Dispatches from Spain: 3

On our first day, Hauerwas and Milbank each took turns opening up the discussion.  A brief summary of some highlights:

Hauerwas’s thoughts were a distillation of common themes in his writings.  (In his introduction of Stanley, Bill Cavanaugh very helpfully remarked that Hauerwas’ vocation has been to help Catholics appreciate the centrality of Jesus and to help Protestants to appreciate the centrality of the Church.)  In the discussion that followed, one of the important themes that emerged was the need of recapturing the social imaginary of the Church if she is going to resist the liberal totalitarianism that has emerged, without simply making herself an alternative totalitarianism.  The primary way to do this, Hauerwas suggested, was by getting the Church to restore confidence in her own language [and not let it any longer be co-opted by the evangelical Kantianism of the liberal state].  This restoration of language, as a way of re-educating the imagination, needs to happen primarily through the liturgy.  But Hauerwas also suggested that the implications of this were quite broad: in fact, we ought to rethink the very picture of the university.  As he put it: “What would a biology shaped by the ontology of creation look like?”  [For the record, it would NOT look like the deism of “intelligent design.”]

Milbank largely played a role assigned to him by the Archbishop: providing an overview of the contemporary situation of “postliberal” thought.  I found his taxonomy both interesting and helpful.  Of course, any groupings will be contestable and fuzzy, but he offered six currents in contemporary theology that have many overlapping concerns:

1. la nouvelle theologie which, in a way, finds its culmination in the election of Benedict XVI as Pope;
2. the Duke school;
3. Radical Orthodoxy;
4. the theological turn in phenomenology associated with Jean-Luc Marion, Michel Henry, Jean-Louis Chretien, and others;
5. the Fribourg-Tolouse school of Thomists (e.g., Venard, et. al.)
6. an “Irish school” led by William Desmond, but also Dermot Moran and Richard Kearney (who, apparently, at the COTP conference in Nottingham last week seemed to repent of his Derridean flirtings and embrace a more radically orthodox sort of perspective).

One can play a game by picking current theologians and see how many of these schools they fit into.  But the point is that all of these trajectories share in common a robust confessional standpoint which seeks to translate itself into “thick” theory and practice.

Comments

[Steve Bush]

I know that Milbank never has much positive to say about Barth and Barthians, but I'm a bit surprised that Barthian postliberalism didn't make the list, unless the Hauerwasian reading of Barth, which many Barthians take exception to, is the only stream that Milbank thinks qualifies as postliberal.

[Steve Bush]

Thanks for the updates, Jamie!

[Michael A. Farley]

Intelligent Design Theory is not deism because it's not a theology at all. Deism denies divine providence and the world's continual dependence upon God for the gift of being. Intelligent design theory does not entail a denial of God's providence. Rather, it is simply one mode of detecting design empirically that has been rigorously formalized mathematically. As such, it is consistent with many different ontologies.

[John Wright]

Jamie:

Thank you very much for these insights. I don't know if it will be discussed, but George Lindbeck actively associated his thought with the Ressourcement movement in Vatican II. The "Wittgenstinian grammar" language with Thomism was already being explored by Lonergan. David Burrell was around Vatican II as a student, and may have (I don't know) met Lindbeck -- and, of course, both ended up soon thereafter at Yale. Milbank is very, very indebted to Burrell, as, of course, is Stanley. It might be good if some one could get Stanley to speak of the Lonergan -- Ressourcement -- Lindbeck -- Burrell -- Hauerwas -- Milbank connections. This might be important in retrieving an commonality amidst the difference.

Peace,
John Wright
PLNU

[kevinhector]

In regard to Steve's comment: I was wondering the same thing about Barth/ians' exclusion, and it occurred to me that Barth was postliberal (theologically) without being anti-liberal (in regard to liberal culture/politics), whereas Milbank (consistently) and Hauerwas (generally) are anti-liberal. If that's the case, we're not just talking about postliberalism, wherein almost any "particularist" understanding of Christianity (including Barth's) would fit, but the combination of such particularism with a certain "MacIntyrean" take on liberal culture and government. Then again, maybe the organizers just don't like Barth, or maybe his name didn't happen to come up.

