« Bible Study: BCP Lectionary Readings for May 21 | Main | Readings for May 28 »

May 16, 2006
God at the Ritz

It's been a long time since I've posted a rant. So here goes. . .

I still have stacks of papers to grade, end of the year church material, as well as a million little and big projects to pursue. But I have been missing my blog, the strange and often invisible cyber-conversations that take place. As usual, I'm reading many different sorts of things, with my mind a swirl. As many, I find myself caught in this horrible United States culture that is itself caught between a secularism that excludes God from the world (possibly allowing God to take up residence within individual spirituality) in order to protect humans beings from exploitation and death and a type of Protestant cultural Christian religiosity that seeks to keep God in the world by making God the patron God of a certain nostalgic Protestant evangelical hegemonic culture.

I am convinced that these are merely mirror images of each other. Certain socio-economic and political forces legitimate themselves by making themselves "other than" the "other" side, thus perpetuating the atrocities through the dialectic that they set up that goes no where. It is this refusal of the "right" and "left", this refusal to take sides, to take both sides and the same time as as rejecting both sides, that I think that we have to be about. We cannot succumb to the temptation of a Jim Wallis, to baptize a United States left in response to the Southern Baptist baptizing of a United States right. We have to think, not as members of a temporary, failing polity of the United States or any other contemporary nation-state, but as a part of the great cloud of witnesses of the saints who gather around us as we travel onward today.

I've been reading Lorenzo Albacete's "God at the Ritz." It is a beautiful little book, poignant and truthful. Monsignor Albacete seeks an opening to the Transcendent, an opening that is denied or closed by both the secular left and the religious right. Father Albacete guides us past the subjectiving of "God" to a real examination of desire that lies at the base of human existence. By chasing what the secular has placed into the private to its ultimate extreme, he finds an opening back up to Mystery, to the Transcendant, an opening that refuses closure unless social, political and economic coercion forces it closed. As a remedy to the world's ills, ills that are deeply disturbing, ills within which we participate, I'd like to leave a quote from God at the Ritz:

Atheism likes to present itself as the 'open,' liberating way of life when compared with what it perceives as the limiting, self-denying religious way of life. And yet, in terms of the most fundamental desires of the heart, atheism seems to require that we suppress our most intense experiences, the experiences of needs that define us a concretely unique and unrepeatable persons. In short, atheism asks us to suppress the question 'Why?' Yet questions about the meaning and purpose of life -- the 'why?' of life -- will always be with us. They are blunt facts of human life, as outrageous as they may seem.

The desires of the heart -- especially the desire to know why -- should not embarass us. Religion is either the reasonable quest for the satisfaction of all the original desires of the heart, or it is dangerous, divisive, harmful waste of time. If that is the case, Nietzsche was absolutely right: we should be atheists not because it seems reasonable, but because we ourselves will to be so.

In order to be real, consistent atheists, our wills must be educated and trained. This will prevent the desires of the heart from escaping from our deepest regions and embarrassing us when we become senior citizens, falling back on our childhood way of seeing things. In order to achieve this, we need an educational system in which these desires are systematically reduced. We need an education where the possible link with infinity is not even mentioned, an education in which our only recognized link with the stars is that cosmology shows we are made of the same material stuff: all this is necessary to prevent these desires from bursting out of the hearts of our young people, leading them to question every compromise we have made and to demand what our current views of sexuality, our economic system, and our politics cannot provide. If they question the legitimacy of the ruling powers, then knows what might happen? Better to risk their despair than their revolution." (pp. 154-55)

Later Albacete reminds us that the premature closure of these questions:

"To believe we have found the answer to the meaning of life by our religious efforts this side of eternity could also be called idolatry. It happens when we identify an earthly reality as the Mystery, as God, as the source of meaning and purpose. When this reality is an idea or a philsoophical conviction, it is called an ideology. And we all know very well where that leads us.

