The Beauty of the Inifinite: I
David Bentley Hart has been called "the best living American systematic theologian" by John Milbank (leader of the Radical Orthodoxy school) and his magnus opum is The Beauty of the Infinite, a "systematic theology" for the post-post-modern times we live in. I would like to chronicle my reading of this incredible text, picking out points I found particularly profound or interesting. Thus my first comment about this text:
In discussing Butlmann's de-mystification of the Christian faith, Hart makes the following comment:
"Such a scheme [Bultmann's demythologizing] can allow no real distinictions; everything that does not fit - whether it is as fabulous as the story of Eden or as complex as the story of the incarnation - is shrugger off with equal impatience, leaving nothing behind but this closed continuum of causality - and causality, manifestly, does not save." (Hart, 22-23)
"Causality, manifestly, does not save." I don't think we talk enough about the lack of future that our universe gives us without the story of God in Christ (note: God in "itself" does not mean redemption of any kind for creation, only the Christian conception brings this robust meaning). I am reminded of a lecture Sir John Polkinghorne gave discussing the destiny of the universe. Physics tells us pretty plainly that there are two possibilities: either the universe will expand until everything is so far away that it is cold and dead, or the universe will crash back in on itself in a termenbous show of fireworks. Either way, the end is not pretty (although it might be beautiful).
This is what the non-Christian story tells us, and since the majority of people in the world are not Christians, they must admit to this fate, whether they like it or not. It may be far off (billions of years), but this notion of cosmic end must inspire a real sense of nihilism or a Stoic sensibility of fate. Spirit-redemptive religions (such as Islam or Buddhism as far as I can tell) might get past this, but the idea of leaving creation behind without us has to go against every serious human instinct: we are creatures, why should we be allowed to continue without something of creation? The responsibility to creation around us must have more than a temporary significance, if we are to be eternal, there must be a continuity with creation. How do we move forward?
I think this is one place among many where the Christian story can have more power (and beauty) than any other story. For creation is not destined to die, it is not ultimitely destined for cold or hot execution. We as Christians believe that the same God who set the stars in motion is also the one to redeem them; not just our "souls" but all of creation around us. This story seems to trump both the materialist end (does anyone really think we are randomly ridding on a rock for 90 years and then it is over?) and the spiritualist end (surely we are not alone in the future, what would that even mean?). I think we as Christians should be more vocal about our future redemption, one that redeems all creation, creatures high and low, then we are at present.
Causality truly can not save, but through Jesus Christ we have been reconciled to God, and the whole world with us. Soli Deo Gloria!
posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer @ 7:30 pm
12 comments
12 Comments:
"I think we as Christians should be more vocal about our future redemption, one that redeems all creation, creatures high and low, then we are at present."
That's a great point, and I think it highlights one of the more existential aspects of Christianity: like you said, that the story doesn't end when we die. This is tangential to your post, but the flip side of this aspect is also important: that Christ sets us free from our sinful past, and that we don't have to be defined by what we WERE or what we USED TO DO. Put these pillars together, and you've got--well, two pillars, but an explanation of the multi-directional nature of our relationship with God.
Look at you getting all post-modern.
Yeah, that's a great point, Chuck, but it brings with it the necessary existentialist assumption that we're defined by what we do in any sense. I think this is the same as what you've meant and only a little more abstracted, but I think it's important to note that neither what we've done or do or will do defines us - not just things in the past, but things present and future as well. Existentialism asserts that there is no such thing as abstract bravery in cowards - if you run in combat, you're a coward, and if you stand and fight, you're brave, by definition. Christianity asserts, as ridiculous as it sounds, that cowards can still be brave, and that sinners are saints. Weird.
I've got to take some issue with this:
"This is what the non-Christian story tells us, and since the majority of people in the world are not Christians, they must admit to this fate, whether they like it or not."
Despite appearing to get PM here Hansy, you're bringing in a lot of modernism in this assertion. The crux of PM as I understand it seems to state that no one has to admit anything, and that's why modernists find it so damnably frustrating to deal with. A modernist would say that logic and deductive reasoning would lead you to understand that the universe is heading towards destruction and re-interpret your life in light of that fact. A real post-modernist doesn't HAVE to give a damn what your logic (or anyone elses) says the universe is going to become. This argument does an excellent job of showing the darker side of materialism (the philosphy) but really skirts the issue of post-modernism altogether.