(In any event, I don't--and, at this point, couldn't--intend this as a criticism of the proceedings. It's just an attempt to understand its composition, and thus its conclusions, a bit better.)

[James K.A. Smith]

I never feel quite adequate to answer questions about Barth. However, let me try it this way: the Barth that Milbank rejects, I think, is the early Barth. I'm just not sure that Milbank is all that familiar with the later Barth and developments that happened across CD. My guess is we could have a long discussion about whether Barth was "anti-liberal" or not--on this score, Kevin's point is important. Certainly Barth's catholicity was important at the meeting, and the question is whether transnational catholicity necessarily entails a relationship to the (modern) nation-state which isn't quite comfortable with liberalism.

The name that was most often mentioned, by pretty much everyone, was de Lubac. This ressourcement theologian was a crucial point of contact for almost all of the 6 strains outlined by Milbank. It also provided a link with the Communio Catholics (though many of them also looked to Guissani). I had a couple of lunch conversations that suggested that the election of Benedict XVI represented something of the culmination of nouvelle theologie sensibilities.

[Dave Belcher]

I am new to this site, and am not really sure how this kind of comment will be taken here, but let me say that I am just confused about this thing on so many levels; maybe you can help, Jamie. My first instinct was, "Damn, I wish I was in Granada, too"; I'm a classical guitarist, and have strong memories of being there at the Alhambra. Regardless, I realized that "liberalism" in the forms so outlined by these various "schools" doesn't seem to be the problem with the Church--*especially* in contemporary America (thus, I'm saying that I don't think your link between Europe and America works too well, Jamie). At least two out of the six "schools" Milbank outlines above have gotten a whole lot of mileage out of this notion that the Church has been captured by liberal and neo-liberal market ideology, and yet to which body do they refer? Can someone point to the corpus verum for me in North America? The precarious situation of "the political" doesn't require a politicization of the Church--as "the Duke School" and "radical orthodoxy" have led us to believe--or even to out-politicize Right-Christianity from the Left (albeit a "conservative" left), but should lead us to ask where is the Church? It should lead to a recognition that the concrete social body which makes up the Church has disappeared (merely another political body competing with others), and thus the call for a (re)politicization of this hypothetical body does not (or cannot) solve the problem, but actually makes it worse. I am not disturbed by the fact that the Archbishop of Granada has decided that this "contemporary postliberalism" is right; instead I'm just disappointed...it's the same damn thing I've been hearing over and over. When will we wake up?

All of this aside--which is extremely important to me--I am just baffled that most of the theologians involved in this conference make up these two "schools" I referred to above, and yet it is these two schools that are supposed to be giving us the answer to our "postmodern" and "postliberal" predicament. I mean does that sound presumptuous to anyone else? There's a time for critique and then there's a time for humility. I have yet to see humility from Hauerwas or radical orthodoxy--at least with regards to "liberals." I'm not a "liberal," offended by those who are out to thwart me or something...I'm asking that we might think about what it means to "love our enemies" within theological dialogue--*that* I see very little of in contemporary theological debate...because it's always just that, a fucking argument.

Furthermore, Milbank's "taxonomy" makes no sense to me whatsoever. Of course, there is the issue of what others have raised with regards to the possibility of "other" postliberals not on this list, such as Barth, but even and more importantly Frei, Lindbeck, etc. Even if “contemporary postliberals” refers to extremely recent thinkers, these last two should still be included, especially with the impact they have had on the two schools in question. But, I'm just sort of confused with the six that Milbank gives.