It's funny -- religion is feared because it leads to divisions, persecutions, and wars. And yet, if religion is authentic, if it's really a reasonable quest for the Infinite and the Eternal, it will be the other way around. Religion will spare us from hostile divisions and ideological warfare and persecution by always pointing us beyond the temporal and definable. It will be a powerful defense against absolutist powers. It is no surprise that totalitarian governments try to domesticate or crush the religious quest.

Still, it is very, very difficult to continue the religious quest forever. Either we knowingly or unknowingly identify the Mystery with an earthly reality, or we begin to wonder whether it's really worth the effort, or we conclude that it's simply inhuman. But when it comes down to it, if you discover the meaning of life at 2:00 p.m. one afternoon, what are you going to do that night? Won't life become boring? More to the point, won't you become boring? Searching, seeking, and struggling at least make you open-minded and tolerant of those whose 'meaning of life' is not searched for where you search for yours!" (pp. 164-65).


Posted by johnwright at May 16, 2006 8:56 AM


Comments

John,

Your comment that it is wrong "to baptize a United States left in response to the Southern Baptist baptizing of a United States right" because doing so is to have our thinking driven by "a temporary, failing polity" rather than by "the great cloud of witnesses of the saints [i.e., the Church]" seems--as I'm sure you know--exactly right to me. The danger that I see is that all too often theology is driven my one's politics. This, it seems to me, is a fundamental mistake if not even idolotrous.

Here is, I think, a way of making a point similar to yours, though using a different language. Our politics should be guided by our ethics. But one's view of ethics is going to be governed by one's view of what humans are (e.g., thinking of humans primarily as 'experience machines' will likely lead to a certain sort of consequentialism, while thinking of humans as most fundamentally embodied intellectual and volitional agents will lead to a quite different ethic). But what kinds of being we are depends on what kind of being created us, given that we are created in His image. So it then looks like the following is the proper ordering we should follow:

God's nature-->our nature-->ethics-->politics

If this is right, then despite what much of the modern world thinks, we have to do a lot of philosophy and theology before we can properly do politics. (Imagine that, a metaphysician thinking we have to do a good deal of metaphysics and ontology before we can do ethics and politics! How surprising!) So perhaps so much of modern thought (both in the church and outside of it--e.g., Rorty) is so screwed up precisely because it has sought to avoid the diffeculties (and truth-claims!) involved in doing real metaphysics.

Posted by: Kevin TImpe at May 16, 2006 5:31 PM

John, I just wanted to say hi and thank you so much for mediating the conversations here at NTS. I didnt get a chance to say hi because i was frantically working the book store with charlie but i wanted you to know you did an awesome job. You may not know it but you have been very infleuntial in shaping me. I want to thank you for interducing me to people like Yoder, Hauerwas and others back in my undergrad at PLNU.

I to resonate with what Albecete says in the above quote. It reminds me of something Burrell said at the Discussion and NTS. He said "one can never BE a Christian they are alays BECOMING a Christian." I think that is such an important distinction and also speaks to what Hauerwas said concerning the protestant idea of conversion being a form of narcacism.

While i agree with some of what Kevin has said above, i am sceptical as to weather this can be such a linear progression. It seems to me that much of our formation in the area of ethics and politics comes out of the community one is living in. So i guess my question is just how much philosophy and theology do we need to do before we can properly do politics? Dont our politics also in ritual and symbol also help to give voice to and shape our understanding of metaphysics? I see the process as more cyclical than linier i guess, especially in a postmodern context where the claim has been made by people like Knight and Hauerwas that the day of "Apologetics" has faded and the only true apologetic in our context of religious pluralism is a community that is faithfully living out and embodying what it means to be followers of Christ.

I hope all is well in San Diego, I miss it alot. If you ever see my brother Luke Tatum (hes a sophmore doing Bio/Chem) tell him i said hi and give him a good theological spanking for me!

Peace of Christ
David
dtatum6@gmail.com
www.tatum-lovewins.blogspot.com

Posted by: David Tatum at January 29, 2007 6:49 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            


Archives
Recent Entries
Books:

Telling God's Story

Conflicting Allegiances: The Church-based University In A Liberal Democratic Society

Reading Assignments:


Recommended Reading:

Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity





Powered by
Movable Type 3.31