I am most recently interested in religious/theological aesthetics, or more appropriately how particular religious communities have a theology of what is beautiful, ideal and normative and its relation to theologies of prosperity/ health and wealth (non)gospels.
Any suggestions for starters?
Having revisited Christian ethics via my class this semester, my view ethics is being refined, and I think this is where I am landing. I would love critique on this, as no belief of mine will ever be held with a closed fist, as far as it is possible with me.
Christian ethics do not apply to the wider culture in a pluralistic society. Christian ethics (what we should or should not do or be) is ultimately relevant only to those who profess Christianity.
Christian ethics are not universal ethics. At least not yet. I look back to Judaism prior to Christ. There were laws given in the Torah that all of us who are Christians can agree were only relevant for that particular people, and perhaps only in that particular context (of course, many modern Jews would disagree). Laws concerning not wearing clothing with two types of fabric, dietary laws, laws regarding the separation of women from the community during her period, etc. existed to make Israel a peculiar people, and for God’s purpose, not the ethical purpose of the world at large.
In the time of Jesus and the early church, there did not seem to be any attempt on the part of the church or Jesus to change the minds of those outside the community of faith. There was a radical attempt to change the way the community interacted with the community at large though. It is assumed that if the church was the church, the impact on the wider culture would be obvious and take care of itself. The scriptures simply do not care to challenge the assumptions of the wider culture without first introducing them to God. Without the assumption of God (and for Christians, God in Christ), Christian ethics are simply irrelevant to the world.
Does this mean that we do not vote, interact, and try to convince the world to change itself for the ethical better? Yes and no. To the extent that we are unable to find a common point of contact with the world on a matter of ethics, we should not try to convince anyone who doesn’t share our faith. If there is a point of contact, for example, Christians may think a way is unjust, it would seem right for us to join the coalition that is politicking against that war. It would also mean that even without justification that the wider world would accept, we as Christians would not participate in that war.
Christians must believe and act according to their faith, without regard to whether or not we can rationally convince others outside our faith of the merits of those beliefs and acts.
Christians should support those political ideals that agree with their theology, not necessarily their ethics. Example: Christians should not care one way or the other (as Christians) if non-Christian homosexuals should get married. That is an ethic that is peculiar to some strands of Christianity. However, issues of Justice (regarding oppression, etc..) are not Christian ethical ideals, but stand out as a theological issue, whereby we believe that God stands against all injustice for all people, not just Christians or Jews. So this means that we can be ardently against a war, and radically uncaring about whether or not homosexuals can get married (in fact, it is within the realm of possibility that a Christian may be ethically against homosexual union within the church, but still fight for the ability of those outside the church to participate in it).
Where there is a point of logical agreement in ethical matters, where a non-rationally based ideal of Christians overlaps with a rational argument in the wider culture, I think we should be on the side of that issue, being very careful not to tie our non-rationally based ideal with whatever rationale is given at the time. How often have we done that in the past, only to have our Christian ethic called into question because the logical rationale is no longer accepted?
At any rate, I would love to hear thoughts about this. This is a rough draft and I am looking for holes in my thoughts. thanks.
Sunday, I came across Dinesh D’Souza’s article in Forbes’ magazine via Craig Carter’s blog. As anyone who knows my libertarian politics via Facebook and Twitter, I am hardly a defender of the current administration, *cough cough* PUMA, *cough, cough. However, to claim that Obama is a postcolonial professor in the White House carrying on his father’s legacy not only makes Obama The Other, as conservative online magazine First Things pointed out, it also maintains the “insider-outsider” for persons of color in comparison to cultures from European descent. (And by my use of the term, color, I mean race as a social construct).