I am extremely interested first of all how it is that the election of Pope Benedict XVI is the culmination of nouvelle theologie. While "Cardinal Ratzinger," it is true, was very close to many of these figures of the Ressourcement (even writing the Foreword to de Lubac's Mystery of the Supernatural), the current situation of the Catholic Church seems to be extremely at odds with the project of this new theology--and Benedict shows no signs of "reform." Secondly, I am confused as to how these six schools are the progenitors of Henri de Lubac's work; especially Radical Orthodoxy and the Duke school. Actually it seems to me that the only school listed which has attempted to remain faithful to both letter and spirit of de Lubac's work is the school that represents the "theological turn in phenomenology"; and much of what is being done by these thinkers (including those not listed, like S. Breton and Lacoste) seems to be completely at odds with Radical Orthodoxy (no matter how much Milbank quotes Lacoste) and the Duke School (and I’m not sure that one could say that Hauerwas is indebted to de Lubac in any fashion whatsoever—unless it is something much more recent, and something gained through Milbank, et. al…I mention only Hauerwas here because though the figures listed under the heading “Duke school”--Dan Bell, Bill Cavanaugh, Steve Long—may have all studied with Hauerwas, they all have books in the Radical Orthodoxy series…can we say “Duke school” at all if it’s just Hauerwas? It seems a little misplaced). De Lubac has become something of a trend in contemporary theology, and like all icons, he has become misunderstood. This is already too long. Sorry. Hope you can respond.

[Dave Belcher]

I spoke incorrectly, Ratzinger wrote the foreword to Catholicism.

[Dave Sims]

I'd love for Jamie to talk more about the deism of Intelligent Design. I think I know where he's going with that, but I'm dying to hear it from him.

[Dave Belcher]

Though I'm sure the deism of intelligent desing would be a fascinating discussion, I did spend quite a bit of time and put quite a bit of thought into my response, so it would be nice if someone would say something. Actually, if someone could tell me whether or not I will actually get a response, that would be great...then I won't have to keep checking here to see the same damn thing again. Thanks.

[Dale Lature]

Dave,

For what it's worth, I latched on to what you said about humility amongst the RO authors. Like you, I have been deeply engaged by the things I am learning about RO, but find myself feeling personally offended at times by what seem to be dismissive assesments of theologies or representatives of those theologies, and a certain impatience with the idea that these representatives might not be so willing to immediately recognize themselves as being "misguided" in their life's efforts. I think a little "pre-qualification" and demonstration of where our "telos" is theologically in-sync is a good way to strike a good ground for some exchange of ideas about the Christian's proper responses/stances toward the nation-state.

I have been blogging about this very thing over the past couple days. My friend Eric Lee and I have been discussing it and disagreeing on it for months. Both Eric and I see and understand more of the history of where the other is coming from, and thus have been able to avoid dismissive jabs at the other. I would expect nothing less out of the authors that I read, while feeling inclined to forgive them at the same time (knowing how easily we can all shortcut an assesment for the sake of brevity and sometimes "cute one-liners meant for our colleagues in-arms) and leave them to handle issues of humility (although, I felt the same as you have expressed)

Dale

[James K.A. Smith]

Dave,

The tone of your most recent post raises interesting issues about ethics and etiquette on this blog. If this blog is going to be the source of even more obligations and guilt trips on people who are already very busy, then please count me out of the discussion. I also think that we should avoid soliciting the opinions of specific people in our posts and comments, since it just might be the case that people don't have the time to respond--or might even think that a particular question, comment, or post doesn't merit response. (I'm wondering what other "someones" you expected to respond to your comments: you specifically seemed to be calling me out, but I'm not part of Think Tank to bear the burden of "speaking for RO" [whatever that would mean]--just like we shouldn't be asking Anthony, for instance, to "speak for" African-Americans.

I have enjoyed this venue, have been challenged to rethink some things--especially by Steve and Anthony--and value this a space to have dialogue without formal, burdensome commitments. I have tried, in good faith, to comment and respond as I've been able and as I've seen fit. I would like to note, for the record, that there are a number of "authors" listed in the left-hand column who've made no contributions to this blog. So before we get more tantrums about non-responses, maybe we could invite other, new authors to offer their thoughts.

