The Biblical Story of Inclusion of Who Belongs As God's People

Gay Christians: Should Relationships Matter?

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2015/06/09/gay-christians-should-relationships-matter/

by Daniel Kirk

June 9, 2015

Certain kinds of people simply cannot be part of the people of God.

Making such a judgment is not based on bigotry. It is simply based on the story of God in which the people of God are defined in particular ways. These definitions demand that some are out while others are in.

Canaanite Transformation

Take the Canaanites.

This is a blanket term for the people living in the land that God gave to the people of Israel through the wars of Joshua. They are excluded from participation in the people of God.

One way they were so excluded is in multiple warnings not to allow daughters and sons to intermarry with these indigenous peoples. Such liaisons might lead the Israelites astray to worship gods other than Yahweh (YHWH).

But there is only one way to make sure that no such commingling occurs: kill them all:

“You must devote them to complete destruction,” says

Deuteronomy 7:2. Make no covenant. Show no mercy.

So when a Canaanite woman from the hill country comes up to Jesus, a woman evocative of the remnant of the Canaanites that Israel couldn’t quite seem to root out–he rightly rejects her.

Jesus rejects her not because of bigotry, but because the Word of God has assigned her a place in the story. She cannot belong.

She wants an exorcism: “Lord! Son of David! My daughter is badly demon possessed!”

Jesus rebuffs her: “I was only sent to the sheep. To the House of Israel.”

She continues, “Lord, help me!”

Jesus rebuffs her again, “Look, dog. It is not right take bread from the children and throw it to such as you.”

Ouch. Jesus knows her place. And so, it would seem, does she.

"Yes Lord. And, even the dogs eat from the crumbs that fall from the tables of their masters.”

And then, finally, he relents. Finally he is willing to extend transgressive grace. Finally he is willing to allow that this woman who by all biblical rights should be excluded and even killed, might be embraced in the onslaught of the kingdom of which Jesus, Son of David, is king.

“Oh woman! Great is your faith! Let it be as you wish.” And her daughter was healed.

You see, the strangest things happen when we actually know real people. We start to discover that those whom we thought were beyond the pale of God’s grace and mercy might actually be entrusting themselves to it at that very moment. And that relationship has the power to change us.

Yes, I would say it had the power to change Jesus. As Jesus was in the midst of inaugurating the reign of God, and discovering in the process who would and who would not be a part, he found rather against his will that the grace of God could not be cordoned off from even the Canaanites.

Jesus was changed, not because he had been a bigot, but because a relationship showed him that the kingdom of God was not contained as he had previously imagined.

The story had changed.

The Embrace of the Gentiles

Of course, if Jesus can be at the center of this kind of transformation, his followers certainly can as well.

When God made covenant with Abraham, God was quite clear: the only way, at all, ever, to be part of the people of God is to be circumcised.

If anyone remains uncircumcised?

He “will be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”

— God

But this was only for a time, right?

“My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.”

Forever.

You don’t get to eat the defining meal of the people, Passover, without being circumcised.

So Jewish people might be excused for thinking that their exclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles is not a matter of bigotry. It’s a matter of principled adherence to the Word of God.

But then… the kingdom of God bursts beyond the bounds of the circumcised.

Peter has a vision, yes. But it is when he musters the courage to go, to relate to a Gentile, and then observes that God has accepted them through the gift of the Spirit that Peter is finally converted.

In that personal interaction, Peter sees that God has worked. And he no longer can hold to his own position. Not because he was a bigot, but because a new moment has arrived in the story.

Paul will say a similar thing in Galatians. “You received the Spirit. God worked miracles among you.” Their experience tells them that they don’t have to be circumcised, don’t have to keep food laws, to be part of the people of God.

In the unfolding narrative of God and [of] who belongs to God’s people, the move from exclusion to [becoming] embraced has been marked by the inclusion of those who had previously been excluded due to the theology, principles, and narrative of scripture.

[What About] Homosexuality?

In his review of two books that argue for full inclusion of gays and lesbians into the people of God, Tim Keller asserts that if a person’s position on inclusion is influenced by relationships then their opposition was based on bigotry.