In the case of spirituality, I think post-modernism is most objectively seen as a difference in emphasis: a modernist would explain why belief in redeemable creation is subjectively satisfying based on the logical argument that the universe is going to burn out or implode, while a post-modern Christian would argue that belief in Christ is the only way to make sense of your story and live with yourself, to give definition to your personality and a meaningful context through which to interpret and accept yourself and the world around you despite your shortcomings (more along the lines of what Chuck was saying.) I say "objectively" because I think this is post-modernism itself molded with Christianity apart from other philosophies that tend to get meshed in with it, like relativism, since they are so easily compatible with (but not inherent in) post-modernism's de-emphasis on the correspondance theory of truth. Am I right?
Your analysis seems good to me, redhurt. Post-modernism wedded to Christianity means that we emphasize stories and context, not that we chuck everything "objective" out the window just because Rorty or Lyotard wants to.
I understand your critique of what I said: certainly, Sartre would say that there is no "essential" braveness in anyone who, at any time, runs from danger. I just want to assert, and I think that you would agree with me, that people constantly need to be reminded that what they have done does not need to dictate what they will do. We want to tell people over and over again to transcend their circumstances, their pain, their relationships, their drug use, whatever. That's all I meant. I didn't mean to go down to the Sartre's Existentialism Shop and clean out the place.
Redhurt - excellent point about postmodernism (may I just say it was charles who brought up the postmodernism, not me) and my discussion. I quite agree that according to "postmodernism", there is no logical conclusion (maybe no conclusion?). The end of the world narrative demands obedience for materialists, but certainly has little to say to a "postmodernist". Although I think a definition of postmodernist might be appropriate at some point (someone incredulous to metanarratives?). Certainly I do not think materialism and postmodernism need to be exclusive, just as modernism and Christian need not be exclusive. So maybe we are just talking past each other. If "postmodernist" meant someone who didn't give a damn about logic, then clearly end of the world makes no difference. But maybe that person is a nihilist, not only a postmodernist. Otherwise we could not be postmodernists and be Christians (Divine Wisdom is the Logos, or Jesus Christ according to John), and I think many of us find some comfort in the postmodern camp, at least until it dies away.
In short, I don't think postmodernism needs to eschew logic, I doubt that is even possible (they certainly have a reason for removing reason, right?). If you are going to make sense and tell the story of the universe through the scientific model (and maybe postmoderns don't ever use that model in any sense) then you have to use its conclusions. Someone can say "I refuse to admit that eating 500 doughnuts a day will make me gain weight", but reality would certainly force him/her to reconsider what it means to "refuse to admit."
Charles - thanks for the comments, I like the existentialist emphasis - actions are important. It would be interesting to bring in a discussion of original sin and make use of that. Does is somehow define us? Aren't we defined by sin until we are defined by the Holy Spirit? Note the nod to your thinking through content and template use.
Yes, we are defined by sin until the Holy Spirit sets us free. I certainly agree to that. You and I have diverged in the past, however, on how explicitly that concept needs to be pointed out to those to whom we are appealing. For example, I think that there are some to whom the more abstract concept of sin will appeal; there are others who it will drive away. To the latter camp you can simply cite specific instances of "sin"--relationship problems, drug use, whathaveyou.
Chuck, I completely agree. Good then.
Hansel, I took issue with you on the post-modern deal not only because Chuck brought it in, but because you said you're book was applicable in the post-post-modern times we're living in. I don't know how to define "post-modern" well enough to know if we're out of it or not. Still, you later presented your end of the world argument as one to which non-Christians must respond with either nihilism or stoicism. I disagreed citing post-modern non-Christians as having the third option of not giving a damn, in which case post-modern Christians have a better challenge for them.
I guess I do disagree with you that post-modernism is dead. I want to read more about your Radical Orthodoxy thing. I read the first few paragraphs in the article you have linked, and I must say it hit the nail on the head as far as my perceptions have gone. It seems like just another religious fad - just another attempt at "renewing" everything or a fanciful but insubstantial method of refuting late modern theology (barth, tillich, etc.) It seems to me that since modernism, post-modernism is the only "big thing" that's really stuck as far as ideas that gain currency. Post-modern Christianity and theology dodge the issues and arguments raised by the late modern theologians by changing our emphasis without having to revert to some sort of ancient mysticism or pre-enlightenment orthodoxy. Your personal love of Calvinism, Anglicanism, doctrine and ritual in general has lead me to assume Radical Orthodoxy is just that - a doctrinal refutation of modern (modern times - barth and tillich - not modern minded) philosophy/theology. What I really feel like I need, and what I feel like this generation needs, is a more post-modern approach that doesn't rely on antiquated systems (or systematic theologies) but rather openly acknowledges God's silence and our lack of understanding and changes the emphasis then from proving or explaining faith and focusing instead on the narrative and relational aspects of Christianity, and how it brings meaning to life. Inherent in this is an understanding and greater focus on grace, and how it allows us to live with ourselves and define ourselves apart from our actions (as Chuck has said). I see this as something only post-modernism is offering. If Radical Orthodoxy does, perhaps you could devote a few posts to explaining what it is and what it has to say?