That said, I'll try to respond to Dave's earlier post as I'm able and as I see fit. But it should be noted that in these dispatches from Spain, I was trying to offer a more journalistic report on what was said.

[James K.A. Smith]

I also accept Dale's call to curb our cute one-liners--though I find them alot more fun, and tend to find that "humility" can be a cover to stop disagreeing. But I receive the admonishment and will try to do better.

In church contexts (eg., teaching Adult Sunday School), I'm much more patient and more likely to give the benefit of the doubt. In more professional contexts, I expect more, and expect people to know better, but I need to work on the same charity and patience in academic discourse. That will really work if we see it reciprocated. Here I would like to give kudos to Jeff Stout for (largely and for the most part) doing that so well in _Democracy and Tradition_. (Yes, Steve, that's an olive branch for you! :-)

[James K.A. Smith]

Dave 2,

In looking back over your post, I'm having trouble seeing what it would mean to "respond" to your comments. To agree? So you don't think liberalism is the biggest problem in the church. OK, we could disagree with that. And there's been _lots_ written to try to make that case. On the other "side" [that's not quite right] is Stout. We're not going to hash this out in the comments function of a blog. Sorry.

Jamie

[Dave Belcher]

Jamie,

I'll admit my last comment was a bit snippy, but it wasn't that bad! I believe I said in my first comment that I was new to this blog, so how would I have known how much you contribute here or how often you comment? You seemed to respond to other comments, and you authored the post, so I figured that you would *eventually* take the time to respond. My latest response came because I figured that you had already dismissed my comment and deemed it unworthy of a response--and this was confirmed by your "response." For the record, a response would not require you to agree, but to actually take into account the arguments being made and respond accordingly to their logical coherence or incoherence. The fact that you perceived what I was saying as seeking you out to speak representatively as RO's spokesperson tells me that you already didn't engage what I was saying very closely. Like I said, I am no liberal...but the fact that I don't see "liberalism" as the problem with the Church, and that instead the problem corresponds to a trend in contemporary theology which runs not only through RO, but also through some of these other strands of "contemporary postliberals" *against* liberalism, should have been an indication that RO was not the only "school" my comments were indicting. I never asked you to "speak for RO" (and the analogy to Anthony takes things to another level which was a little uncalled for)--you authored a post which spoke about RO and other schools related to a similar commitment as RO.

I may have gone about the humility comment the wrong way...but I was making a theological point about a theology which points to no concrete body with this comment as much as the others. The fact that we can so disengage what we say in the academy--and how we say it--from how we speak and what we speak about in the Church is precisely the problem I was pointing to. If you think the "critique" I have set forth is worthless, fine. But, I think that eventually the schools listed above are going to have to respond to this problem in some fashion.

Peace

[Nate Kerr]

Jamie, Dave, and Dale.

I find this talk concerning the virtues (or not!) of humility in theological discourse interesting, if somewhat disconcerting in tenor. Allow me, if you will, to say a few things in this regard, and then attempt to connect these comments up with what it is about the Spain gathering that does not quite settle well with me as a minister of the gospel.

When the call is made for "humility" in theological discourse, I think it is helpful not to think of a kind of "mood" (a kind of namby-pamby "tolerance," if you will), but rather a kind of being-toward-God: humility as a kind of ontological poverty, a dispossession, a being-laid-bare by the self-revealing (and self-giving) action of God in the world.

So I think that to think humility properly, it is in some sense necessary to think dogmatically: to think Christologically, in terms of a God who is so free as to become exhuastively incarnate, without remainder, in a particular set of historical events; to think soteriologically in terms of "justification by faith," that is, to think of ourselves as so radically dispossessed that we have nothing upon which to depend but the sheer grace of God; to think eschatologically, or in this case apocalyptically, whereby it belongs to the heart of the idea that the ultimate significance of history is to be received, and so not created or imposed by us.