And when I see people discarding their older beliefs that homosexuality is sinful after engaging with loving, wise, gay people, I’m inclined to agree that those earlier views were likely defective. In fact, they must have been essentially a form of bigotry. They could not have been based on theological or ethical principles, or on an understanding of historical biblical teaching. They must have been grounded instead on a stereotype of gay people as worse sinners than others (which is itself a shallow theology of sin.)

This is simply untrue.

The history of God’s people is one in which we have cultivated deep and rich theological positions based on the principles and teachings of scripture, only to have God demonstrate that those principles have to be abandoned because it is a new moment in the story.

Opposition to inclusion of Canaanites and the uncircumcised isn’t based on bigotry, theologically–God underscores that Israel is no better than the rest, but God chose them anyway.

And yet these theological and ethical principles were overcome by the grace of God and the surprising eruption of the Kingdom of God.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Experience Matters (i.e. The Wesleyans are Right)

We should never imagine that the fact that relationships change our theology indicates a weakness in our theology or ethics.

On the contrary, we should question any theology or ethics that does not change in the face of relationships. This is what it means to be both human in general and a part of the body of Christ in particular.

It is easy to hold forth unwavering strength as the sign of integrity and correctness, but such strength has sometimes been the strong pillar around which the unstoppable flow of the kingdom has poured forth.

Keller makes five or so arguments against the books he is reviewing. I will probably touch on his review a bit more, because it’s getting some good traffic, makes a couple of good points, and makes a couple of points that perhaps enable people to too quickly find relief in their cherished position being upheld.

The argument against experience falls into this latter category. It is precisely the experience of gay Christians, loving, faithful, and full of the Spirit, that should make us wonder if we have been wrongly continuing to draw lines of demarcation that God has begun to take down. Experience alone cannot answer this question (here, too, the Wesleyans are right!).

But we cannot allow a pious-sounding appeal to a theology or ethics that lies, allegedly, outside of experience to keep us from exploring the significance of what we have learned in relationship with those who, alongside us, address Jesus as the promised son of David and Lord of heaven and earth.

* * * * * * * * *

Select Comments

Don Bromley says:

June 9, 2015 at 10:21 am

I’ve seen this argument offered before, by Ken Wilson and others, that they are following the way of Wesley in valuing Experience along with Tradition, Scripture, and Reason. But John Wesley was always absolutely clear that the foundation of his religious discernment resided in Scripture. John Wesley wrote:

“This is a lantern unto a Christian’s feet, and a light in all his paths. This alone he receives as his rule of right or wrong, of whatever is really good or evil. He esteems nothing good, but what is here enjoined, either directly or by plain consequence, he accounts nothing evil but what is here forbidden, either in terms, or by undeniable inference. Whatever the Scripture neither forbids nor conjoins, either directly or by plain consequence, he believes to be of an indifferent nature; to be in itself neither good nor evil; this being the whole and sole outward rule whereby his conscience is to be directed in all things.”

— From the Sermon #12 “The Witness of Our Own Spirit.”

Reply

J. R. Daniel Kirk says:

June 9, 2015 at 10:25 am

No doubt. That’s why the first 2/3 of the post are scriptural exegesis! But it is quite easy for folks committed to scripture to be dismissive of narratives that begin with a person’s experience of gay Christians, and it’s important for those of us who hold scripture in such high esteem to recognize the place that experience always has in our theologizing, and has always held in the church’s assessments of right and wrong.

---

Don Bromley says:

June 9, 2015 at 10:30 am

N. T. Wright wrote an excellent essay that relates very much to this discussion: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Communion_Koinonia.htm

He specifically addresses the comparison of the gay/straight distinction to the Gentile/Jew distinction:

“We need to make a clear distinction between the aspects of a culture which Paul regards as morally neutral and those which he regards as morally, or immorally, loaded. And we need to note carefully what Paul’s reaction is when someone disagrees at either side of his balance. When Peter and the others tried to insist on keeping their Jewish distinctives, i.e. only eating with other circumcised people, in Antioch, Paul resisted him to his face. The word ‘tolerance’ runs out of steam at this point. What mattered was the gospel, the message of the cross, the doctrine of justification by faith, the promises to Abraham, the single family God intended to create in the Spirit. Like a great chess player, Paul saw all those pieces on the board threatened by this one move of Peter’s to insist on maintaining Jewish boundary-markers, and he moved at once to head it off. And when someone disagreed with Paul’s clear rules on immorality or angry disputes, the matters he deals with in Colossians 3.5-10, he is equally firm, as we see dramatically in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. There is no place in the Christian fellowship for such practices and for such a person. Not for one minute does he contemplate saying, ‘some of us believe in maintaining traditional taboos on sexual relations within prescribed family limits, others think these are now irrelevant in Christ, so both sides must respect the other.’ He says, ‘throw him out’.”

