clayton, director of the Transforming Theology Project and professor of theology at Claremont School of Theology, and collaborator Tripp Fuller — of Homebrewed Christianity fame — open their new book Transforming Christian Theology with some pretty bold claims.

Theology is in crisis.  Well, not theology per se, but the ways in which we theologize are inadequate and lacking.  To this end, Clayton observes that “many Christians no longer know how to talk about their faith” (1) because they simple do not not what it is they believe theologically.

Clayton believe this is a paralyzing problem that is rooted in the they ways theology is presenting, taught, and formulated.  Academic theologians seem more interesting in attending conferences, commenting on one another’s papers, and reading their books — in other words, doing an unhealthy amount of navel-gazing — than they are in dialoging with churches and faith collectives, where the theological rubber meets the road of the world.  In Clayton’s accounting, “academic theology by itself [isn't] enough to carry the future of the church” and isn’t going to “help us rethink what ‘church’ means in this radically new world” (3).  Put another way, theology needs to be liberated from being consigned to the ivory towers alone if it stands a chance in democratizing and flattening age of Google and social networking¹  Or, to be even more radical: professional theologians need to stop talking about theology and start doing theology (and listening to those who have been doing theology all along).

Following John Cobb’s thinking in Reclaiming the Church, Clayton maintains that the problem — the reason why we have such a huge gap between the church and the academy at present — is the professionalization of theology, a gesture which has led those in the pews to believe that the responsibility of Christian thought lies with the seminary professors, while those in the ivory towers have allowed theology to evolve into just one more academic discipline among the rest — another science, in other words.  The deeper problem, of course, is that our pastors and minister go to seminary and learn how to do theology from these ‘professionals.’  So we find ourselves in the midst of a self-perpetuating circle.  And the result — or at least one of the results — is the decline of mainline Protestantism.  Clearly, the status quo is not working.

This has to change.  And, as an academic theologian, Clayton believes he and others have a responsibility to change the face of public theological discourse.  This had led to him to change his method of teaching and — this is what surprised me most — led him to the realization that he “can no longer publish books that are written primarily for specialists.”  Indeed, Clayton states that this book marks a new era for him, of writing for a broader audience. And his hope is that other academics will follow suit.

The aim of the bulk of the book, then, is to articulate a way for practitioners to theologize that is not wholly academic and yet not “dogmatic, divisive, or relativistic” (7).  This, Clayton believes, will radically reshape not only theology as a discourse, but the shape of the church itself.

As I mentioned before, that an academic theologian is taking up such a task is exciting and refreshing to me.  This is precisely what we need:  academics rolling up their sleeves and jumping into the trenches with the rest of  us.  Yet, I still find myself questioning (and I hope this will be answered as I move through the book) whether complete resignation from academic discourse will be all that helpful.  Let me be clear:  I am not arguing for the status quo.  We clearly have a problem.  And maybe I am taking Clayton’s statements too far here, but I tend to think that theoretical theology is important and indeed vital for the larger enterprise.  To be sure, I do think there needs to be a more porous relationship between church and academy, between theory and practice.  As one who is intending to be working in both the academy and the church and tends to be more theoretically minded I think we still need great thinkers like Clayton to produce high-octane academic works but with the intention of those works being translated into the vernacular of particular faith collectives and not for the sake of garnering some intellectual brownie points from academic peers.  If that is what Clayton means when he says he will be changing the way he writes, then I am all for it.  I just wonder if we actually need more pop-theology books out there.  I’m not saying that is what Clayton’s future work would amount to, it just seems that he is in a particularly important place with gifts for a certain area that is vital — though in much need of revitalization — for the church.

Thoughts?

Be sure to check out these other theo-bloggers!

Joseph Weethee , Jonathan Bartlett, The Church Geek, Jacob’s Cafe, Reverend Mommy, Steve Knight, Todd Littleton, Christina Accornero, John David Ryan, LeAnn Gunter Johns, Chase Andre, Matt Moorman, Gideon Addington, Ryan Dueck, Rachel Marszalek, Amy Moffitt, Josh Wallace, Jonathan Dodson, Stephen Barkley, Monty Galloway, Colin McEnroe, Tad DeLay, David Mullens, Kimberly Roth, Tripp Hudgins, Tripp Fuller, Greg Horton, Andrew Tatum, Drew Tatusko, Sam Andress, Susan Barnes, Jared Enyart, Jake Bouma, Eliacin Rosario-Cruz, Blake Huggins, Lance Green, Scott Lenger, Dan Rose, Thomas Turner, Les Chatwin, Joseph Carson, Brian Brandsmeier, J. D. Allen, Greg Bolt, Tim Snyder, Matthew L. Kelley, Carl McLendon, Carter McNeese, David R. Gillespie, Arthur Stewart, Tim Thompson, Joe Bumbulis, Bob Cornwall

This Tour is Sponsored by Transforming Theology DOT org!