I feel like I should explain what I mean by "openly acknowledges God's silence". Modern evangelicalism, directly descending from traditional orthodoxy and firm doctrinal precepts, is focused on systems. If you do this, then that will happen. For ages there's been a widespread belief that if we do not experience religion in the manner we expect, such as answers to prayers, then the problem is with us, and we need better prayers or better lives or to read and buy better books on praying and living to "make this god thing work." I am instead implying that God rarely responds in the way we expect and religion rarely works in the way we seem to think it should. I summarized these ideas by the phrase "God's silence."
This comment might not belong here (as it might make a better post, or...book) but I thought I'd try to help set some parameters for this discussion and offer some definitions.
I usually bristle when people refer to our times as "post-modern," because it usually means 1) they have a specific axe to grind or 2) they're presupposing all sorts of claims I'd consider debatable. The times aren't that post-modern for the new Indian capitalists; or for Mexican immigrants; or for Chinese communists; or even for many red-state Americans. The times are post-modern for heads of departments in American and European universities, as opposed to back in the day, when Bertrand Russell and David Hume couldn't get posts they wanted because they were too subjective for their times.
The intellectual landscape is certainly different today, but I believe that's in part because of the new openness of 21st century democracies. If you want to be objective, hard, cold and logical, you can be a math or comp sci grad student; if not, you can be an English or philosophy grad student. Stephen Wolfram is redefining science, and Richard Rorty continues his crusade against the appearance/reality distinction.
I wrote this on redhurt's blog; here it is again:
My only quibble with you is minor. You wrote (and bolded): "people don't like systems anymore." This means that either people who are alive now used to like systems and don't anymore, or people from the past liked systems, and our generation doesn't. I don't think this is true, if only because most people in the past were too busy farming and dying in childbirth to consider anything systematically. Certainly, Newton, Leibniz, Kant and Russell weren't like Derrida, Rorty, or Hauerwas; but those names represent the cutting edge of brilliance, the second group elites in our time and the first unparalleled in theirs. So the shift seems to me to be taking place among the intellectuals, and we're only now getting a lot of people into the debate.
I stand by that.
Lyotard defined post-modernism as "suspicion of meta-narratives," and I think we are; I just don't think most people are. Most people rely on tradition and are pretty certain of what they think they know. Another useful, more simple way of defining post-modernism is to say "emphasis of the subjective side of things." That seems to hold true across the board.
The problem is that post-modernism doesn't "begin" with Nietzsche, or really anyone; there have been post-modern strains since there has been writing. Pascal did not share the confidence of his generation; Alasdair Macintyre does not share the subjectivism of ours.
And, in spite of all that, I STILL agree with redhurt that our approach as Christians should be post-modern, even if all this means is "a different approach to every situation, a differen solution to each problem."
Okay, this comment is totally out of control and incoherent, but I'm posting it anyway--hopefully someone will be able to get something out of it.
The Red and Charles, thank you for your comments. This post is getting out of hand and off into new realms, so I will get a new one out dealing specifically with these questions. First:
Red Hurt: I totally agree with our need to be "postmodern" in Christianity and I think Radical Orthodoxy has an incredible response to it, working as an acceptance and critique, not from a modern perspective (RO hates the Enlightenment) but speaking in postmodern categories and all the time focusing on the Gospel message. I will suspend the BofI and work on explaining the joys of RO and why I think it is an amazing project today.
Charles: Thanks for the definitions in the posts, I quite agree with most of them. My only comment (and I bet you really agree with this) is that even though most people don't "buy" into postmodernism explicitly, they all are more inclined and indebted to it that then could imagine. Example: I was watching TV yesterday and there was a commercial for car tires that juxtaposted the tire and two sexy couples making out with eachother. Now that is quintessential postmodernism if you ask me, something that would never be found on Leave it to Beaver. So maybe most people aren't "metaphysical postmoderns", but they are definitely "cultural postmoderns." Whether they believe it or not, we all live in a different world, emphasising the subjective side of life.
Thanks for your posts, I didn't know a fundamentalist blog could get such insightful comments.
I don't see how "sex sells" is a post-modern slogan, but if it is, I think we can trace the first post-moderns back to ancient Greece, where all sorts of eroticism was used to sell everthing from cook ware to drinking glasses to furniature to slaves. By your definition of an amoral culture, Greece, the foundation of western thought and modernism, is also the most post modern nation ever, probably beating out even Rome. So I disagree that your commercials imply much of relevance here, but I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment
<< Home