I could go on. But one may reasonably (and not unfairly, I think) ask: Is a gathering of a limited number of elite theologians, hand-picked by a single archbishop, and suddenly intoxicated by their being chosen to help negotiate the "New Beginnings" of the church, really the kind of work that the theological vocation calls us to in times such as these? Quite apart from the question of whether liberalism (or secularism, etc.) is the greatest problem in the church today (I have no interest in arbitrating the question), there is still the issue of what manner of questioning we are called to in times such as these. A point it seems to me that Dave was trying to make, and which has not yet been well-enough taken, is this: Does a gathering which presumes to have decided in advance the problem we are facing, and which is convened on the assumption that there is a given ecclesiological paradigm that can provide for us the way out, our new beginnings, adequately commit its participants to the kind of deep, humble, kenotic questioning before God that times like these demand? It may be that what we need is not a new ecclesiological paradigm at all, but rather a renewed honesty about the place of the church in the world, about the possibility of giving up on the fixed, correct positions of established ecclesiologies, along with a renewed sense as theologians of what it means to be true to our baptismal mandate to be faithful to Christ unto death? That is, too quickly to presume the problem, so that we can get on to the fix, may itself be part of the problem, insofar as it constricts us to the same cycles of questioning we are trying to get beyond.

(These comments are little more than fragments, and indeed constitute "a strange way of thinking out loud." But I will allow them to stand -- if Jamie shall be gracious enough as to allow me to follow his lead.)

Nate

[James K.A. Smith]

Nate (good to see you on here),

I'm trying to find in my remarks where I suggested that this Granada gathering saw itself as a world-historical moment, and just where I indicated that this group, or even the Archbishop, thought that they were going to dispense the wisdom that would not only definitively diagnose _the_ problem facing the church, but also _the_ definitive solution. What's particularly puzzling, for me, is that most of these folks--and the Archbishop above all!--are quite humble about what role they think they play and what they can accomplish. For the most part, these are people just trying to be faithful in their corner of the church. (Which is why they don't have the presumption that they can change "the world!") So I still find these criticisms and the persistent talk of humility missing the target. I'm pretty much regretting having reported from the meeting, since it seems like it has been regularly misinterpreted. Perhaps that's the fault of the way I framed it, but in any case, I don't know what more I can say.

Plus, you and all your free church friends are welcome to convene your own meetings, come up with your own diagnoses, make your own suggestions, and show us otherwise. Again, this meeting was the war room of some kind of imperial ecclesiological agenda! It was a group of people--who aren't dumb or malicious, by the way--who across national boundaries felt like they had a similar diagnosis of at least _some_ of the church's central challenges, and wanted to think together about what we might do in response. This was no curia!

[James K.A. Smith]

MAJOR CORRECTION: Should have read "this meeting was NOT the war room of some kind of imperial ecclesiological agenda!"

[James K.A. Smith]

Dave recently said: "(and the analogy to Anthony takes things to another level which was a little uncalled for)"

I would like to apologize to Anthony for my analogy which, looking back, was both ludicrous and even grotesque. It was ridiculous for me to compare my identification with RO with Anthony's identity as black or African American. I appreciate you calling me out on that, Dave.

[Dave Belcher]

Jamie, I think the biggest misunderstanding, or what may be my gross misinterpretation of your report on Granada, is that you know many of these people personally, while I know them only by their theological work--and that is actually all I am responding to. I of course don't think that a person's inner life can be easily extricated from their work...but as I don't know any of these people, I can only respond to their work. I think you are right that this comment box has seen its limit on this conversation...this probably needs to take place at a conference or in a journal somewhere; and thus I won't pull out quotes to back up what I'm saying, which would just be ridiculous at this point (my initial response really was simply to your report and to my sense of it based on my readings of the folks that were there). For another time, and hopefully by then we can get over this misunderstanding and have a beer or something.