By any stretch, D’Souza’s article racializes the debate, especially when it comes to American imperial foreign policy preferences. By his definition of anti-colonial/post-colonial, non-white persons who critique empire building are Marxists, but say, what about the historical William Jennings Bryans, the Ron Pauls, and the Henry Cabot Lodges of American history?? At least the last two are the great protesters against empire building and DEFENDERS of the free market. It just does not make any sense why D’Souza went out of his way to NOT place Barack Obama within the strain of historical Woodrow Wilsonian progressivism unless his goal was to, as mentioned earlier, point out how un-American, and there-go, how Africans are so much unlike US citizens by implication.
Dr. D’Souza should be honest; both he and the President are just as committed to the principles to the Enlightenment as the next person; all of us are in some capacity or another. We just simply need to recognize that and be honest, resisting attempts which re-inscribe hegemonic dichotomies such as West/East (East according to who? Where westward?). If anything, anti-colonialism is American as baseball and apple pie; should we forget that the original “tea-partiers” and founders, the freed enslaved Africans, and women in the 18th century were all part of the most successful and inspirational anti-colonial struggle of all time, making the transition from colony to the first democratic-republic in human history. It was called the “American Revolution,” was it not?
Very rarely do I side with former evangelical Christian now mainstream emergent/emerging thinker Brian McLaren, but I must commend him in his recent efforts to understand the post-colonial conversation. In his latest piece, he explains his understanding of how he sees the relationship between knowledge and power. Using McLaren’s description of what colonizing Christian theology looks like, D’Souza’s article is an example of an apology for the colonization of, for example, African peoples much like his fellow conservative Enlightenment theist John Milbank who I highlighted last week. It seems that some conservative Christians confuse the sharing of the good news of God’s commonwealth with empire building and a top-down racial hierarchy.
Okay, that is a way unfair title for this post; I thought it would be funny. But Mike Fox of Fox’s Wanderings is done blogging about the Bible. That is the saaad news. The good news: he will continue blogging at The Acoustic Spotline Zone.
Okay, I know, my title is misleading and just plain evil. Can’t help it.
OR TO QUOTE ONE OF MY FRIENDS, ISN’T THE TITLE “RADICAL ORTHODOXY” AN UTTER CONTRADICTION?
Recently, theologian John Milbank of Radical Orthodoxy (don’t bother to ask, just read the title as a contradiction in terms) wrote an article on the relationship between Christianity with the Enlightenment and Islam. Apparently, it is with great regret that the Christian European empires fell and “allowed” nations such as India, Pakistan, and Algeria to overthrow the colonizers: “This surely has to do with the lamentably premature collapse of the Western colonial empires (as a consequence of the European wars) and the subsequent failure of Third World national development projects, with the connivance of neo-colonial, purely economic exploitation of poorer countries.” I am sure of course, that Christian orthodoxy has always been for some time now affiliated with an apology for the existence human oppression. Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy project is radical in the sense that it is a radical RE-interpretation of Christian history, especially the past two hundred years. He claims in the article that Roman Catholicism found itself allied with the ideals of the Enlightenment, the 17th/18th century philosophies of the John Lockes, the Edmund Burkes, and Benjamin Franklins of those days. However, he is forgetting one crucial element: the evidence, especially the Roman Catholic theological texts contradicts his arguments. In fact, even an amatuer reader of history would know that even as late as the late 19th century, with Vatican I, Catholicism rejected modernity. I do not see how it is feasibly possible to defend Milbank’s position, but I digress.
It seems as if Milbank desires to see the Muslim world in the image of European-style high-church Christianity of a generic stereotype, mystical and sacramental. The article definitely reeks of Orientalism and racial hegemony, regardless of one’s theological disagreements with Islam. I can only hope, with the likes of Adam Kotsko and Halden Doerge that future theorists within the Radical Orthodoxy movement challenge cultural assumptions such as these.
But what’s the point of agreeing with this post? I am coming from a radically subjective angle……..
Halden wrote some excellent pieces on Radical Orthodoxy here and here.
For my critique of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, see the first chapter of my thesis, Beyond Liberated.