Reply

J. R. Daniel Kirk says:

June 9, 2015 at 10:35 am

Yes, I do think Wright onto something. But it is also important to note that the inclusion of Gentiles meant a redefinition of what it meant to be a “sinner”: “We are Jews by nature, not sinners from among the Gentiles.” Inclusion in the people of God changed how you knew a sinner when you saw one. In this case, paradoxically, it meant upholding Torah.

As I’ve written about in the past, I do think that upholding sexual standards is a huge component of Christian ethics / morality. And I do think that inclusion of homosexuals in the church has, at times, come with the abandonment of all but the most pedestrian of sexual mores. That’s a problem.

Standing with the Oppressed When It's the Right Thing To Do

What if I said, "Not all gays are homosexual?" Could this be true, not true, false, or not false? If so, in what sense?

Or, what if I said, "Not all heterosexuals are lustful?" Again, could this be true, not true, false, or not false? And if so, in what sense?

When we make blanket statements from de facto positions of self-assurance we end up getting into all kinds of trouble with our theology. I don't think theology is meant to be led out with de facto statements because if it were then it wouldn't be theology any longer. No, it would be a kind of doctrine that was limited to a church group's surmise of what they think theology is when in fact it is popular statements of dogma that would be either "more or less true" or  "more or less false."

In the Bible, dogmas are not good things. They become folk religions or popular cultural assessments informing bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and discrimination which lead to all kinds of oppression from gut-wrenching demurring statements spoken from self-serving calloused lips to the nasty kind of harmful evil that any Christian can be motivated to commit when forgetting God's grace through Jesus' example of humility, service, and mercy.

If you notice in the pictures below you'll observe happy, sun-filled scenes of smiling people filled with a bountiful fulfilling sense of being right and content and satisfied about themselves and their beliefs. What those pictures don't show is the red-mask of the devil hiding within those smiling faces fashioned with horns of wickedness and forked tails of evilness hiding all those happy smiles of contentedness and bliss in the sunny lands of self-serving theology.

In the hearts of the oppress these are the kinds of pictures they see when "good-intentioned" people step forward to speak of their faith and beliefs behind a bible (little "b") that is laced with popularly-spoken limitations and graceless boundaries of God's judgemental wrath. And when it's politicized more is it to be feared for the wickedness that it will bring.

No, for the oppressed, the demeaned, the hated, the outcast, the unwanted, these pictures are hell itself forewarning the evil to come spun in webs of self-righteousness and self-centeredness propelling prideful lusts believing one to be right and not wrong. For if one is wrong then one must repent. And a self-righteous person is all about pride and legalism. Of proving themselves worthy of God by fighting God's battles for Him in the rage of hate-filled hearts.

Let us be clear as the beloved of God that the Bible speaks closely of these kinds of people throughout its holy script. Of a people who are not God's people who have deceived and lied to themselves about their spiritually-centered truths fashioned so vilely and hatefully. Let us understand that to be a people of God we must lead out not with vile judgments but with God-filled love and truth. There is as deep a difference in this saying as there is in the opening two statements we began with in this article.

The church will always struggle with the evils of pride and prideful judgment. It would be naive to think that it won't. So too will popular pastors and Christian speakers struggle with the same as they are moved by the fearing intent of their congregants and followers. Rather than leading in courage and boldness they slink into cowardly positions of prejudice and hate.

However, to be a people of God is to do the unpopular thing as Jesus did who stood with the despised outcasts of His society to bring healing and God's grace to the parched and thirsty souls of the unwanted. He ministered to those believed unloved and condemned by God by the "church crowd" when at the last, it was the very souls of God's undiscerning (and misled) people who laid upon the lime pits of their wretched faith.

