Resurrection as Narrative Bound; or, one cannot have one's philosophical cake and eat it, too
I have been listening to some lectures on postmodernism for a church context. Very interesting. The two main guys, John Caputo (Syracuse University) and Patrick Kearney (Boston College), have some great thoughts to share. I love how they can make philosophers sound like preachers (e.g., Jacques Derrida; at one point, Kearney says something like, "If you're listening to or reading [Caputo], then you'll be disappointed in reading Derrida. Caputo really makes Derrida sound redemptive."). (The podcasts are available here.)
However, the last podcast ended rather disappointingly with the theology Caputo and Kearney both spouted, which was pluralism: the different religions, inasmuch as they point to love being the center of reality, point to God and will all end up with God. The problem, of course, is that if God is love, then inasmuch as anything points to God as love, it is true, and applying this statement to religions is no different. It simply becomes a truism. But more importantly, the saving event(s) of the Christian narrative, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, are radically tied to a single man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is radically tied to the narrative of Israel. It is not just unique, it is particular. If all religions point to God and all religions are tied to their own narratives, then we don't have a plurality of good news. In fact, we have lost Christianity as a route to God. Let me flesh this out.
At one point, Kearney says that Jesus and Buddha would sit and listen to each other. When
pressed by Tony Jones, the moderator, whether or not Jesus would call the Buddha to follow him, Kearney says he would, but that Jesus would also accept the Buddha's invitation to follow him. This is obviously a far cry from Jesus of Nazareth being installed as King, and the Buddha being among the many who bow before Jesus of Nazareth. This notion that Jesus and Buddha are on par with each other radically undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ because its meaning is longer supported by its narrative. If Jesus of Nazareth is raised from the dead and ascends to heaven, then the Father of Jesus Christ is God. The narrative of Jesus Christ bears no good news if it is one of many because of its particularity and meaning when fit in the context of Israel.
One cannot both hope for the resurrection and undercut the unique and particular narrative which gives rise to it and its meanings.
However, the last podcast ended rather disappointingly with the theology Caputo and Kearney both spouted, which was pluralism: the different religions, inasmuch as they point to love being the center of reality, point to God and will all end up with God. The problem, of course, is that if God is love, then inasmuch as anything points to God as love, it is true, and applying this statement to religions is no different. It simply becomes a truism. But more importantly, the saving event(s) of the Christian narrative, life, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, are radically tied to a single man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is radically tied to the narrative of Israel. It is not just unique, it is particular. If all religions point to God and all religions are tied to their own narratives, then we don't have a plurality of good news. In fact, we have lost Christianity as a route to God. Let me flesh this out.
At one point, Kearney says that Jesus and Buddha would sit and listen to each other. When
pressed by Tony Jones, the moderator, whether or not Jesus would call the Buddha to follow him, Kearney says he would, but that Jesus would also accept the Buddha's invitation to follow him. This is obviously a far cry from Jesus of Nazareth being installed as King, and the Buddha being among the many who bow before Jesus of Nazareth. This notion that Jesus and Buddha are on par with each other radically undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ because its meaning is longer supported by its narrative. If Jesus of Nazareth is raised from the dead and ascends to heaven, then the Father of Jesus Christ is God. The narrative of Jesus Christ bears no good news if it is one of many because of its particularity and meaning when fit in the context of Israel.
One cannot both hope for the resurrection and undercut the unique and particular narrative which gives rise to it and its meanings.
posted by Aaron Perry at
3:16 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for the link to the talks from Emergent Village. Like you, I found them fascinating, especially the anecdotes of Caputo's and Kearney's personal interaction(s) with Ricoeur and Derrida.
The universalism was disappointing as was Kearney's description of the Trinity. Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, but it seemed like he was trying to justify his idea on the basis of some works of art.
Equally interesting was the observation that discussion of faith was off limits to many deconstructionists. Bringing it up usually results in the deconstructionist reacting with a staunchly modernist appeal to reason. I thought that was hilarious.
For the sake of contrast, I also listened last week to the Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox debate over Dawkin's God Delusion. Definitely these two discussions are from different worlds.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home