How Christian is our Present-Day Theology?
The title of this essay is an amalgamation of what are some of the most ambiguous terms of the twenty-first century. What does it mean to use “Christian” as an adjective (or any other part of speech, for that matter)? What is the “present-day” in a post-everything age? What is “theology” after the death of God? Though surely the jury is still out on such definitions (as it should be), one juror who may be of particular help is the German theologian Franz Overbeck, especially his book after which this essay is named. In this work, Overbeck strikes a pose against the task of theology in general, which he considers to be a project of “self-misunderstanding” that seeks to make the alien Gospel of Christianity palatable to worldly modes of being and thought. Although he fixates on the two driving strands of theology in his modern context (apologetic and liberal), his critique goes all the way down to the Church Fathers. He advocates, however, a recovery of primitive Christianity as a means of prophetic critique against prevailing systems and structures. Such a critique, perhaps now more than ever, is desperately necessary for the survival of whatever we might call the root of Christianity and the sanity of contemporary society. It is the task of this essay to work in a similar vein as Overbeck, using the call of Christianity to critique the theology typically branded as “Christian” in hopes that the “self-misunderstanding” of Christianity identified by Overbeck might be transfigured into a “self-understanding,” capable of assuming its prophetic task.
ARGUMENT 1: The anti-Christianity of theology.
In order to speak of Christianity as a means of prophetic critique, we must first uncover how such a critique has been stifled. It is here that Overbeck is most helpful, particularly in his historical narrative of Christianity contrasted with a more popular one. The contemporary story that finds its way most readily into the public is one in which Christianity provides the foundations of reason. On this view, it is a logically defensible and justifiable religion as a result of its having contributed so much to our tradition of rationality as well as its allegedly reasonable claims. As it comes into contact with other worldviews, a natural butting of heads will occur. Both worldviews, however, can make use of a neutral space of reason which serves as an ultimate adjudicator of the opposing sides, and the Christian knows its opposition is simply mistaken in the dialectical process. Apologetics becomes one of the most respectable feats and professions and garners praise and admiration from typical churchgoers and pastors alike, as it is the apologists who allow Christians to feel most comfortable as though they have chosen the most cohesive epistemological path.
Such a narrative is well contrasted with Overbeck. On his view, the essential soul of Christianity is one of “world-negation,” one that is purely eschatological, with death and a radically new life as its posture toward the world. Indeed, the call of Christianity was the call of faith, rather than the call of knowledge. Overbeck specifically attacks the notion that Christianity is somehow the grounding for a move toward rational knowledge. This is in fact the moment Christianity forfeits its claims as a viable religion “for, if Christianity is considered as a religion, then it is rather the case that, like every religion, it has the most unambiguous antipathy towards rational knowledge.”[1] In Overbeck’s narrative, as Christianity progressed it found itself holding power and the need to legitimize itself resulting in appeals to Greek philosophy (more contemporarily, this includes the scientific method, historical criticism, etc.). It felt obligated to answer worldly concerns and stabilize itself within the world, rather than operate from its otherworldliness. Overbeck is worth quoting at length:
But as soon as critical thought is appealed to, we are dealing with something other than faith…for that reason too, in so far as theology brings faith into contact with rational knowledge, it is in itself and by its very nature always irreligious. And theology can only ever develop where concerns alien to religion’s own intrinsic interests emerge alongside the latter. Just how alien these concerns in fact are to religion, how opposed in particular the concerns of rational thought are to those of faith, we can see very clearly from the fact that the most essential of faith’s basic assumptions and supports are the very first ones to collapse, and to collapse most comprehensively, when submitted to rational explanations.[2]
Even the structure of the biblical canon shows Christianity’s resistance to worldly epistemologies. Overbeck provides the example of placing the Gospel of John next to the synoptics. [3] Theology, that is, the process of rationalizing and thus dressing up the faith-oriented call of Christianity to make it presentable to the world, is at odds with the Christian narrative. It is a self-misunderstanding. Instead of retaining its ability to critique the world from an external position, it finds itself constantly catering to the accepted measurements of the world, as it has “no epistemological principles of its own.”[4] It does not allow itself to be its own voice but simply borrows from other disciplines, thus establishing itself not as a religious worldview but as a struggling attempt to construct a system of thought based on a foundation of faith that is antithetical to the rationalizing project.
ARGUMENT 2: The anti-Christianity of present-day theology.
Such a self-misunderstanding has had dire consequences for the faithful in the world including abuses of Church power, ongoing secularity, self-marginalization, intentional ignorance, and, most importantly, a loss of a posture with which it might speak to the world rather than be subordinated to it. The current theological situation is perhaps the most tangible example of such a loss. Particularly interesting is how theology finds its way into the masses, and Overbeck provides continued help in his discussion of “popular theology.” Theology, suggests Overbeck, is a bit of a scholastic oddity. As a discipline, it is ridiculed and always on the defensive, constantly struggling to keep its head above water (Overbeck says it is the least popular of the disciplines[5]). Its lack of respect in the academy, however, is inversely proportional to the interest shown in it by the public.
