I have been thinking for quite some time now that some publisher (Halden–Wipf & Stock? or T & T Clark?) really ought to take up the task of compiling and republishing all the out-of-print works of Donald MacKinnon. Who is with me on this?
Can we talk about what appears to me to be a rather distinct and unfortunate political shift in the Jenson-Braaten duo? Is it just me, or does this totally suck? The two founders of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology and the journal Pro Ecclesia have co-edited something like 15 volumes on various theological topics in the past thirty some years or so. Many are familiar with Braaten primarily through the work of Jenson, who is considered by some to be the best living American theologian. Have you ever read Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson’s early theology? Braaten’s Christ and Counter-Christ is really a wonderful example of a politically radical ‘apocalyptic’ theology. I mean this Braaten loves Karl Marx. Similarly, Jenson’s Story and Promise is ultra critical of Americanism and capitalism. And both speak quite seriously about political revolution.
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Braaten and Jenson are now right-wing ideologues–but we have to be honest about a real shift in the political tenor of their theology. I love Jenson’s more recent Systematic Theology, but I found much of the cultural critique in it to be quite disappointing. Some of the volumes that they’ve co-edited have also been quite disappointing and strangely conservative in tone–for instance, Either/Or: The Gospel or Neopaganism.
C’mon, let’s talk about this–what went wrong here? Please, someone, tell me I’m mistaken.
The first thing I ever read by Karl Barth was an article entitled “Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century,” in the volume, The Humanity of God. In this article Barth describes his ‘break’ with liberal Protestantism–his account, though speaking from a different context, became particularly decisive for me:
One day in early August 1914 stands out in my personal memory as a black day. 93 German intellectuals impressed public opinion by their proclamation in support of the war policy of Wilhelm II and his counsellors. Among those intellectuals I discovered to my horror almost all of my theological teachers whom I had greatly venerated. In despair over what this indicated about the signs of the times, I suddenly realized that I could not any longer follow either their ethics and dogmatics or their understanding of the Bible and history. For me, at least, 19th-century theology no longer held any future (14).
I’m curious to know whether anyone else has had similar experiences to mine. One thing I can say for sure: this article radicalized the hell out of me.
Lately, I’ve been spending a lot of time with two towering figures in modern theology, the Reformed theologian Karl Barth and Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Reading these guys is no easy task. The good news is that there is a whole host of secondary literature to guide you through it. Although reading secondary literature can never replace doing the hard work of reading the authors themselves, it is surely a wonderful gift to have learned teachers to help you through the process.
Of course, the bad news about reading secondary literature is discovering all the disagreements! Barthians know this all too well–hence we have anti-modern, modern, and even “post”-modern Barths among many other Barths. For Balthasarian studies the situation is not much better. This is the just the plain reality of study in general I suppose. Biblical scholars know this all too well–what does that damn book say, after all? And this is what academic theology is all about–reading through the primary texts and sorting out all the divergent interpretations of these texts and maybe, just maybe, paving the way for one more better interpretation. Ah, research…is it sleepy time yet?
I don’t know about you but I can’t stand it when people throw around the words “liberal” and “conservative.” In almost all cases, these words are employed as a way to dismiss someone’s position before taking the time to listen. It seems that in every area of life one is subject to such labeling. Of course, this is perhaps most often seen in what passes for “political” discussions. However, it is also sadly evident in discussions of “church politics.” Of course, every country and ecclesial body have their hot-button issues on the basis of which people are pegged as either falling in the liberal or conservative camp. For instance, if you are Anglican right now and support homosexuality, then you are identified as a “liberal.” If you don’t, you are a “conservative.” End of story–end of discussion. As a side note, one reason why I think so highly of Rowan Williams is that he intentionally doesn’t clearly land on one side of the issue or the other- it is also why I think Stanley Hauerwas is worth reading. Both Williams and Hauerwas are masters of changing the terms of discussion. They seem to be acutely aware of the irreducible complexities of human life and action–and that vulnerability and openness to the strangeness of Jesus–is the proper starting point of theological reflection. It seems to me that Williams and Hauerwas teach us how to think “out of control,” to borrow the phrase of Chris Huebner.
In American politics, the term “liberal” is used to refer to folks who support homosexual unions, abortion; often, “liberals” are for higher taxes, more government involvement in social programs, and perhaps, a little less war. “Conservatives,” on the other hand, are simply the opposite of this, right? This is pretty much it! Sure, you have some people bouncing back and forth on various issues, and whatever issue “matters most” to you is where you’ll cast your vote. I think here of many Christians who are stridently pro-life, but who really want to “help” the poor or who don’t really love the war.
My point in all of this is simply to recognize that we are constantly trying to make life less complex, ultimately so that we can control it, so that we can control others, and so that we can control the outcome of history. We desperately want a black-and-white world, where there are good guys and bad guys, where what is right and what is wrong is always clear and obvious. I can already hear the Christian cries against a culture of “relativism,” but to me this doesn’t make much sense. Give me a break, there was no golden age, no time when morality wasn’t already up for grabs.
I do confess that I use the terms liberal and conservative, at times. Just as a caveat I do think the terms can be used rightly as long as terminology is clear, though they should be used sparingly. I think, for instance, it is perfectly appropriate to use the word “Liberalism” to denote the philosophy that undergirds free-market capitalism and many modern democracies. Used in this sense, it is not inherently pejorative, but simply descriptive, and in this case, the term “conservative” would not usually be used to describe opposing positions.
So, are the terms useful at all? What and who is a liberal or a conservative? Can we move beyond name-calling and reducing complex issues into oversimplified camps?
Recent Comments