Let us then think on Jesus and not on our graceless doctrines and the untruthful lies flying about our heads and from our unchastened lips. God's people are a right and just people who must seek out injustice wherever it is to bring peace and justice, hope and healing, to a fractured world filled with rage and hate. Amen and amen.

R.E. Slater

June 29, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * *


Fav Talking Points & Christian Stereotypes
of Gays in a Struggle for Civil Rights

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong

http://www.eatliver.com/gay-marriage-is-wrong/yiJ.99

America Lights Up in a Rainbow of Colors After Gay Marriage Ruling

People hold balloon letters reading "Love wins" in front of the White House lightened in the rainbow colors

in Washington on June 26, 2015. The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide

right, a landmark decision in one of the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking

scenes of jubilation.(Photo: MLADEN ANTONOV, AFP/Getty Images)

Here is a powerful statement both to ourselves in America as well as to the world. I

am in hopes the oppression, the sufferings, the vilification of the LGBT community

might  be reduced by this concerted action between the Supreme Court of the United

States and the Presidential branch. - R.E. Slater, 6.26.2015

The White House is blanketed in rainbow colors symbolizing LGBT pride in Washington on June 26, 2015.

The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide right, a landmark decision in one of

the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking scenes of jubilation. 

(Photo: MOLLY RILEY, AFP/Getty Images)

White House turns to rainbow

after gay marriage ruling

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/26/white-house-rainbow-gay-marriage/29374471/

THE OVAL

 Gregory Korte, USA TODAY11:15 p.m. EDT June 26, 2015

The White House was lit up in rainbow colors Friday night to celebrate the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.

In a statement, the president's office said the White House took on the symbolic colors of gay pride "to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to progress and equality, here in America and around the world."

Shortly after 7 p.m.. the north front of the White House was lit up in red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet as about a hundred people — both gay pride activists and tourists — looked on.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Friday that states cannot prohibit marriages between two people of the same sex.

President Obama hailed the ruling earlier in the day, calling it "a big step in our march toward equality."

* * * * * * * * * *

Doing the right thing may take some time but eventually a country founded on

"civil liberties for all" gets it right. For churches feeling the pressure to conform

or not this will also be a matter of civil rights... "a civil right which they are afforded
the right to." For some churches they have the right not to conform. For others, they

have the right to be released unto deeper ministries submitted in love and equality

to a segment of society having lived in the abject squalor of abandonment and

derision for many years.

Whether being gay is a sin or not is something we each will need to work out. For

some it may be sin while for others, if based in relational love, it is not. Our

Christian  standards do not give us a right to judge one another. But they do

give us the right to love one another equally and with wisdom. And should we

judge,  may it be rightly, and not by the old man seeking self-rightness over

God's righteous, perfecting, love.  - R.E. Slater, 6.26.2015

* * * * * * * * * *

Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday after

the U.S Supreme Court handed down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage. The high court ruled that

same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal
In All 50 States

source link

by Bill Chappell

June 26, 2015

States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal swing vote in the case, wrote the majority opinion. All four justices who voted against the ruling wrote their own dissenting opinions: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote of same-sex couples in the case. "The Constitution grants them that right."

Comparing the ruling to other landmark decisions, NPR's Nina Totenberg says, "This is probably right up there with Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade — if you like it or hate it — and today, Obergefell v. Hodges. This was a historic moment."

The opinion includes more than 100 pages; we've embedded it near the bottom of this post.

Update at 11:30 a.m. ET: 'Our Love Is Equal,' Obergefell Says

Friday's ruling "affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in their hearts: our love is equal," says lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, who challenged Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage.

Obergefell continued, "the four words etched onto the front of the Supreme Court — 'equal justice under law' — apply to us, too."

He filed suit because he wasn't allowed to put his name on his late husband John Arthur's death certificate after Arthur died from ALS. Holding a photograph of Arthur as he spoke Friday, Obergefell said, "No American should have to suffer that indignity."

Obergefell has been traveling from Cincinnati to Washington every week, to be sure he would be in the court when a decision was announced in his case.

Update at 11:15 a.m. ET: 'Like A Thunderbolt,' Obama Says

Speaking at the White House, President Obama praised the Supreme Court's ruling, saying it arrived "like a thunderbolt" after a series of back-and-forth battles over same-sex marriage.

Obama says the ruling "will strengthen all of our communities" by offering dignity and equal status to all same-sex couples and their families.