1. Clayton actually practices what he preaches in this respect.  He blogs from time to time and not only responds to commenters but reads other bloggers as well.  Imagine that!  An academic actually engaging with the real world! [↩]

Philosophy, as logocentrism, is present in every scientific discipline and the only justification for transforming philosophy into a specialized discipline is the necessity to render explicit and thematic the philosophical subtext in every discourse. The principal function which the teaching of philosophy serves is to enable people to become ‘conscious’, to become aware of what exactly they are saying, what kind of discourse they are engaged in when they do mathematics, physics, political economy, and so on.  There is no system of teaching or transmitting knowledge which can retain its coherence or integrity without, at one moment or another, interrogating itself philosophically that is, without acknowledging its subtextual premises; and this may even include an interrogation of unspoken political interests or traditional values. From such an interrogation each society draws its own conclusions about the worth of philosophy.

–Jacques Derrida, States of Mind, 165.

Substitute (or supplement) “philosophy” and “society” with “theology” and “church” and this is precisely why I believe that academic theology is so important.  Because without it all of the tacit, implicit, and sub-level practical theologies — whether they be good, bad, healthy or destructive — remain unnamed, unchallenged, and are never critically examined.  The church must take seriously the work of academic theological discourse.  Likewise, the academics must — must! — see to it that they are in serious and intentional dialogue with the communities and collectives that take them seriously.  We need more church folk reading serious theology and more theologians talking to people in the pew.  Better yet, we need more of those rare persons who occupy the liminal and transient space between the church and the academy.

This is precisely the aim of Philip Clayton (and Tripp Fuller’s) new book, Transforming Christian Theology. Consider this post a prolegomena to my engagement with that book.  I have had it for a while and been busy with other things and I have only just begun to really get into it but I will say this:  it is refreshing and deeply encouraging to see a prominent academic theologian taking this seriously.

I don’t know what to make of Burger King’s latest ad campaign.  It’s abductive, that’s for sure.  But I can’t help but find it at least a bit arrogant and maybe even culturally imperialistic.  Here’s one of the original commercial that aired a few weeks ago.

It sure got my attention when I first saw it.  Another ad with basically the same format wonders if other “Whopper Virgins,” this time Transylvanian farmers, will chose, as have Americans, the Whopper over the Big Mac.  Even more interesting  is the mini-documentary that Burger King has released on its new “Whopper Virgins” website.

They tried pretty hard to make it seems pure and innocent there toward the end, but I’m not convinced.  The way the whole thing has been marketed, starting with the name — Whopper Virgins, conjuring up sexual imagery that unnecessarily marginalizes those it is applied to  — seems to suggest that these people are just another means to the larger end of promoting Burger King around the globe and raking in more cash that will ultimately be bequeathed to the new transnational empire of consumer capitalism.  And I don’t for a second think that benefits the Transylvanian farmer or the Thai peasant.  It just uses and abuses them — making them the punchline for yet another cutthroat marketing scheme.  Sure, it’s ingenious, but it’s also, in my opinion, immoral.

Maybe I’m way off base here, but I just think that the resources used to fund, manage, and implement this project could be put to much better use in way that doesn’t orientalize or exoticize persons in other cultures.  We don’t need more people in service to American hegemony, transnational corporations, or global consumer capitalism; we need more people to actually take the time to learn about other cultures and communities and intentionally look for creative ways to help local economies.

What do you think?  Does this cross the line, or is just another harmless ad campaign?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Burger King under fire for Whopper Virgins taste test challenge
• BK Ads Flame-Broiled in Controversy
• Cultural Arrogance or Brilliant Marketing?
• We’re no Whopper Virgins
• Whopper Virgins: it doesn’t get much more offensive than this

I mean…I like ketchup and fries, but that just sounds gross.