peace

[Dave Belcher]

One final clarification--
Since the Archbishop also seemed to invite the participants based on their belonging to a particular theological school and not their particular work in the Church (this is based on the way you frame your report in concordance with contemporary "schools" of postliberalism), my comments about humility could only apply to that basis, and not the latter. I think it is quite possible for one's theological work to be quite contrary to the spirit of humility while their personal life reflects such humility (from what I know of Stephen Long, this is indeed the case...about who he is up-close that is; in other words I have heard that he is a very gracious person). Coincidentally, the possibility of such a division seems even to be affirmed by Milbank's poetic ontology where language is released from the author's grasp, taking on the character of its infinite interpretations.

I mean no ill-will toward any particular persons--well, really to their theologies either, for that matter. But, I do see the framing of particular theological problems by at least two of the schools listed to be a contribution to the problem rather than the answer for the Church (and this does not imply that these schools constitute a world-historical event or something, but simply that the Archbishop, as you stated, understood these schools to basically be right with regards to the predicament of the Church, particularly in Spain).

peace

[Nate Kerr]

Jamie.

Thank you for welcoming me to the site. I hope that I will have time to engage in conversation from time to time on here.

Your points are well-taken. I still don't think my remarks on humility hit their target, but that is fair enough. And I hope you've been around me enough to know that I am not passing moral judgments on any particular persons here. I personally am only responding to a general tone in theology today that I find reflected in reports that I have received from the Granada gathering. As an example, I will simply point to one line in your second "dispatch": 'The Archbishop’s sensibilities here are both fascinating and instructive: he believes that these “postliberal” schools of thought (including the “nouvelle theologie” tradition in Catholicism) provide the only way forward for a Church which seeks to inhabit our situation which is at once deeply modern (liberal) and postmodern (nihilistic)' (emphasis added). Now, to say that this remark is "fascinating" is true indeed -- I find it fascinating that any thinker would locate in movements as young as post-liberalism and Radical Orthodoxy the way forward for the church in a time wrought with such historical significance as is ours; and I can engage such an opinion critically. To say that it is "instructive" however, strikes me as somewhat parochial. To make this claim seems in fact to have chosen a particular provincial vantage point, whereby the cateogories of discourse have form their own constituency and meaning system.

That is really all I am saying. I am simply suggesting that we perhaps are stuck within a mode of questioning which relies upon stale and over-used categories, which themselves are more divisive than they are subversively disruptive. Perhaps what is needed is for us as theologians to re-consider our very mode of questioning.

(I'll refrain from responding to your "free church" jab -- except only to say that such conferences are not really our style! ;-) )

Gratefully.
Nate

[James K.A. Smith]

Dave and Nate,

I wonder if one of the things we're running up against is the very limits of this kind of electronic interaction--that a blog conversation can be helpful to a point, but getting further might take the time and flesh-and-blood interaction that will be harder for us to have. I don't know how many times a misread email has gotten me in trouble! I hope Nate can vouch that I'm not that bad of a guy in person--an arrogant prick to be sure, but it usually takes a while for people to figure that out, so that by the time they do, they're friends and they'll tolerate it! :-)

It might also be helpful for me to stop talking for others and point you to a piece written by Javier Martinez: see the re-posting of a _Communio_ essay at http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/martinez.htm

[Nate Kerr]

Jamie.

I'll vouch for your nice-guy status, of course. And I'll also vouch for what you've said about Archbishop Martinez. What little time I have spent with him leaves no doubt in my mind that he is seeking nothing less than to be entirely faithful to his vocation as a teaching officer of the Church.

And thanks for reporting on the Granada conference. The fact that its happening can bring to the surface such profound disagreements among persons who share common theological sensibilities and concerns for the church today surely indicates something of its importance and timeliness, however positively or negatively perceived.

(But just so you know: I am not "agreeing to disagree" -- yet! That, surely, would be a false humility. ;-) )

Gratefully.
Nate