The president calls the ruling "a victory for America."

Update at 10:37 a.m. ET: More On The Ruling, And Obama's Reaction

"The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society," Kennedy wrote. His opinion sketches a history of how ideas of marriage have evolved along with the changing roles and legal status of women.

Comparing that evolution to society's views of gays and lesbians, Kennedy noted that for years, "a truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken."

"The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times," Kennedy wrote after recounting the legal struggles faced by same-sex partners.

103 page .pdf of the Justice's Decision

The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

In his dissent, Roberts wrote that the court had taken an "extraordinary step" in deciding not to allow states to decide the issue for themselves, saying that the Constitution does not define marriage.

Calling the ruling "deeply disheartening," Roberts said that those on the winning side of the issue should celebrate a victory — "But do not celebrate the Constitution," he wrote. "It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Scalia said the Supreme Court's "highly unrepresentative panel of nine" had violated "a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation."

We've covered those dissents in a separate post.

Welcoming the news on Twitter, President Obama wrote, "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins."

Our original post continues:

The justices ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is linked to three other same-sex marriage cases that rose up through the court system. Together, they involve a dozen couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee — the only states with bans on marriage between gay and lesbian couples that had been sustained by a federal appeals court.

Friday's ruling overturned that decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Supreme Court's summary states, "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change."

The justices had been asked to decide whether the 14th Amendment requires states to a) license same-sex marriages and b) recognize such unions that were made in other states.

The 14th Amendment, we'll remind you, was ratified shortly after the Civil War. It has to do with U.S. citizenship — and with providing equal protection for all citizens.

Before Friday's ruling, gay marriage had already been made legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia — by either legislative or voter action or by federal courts that overturned state' bans.

As NPR's Nina Totenberg reported when the Supreme Court heard the current case back in April, conservative justices had pointed questions for the attorneys:

"Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen — it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.

"Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"

The ruling announced Friday adds new definition to an issue that has remained controversial even as an increasing number of Americans say they support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. A recent Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans — an all-time high — support extending the same rights and privileges to same-sex marriages as traditional ones.

That figure included "37 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 76 percent of Democrats," as we reported last month. And it included all age groups except for one: those 65 and over.

The court noted the change in thinking, stating:

"Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law."

For supporters of same-sex marriage, Friday's ruling comes as a long-awaited bookend to the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and required the U.S. government to provide the same benefits to both gay and heterosexual couples.

* * * * * * * * * *

This Is How Fast America Changes Its Mind

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/

By Alex Tribou and Keith Collins

Updated: June 26, 2015

Eleven years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Supreme Court has now extended that right nationwide. The decision came after a wave of gay marriage legalization: 28 states from 2013 to 2015, with 36 overall prior to the Court's ruling. Such widespread acceptance in a short amount of time isn't a phenomenon unique to gay marriage. Social change in the U.S. appears to follow a pattern: A few pioneer states get out front before the others, and then a key event—often a court decision or a grassroots campaign reaching maturity—triggers a rush of state activity that ultimately leads to a change in federal law.

We looked at six big issues—interracial marriage, prohibition, women’s suffrage, abortion, same-sex marriage, and recreational marijuana — to show how this has happened in the past, and may again in the very near future.

source link here

source link here

source link here

source link here

Peter Rollins Belfast Series on Radical Theology, Part 1 - John Caputo on Event

From Peter Rollin: John Caputo on Event

Over the next few weeks I'm going to offer you (my email subscribers) some advance access to videos from my yearly festival in Belfast. The actual event involves a blend of music, art, workshops and whiskey tastings as well as talks from some of the sharpest minds in the world of Radical Theology.

The videos I'll be linking to are in an unlisted area of Youtube and will include short talks from myself, Barry Taylor, Gladys Ganiel and Kester Brewin.

The one I'm offering you today is from the world renowned philosopher John Caputo. Dr. Caputo is a hybrid philosopher/theologian intent on producing impure thoughts which deny fixed and rigorous boundaries between philosophy and theology. Caputo treats "sacred" texts as a poetics of the human condition, or as a "theo-poetics." [That is,] as a poetics of the event harbored in the name of God.

In this talk Caputo explores the Event housed in Religion, asking if Radical Theology can preach.

or, click here to view

- Pete

Over the last twenty years I’ve been developing a project that has been described as “Pyrotheology.” Born and bred in Belfast, Pyrotheology has now grown into a vibrant movement with a world-wide impact.

In this intimate event, I’ll be presenting a clear and compressive introduction to the theory and technology of pyrotheology in the city where it all began.

This event will involve a mix of talks and discussions, and should be of interest to students of religion, academics, religious leaders and laypeople alike. We’re going to limit the tickets to 60. To register click on the Ticket link.

Cost £50

Price includes light refreshments, lunch provided by Flour Power, beer from Boundary Brewery and a free copy of “The Divine Magician” (or other book)

To secure your ticket, click here

* * * * * * * * * *

Who is John Caputo?

Reference #1 - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Caputo

Reference #2 - Syracuse University (below)

John D. Caputo
Thomas J. Watson Professor, Religion and Humanities

Research and Teaching Interests

John D. Caputo is a hybrid philosopher/theologian intent on producing impure thoughts, thoughts which circulate between philosophy and theology, short-circuits which deny fixed and rigorous boundaries between philosophy and theology. Caputo treats "sacred" texts as a poetics of the human condition, or as a "theo-poetics," a poetics of the event harbored in the name of God. His past books have attempted to persuade us that hermeneutics goes all the way down (Radical Hermeneutics), that Derrida is a thinker to be reckoned with by theology (The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida), and that theology is best served by getting over its love affair with power and authority and embracing what Caputo calls, following St. Paul, The Weakness of God. He has also addressed wider-than-academic audiences in On Religion and What Would Jesus Deconstruct? and has an interest in interacting with the working church groups like ikon and the “Emergent” Church. He is currently working in a book on our frail and mortal flesh, probably to be entitled The Fate of All Flesh: A Theology of the Event, II.

Professor Caputo specializes in continental philosophy of religion, working on approaches to religion and theology in the light of contemporary phenomenology, hermeneutics and deconstruction, and also the presence in continental philosophy of radical religious and theological motifs. He has special interests in the "religion without religion" of Jacques Derrida; the "theological turn" taken in recent French phenomenology (Jean-Luc Marion and others); the critique of onto-theology; the question of post-modernism as "post-secularism;" the dialogue of contemporary philosophy with St. Augustine; the recent interest shown by philosophers in St. Paul; the link between Kierkegaard and deconstruction; Heidegger's early theological writings on Paul and Augustine; "secular" and "death of God" theology (Altizer, Vattimo, Zizek); medieval metaphysics and mysticism.

He conducts a series of biennial conferences on these themes: April, 2005, "St. Paul Among the Philosophers" (now available from Indiana University Press); April, 2007: "Feminism, Sexuality, and the Return of Religion" (in press with Indiana University Press); April, 2009: "The Politics of Love" (in preparation. This year’s conference, “The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion,” will be held April 7-9, 2011. For details visit: http://pcr.syr.edu.

Recently, three books have appeared about his work: Cross and Khora: Deconstruction and Christianity in the Work of John D. Caputo, Eds. Neal Deroo and Marko Zlomsic (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010); A Passion for the Impossible: John D. Caputo in Focus, ed. Mark Dooley (SUNY Press, 2002) and Religion With/Out Religion: The Prayers and Tears of John D. Caputo, ed. Ed. James Olthius (Routledge, 2002). Prof. Caputo joined the department in Fall, 2004 after retiring from Villanova University where he taught from 1968 to 2004.

Professor Caputo's The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event (Indiana, 2006) received the 2007 AAR Book Award for "Constructive-Reflective Studies in Religion." What would Jesus Deconstruct? was the winner of the ForeWord Magazine Best Philosophy Book of 2007 award.

Prof. Caputo will retire at the end of the 2010-11 academic year.

* * * * * * * * * *

In Defense of Total Depravity

by R.E. Slater

June 24, 2015

As an introduction to the article below, I would like to note that the more classical Christian view of total depravity is one that recognizes the imprint, or image, of God upon man as one that has been marred or subjugated in every way possible by that metaphysical reality of sin. Now a philosopher may decry total depravity as a "lack" of something missing (or affecting) the human spirit, but for the Christian we would acknowledge that what God hath made good-and-holy has now been marred in some way (and in every way) by sin.

And so, the way back is through a healing provided by God by way of a relationship with Himself rather than to be left isolated within ourselves to find that healing to our identity in relationship with all things. Ultimately, the answer to sin is in relationship with God who reforms our identity. And it is not in the denial of our sin (or sinfulness) but in the acceptance of this condition "of lackness" (as Pete terms it) that brings us to the Lord both before and after our renewed relationship to Him through Christ Jesus. 

For myself, sin is the other side (or perhaps, the opposite end) to the freedom granted humanity by God. To say we are free (or, free-willed) creatures must at the same time allow for its opposite declaration of bondage from freedom, from holiness, from goodness, which in Christian terminology is known as "sin". And thus, some will argue that we are really not free at all because of sin's affect upon us (Tony Jones tends towards this viewpoint of conditionalism), though for myself, I would argue we do have freedom given to us through God's image and by His Holy Spirit working in our lives either directly or indirectly (most usually through people, but also by circumstance, event, and even nature itself). Even so, it is always-and-ever the sovereign God who brings us to Himself, and not we ourselves to Him by our own means. For if we are left to ourselves this would never happen (according to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans). But this holy work does only occur in-and-through the work of God's own (Holy) Spirit who bring us to Himself in some way, manner, means, or method. To which we humbly give thanks with bowed knees and hearts.

For a philosopher/theologian like Peter, he rather comes to the ideas of God, freedom, and sin as from the study of the human spirit through social/psychological contexts in what may be described as our "humanness." But, on the other hand, though he is interested in the religious aspect of our humanness - a subject he deals with constantly as you can tell by his writings - he feels much more comfortable examining our humanity in psychoanalytic terms rather than in classical theological terms. Especially as from within a philosophical context to the church's religious contexts.

Hence, the following article may feel foreign to the more conservative Christian. However, in pyschoanalytic terms, Pete's explanation is the more commonly accepted "starting point" amongst academics. He does not pretend to interpret Scripture so much as to interpret the human spirit from practical discussions that are being held within the field of scientific endeavor while leaving his discoveries to the Christian theologian to expand into whatever insight might be discovered as helpful and good and missional.

And so, rather than feel threatened by this approach it may be an approach than might lend some help to the contemporary theologian struggling to contextualize the Scripture's teachings of redemption, God, sin, and worship, in ways that might more readily appeal to the work-a-day world we live within. While clinging to past traditional church doctrines and dogmas today's theologians may wish to examine these newer insights to discover some value in these presentations if only to understand the mindset of the non-Christian world. One of which is how do we utilize the newer insights of psychoanalytics, philosophy, and even radical theology, in manners that might be helpful in explaining Christian theology's very own difficult subjects.... Perhaps no longer in classical terms of yesteryear built upon Greek and medieval philosophies and pseudo-sciences but in postmodern terms acknowledged by this 21st century generation. If so, we must then continue forward into these newer areas of thought if only to be better witnesses to the gospel of Christ as modern day apostles and prophets of the Lord speaking the oracles of God.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * * *

In Defense of Total Depravity

http://peterrollins.net/2015/06/in-defense-of-total-depravity/

by Peter Rollins

June 6, 2015

As some of you will know, every year I run a small festival in my home town of Belfast. This year one of our guests was the ever brilliant philosopher John “Jack” Caputo. During a discussion in the talks part of the festival someone asked him what the main difference was between the two of us. The question was asked partly because we share so much in common and I’ve been so influenced by his writing. Yet, there still seems a slight difference in our approaches. 

In response Jack said, “I think in listening to Pete this week I’ve finally worked it out, he’s a philosophical Calvinist!” For Jack, the Lacanian influence in my work manifests itself in the proclamation of a lack that touches every part of our being. Something he felt is a philosophical version of Total Depravity. The difference between us then lies in the way that Jack (as a heretical catholic) is much more positive about human subjectivity than myself.

Far from wanting to reject this claim, I think that he put his finger on something very important. The only thing I’d want to push back on is the idea that my position is depressing.

To understand the claim it will be good to briefly reflect on what Total Depravity actually means. To begin with, it shouldn’t be thought of as the idea that humans are utterly and completely sinful, but rather that every part of the human subject is touched by sin. If we take sin as an ontological category rather than an ethical one (something that is actually a conservative theological move, even if it is not one reflected in the contemporary church) then we can define Total Depravity as describing a lack that is infused into being itself.

Theologically speaking this means that Total Depravity defines the idea that human subjectivity is something other than a form of “pure life.” It is rather a form of impure life. It is a life infused with death. In philosophical terms this can be said in the following way: a human being is constituted by a lack at the heart of its subjectivity.

This recognition can actually be seen as the fundamental insight of religion. Namely, the religious impulse is born out of the sense of a lack experienced in the very heart of subjectivity. Rather than explaining religion as the result of some need for tribal identity, as the means by which we come to see the human essence, as a will to power, or as the result of postulating agency in a hostile world, Lacan saw the religious impulse as arising fundamentally from a recognition of the incompleteness hard-baked into the very nature of human subjectivity (a lack formed in and by language). The religious individual experiences this lack and then attempts to stop it up via some signifier such as “God,” “Historical Necessity,” “The scientific method,” or “Evolution.”

By directly affirming the ground out of which religion is born (in its sacred and secular forms), Pyrotheology affirms a form of Total Depravity in that it recognizes the constitutive lack at the core of being, and the various ways this lack is made manifest (the Real). The point however is not to offer up a way of closing down this lack (which is ontological in nature and thus cannot be filled). This strategy of corking up the lack is the way of fundamentalism, and secular philosophies such as positivism. Rather the theory and technology of Pyrotheology is concerned with directly assuming the lack and enjoying the desire that it creates, rather than seeking our pleasure in the closure of the gap.

It is this religion of the gap that I explore in my most recent trilogy of books: Insurrection, Idolatry of God and The Divine Magician.

---

One Response to In Defense of Total Depravity

joe calandrino says:

June 22, 2015 at 9:15 am

Well here it is, Pete, in 7 paragraphs, the nexus of some of most stunning ideas about religion, all poised for some kind of synthesis (the elusive project of my own blogging efforts). Lack, desire, the Real, subjectivity, being. And, far from being depressing, it’s all good news.

I am coming to see this important contribution of yours this way: “lack” is constitutive of the subject/being(ens&esse) as the subject confronts the “loss” of immediacy: the loss of experiencing itself (as itself) and the world without mediation. Such is inherent in the growth of consciousness, and therefore constitutive of it. In the play of the Real and the Symbolic, all metaphysics enacts, in the Symbolic order, something actually going on in the ineffable Real.

If we take as axiomatic that the locus of the divine is the Real (Lacan), then all movements in the Symbolic (and Imaginary) order are analogical enactments that substitute for “lack” as they engage moments in the Real. These enactments in the Symbolic order of something occurring in the Real is “the ground…of…religion.”

It is this idea of “manifest[ing]” that fascinates me. Far from foreclosing on lack, pyrotheology opens onto the very givenness of the Real itself, In this sense, Jean-Luc Marion’s 3rd phenomenological reduction to ‘givenness’ brushes up against your pyrotheological opening, and instead of foreclosing on lack, discloses the formation of the subjectivity of self (a relation of metonymy, not identity).

Depravity, then, can be understood as a ‘deprivation’ of immediacy, that, unexpectedly, opens upon the horizon that situates givenness, presenting it to the intuition. When the intuition is ‘saturated,’ the ‘religious impulse’ becomes the response to Caputo’s ‘unheard call’, which commands the aim of intentionality. The religious subject is thereby called into itself, “constituted” as you say, by “lack” which is the _distance_ between the Real, and, well, everything else.

If we suspend Caputo’s notion that his ‘call’ is reduced to one’s “mommy” in psychoanalysis, then it’s really not Calvinism vs Catholicism that separates your pyrotheology from Caputo’s theopoetics/insistence theology, but rather entangles them in the play in his ‘chiasm’ where Marion’s new phenomenology holds “lack” in tension between givenness and the emerging self. For Marion’s system, the relation between what is given and subjectivity precedes the individuation of the self. Hence, lack, givenness, the Real are all anterior to the self coming into being.

The pyrotheological, phenomenological and theopoetical gestures share in the notion that relationality precedes being, and constitutes it as that which is anterior to it.

- John Calandrino