A cursory glance at a popular bookstore or bestseller list will surely indicate that the ubiquitous struggle between apologists and their detractors has many patrons. However, Overbeck states clearly that apologists have no business in the public academic climate. He writes “What characterizes present-day apologetic theology is the utter thoughtlessness with which it has followed its opponents into the public arena.”[6] Here he begins to show most clearly his existentialist tendencies, as he criticizes the modern attempt to legitimize Christianity via proofs and rhetoric. Natural science, for example, is useful “in the so-called struggle for existence.”[7] However, in contrast he says, “Popular academic theology can be of no use at all in this sense. For what religion can mean to people in the difficulties of life is not enhanced or strengthened by theology, but diminished and weakened.”[8] The vast array of attempts to answer the challenges of postmodernism and popular atheism have been met not by living alternative realities informed by a faith of finitude but by appealing to allegedly neutral spaces of proof, a substituting of faith for reason, which results in either an argumentative impasse or justified ridicule. The laity, confident that the apologists have legitimized faith via reason, is often sucked into the dichotomy resulting in an obsession with argument to the detriment of lived community. Any time scholarship loses touch with lived experience it commits the ultimate crime (and the “new atheists” engaging in debates with the apologists are guilty of the same critique). “Popular theology, then, blurs far too easily the dividing lines between faith and knowledge in people’s minds. That, however, is the beginning of all barbarism.”[9]
ARGUMENT 3: The Kingdom of God is not of this world.
All of this deconstruction of “theology,” however, warrants an attempt at a positive articulation of what Christianity ought to be in contrast to how it manifests in the aforementioned ways. What Overbeck has in mind when critiquing “theology” clearly cannot mean any talk of God or Christianity proper. This is evidenced by his repeated assertions of what Christianity is: something external to the world that sits in a position to critique it. Overbeck’s driving theme is that, “world-negation is the innermost soul of Christianity”.[10] It responds to the fundamental problems of existence (birth, life and death) through an eschatological vision. This vision is not purely theoretical. Instead, Overbeck says, “The Christian religion bore witness to itself by living realities.”[11] This witness is best seen in the world-negating forces of asceticism and monasticism; indeed, even the garb and celibacy of priests embodies a vision of the future Kingdom. Christianity allows individuals to rise beyond the problems of the world, not in escapism but as a means of fully dealing with them. “The only serious grounds human beings have ever had for accepting Christianity has been their awareness of the misery of existence.”[12] The problem Christianity ran into was, as mentioned above, the attempt to return to the world after forgetting its celestial home. “Christianity only acquired a theology when it wanted to gain a foothold in a world it was supposed to have rejected.”[13] This happens especially when Christianity becomes a bedfellow to politics. Such a relationship is most easily seen in the political climate of America, which is marked by an appeal to be legitimized by Christianity, thus making Christianity subservient once again to perhaps the most worldly of demands. National exceptionalism indicates “one of the most basic convictions of Christianity is dead.”[14] There is but one King of kings, and, as Christ responds to Pilate, if his Kingdom was of this world his disciples would fight for him.[15]
ARGUMENT 4: The Kingdom of God is in your midst.
This otherworldly character, however, must never be over-emphasized to the point of ignoring earthly plights. Though Overbeck focuses primarily on this “world-negation” of Christianity, indeed its crucial theme, he viewed the faith as presenting a more eudaemonistic vision as he matured.[16] That Christ himself expresses the Kingdom as both not of this world (John 18:36) and also in our midst (Luke 17:21) is indicative of the chief character of Christianity, namely, expressing truths through contradictory binaries (life and death, love and hate, power and humility, wealth and poverty, etc.).[17] Christianity is committed to speaking into the world, having transcended it, but without conforming to it. It offers a prophetic voice able to speak to the anxieties of modernity, such as fragmentation. Overbeck writes:
There are many liberating ideas that Christianity’s view of life can still offer the contemporary world. Today, when nations are so clearly going their separate ways, when the different classes in society are threatening to become isolated from each other in an all too hostile fashion, and when even individuals reveal a disturbing indifference to any kind of community not based solely on baser interests, it is surely still of inestimable value if, over this whole ominous process of disintegration, at least the name of Christianity should hover as a kind of categorical imperative, condemning it.[18]
Not only can it condemn disintegration, but in the midst of such an “ominous process” it is able to speak of a Kingdom to come and a Kingdom that is here—something to hope for and something to participate in. It does not accommodate the world; it crafts a new one in contradistinction to it.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that theology is a self-misunderstanding. The gap between faith and knowledge is not something to be bridged but to be recognized, like the gap separating Lazarus from the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). Not until Christianity purges itself of a fixation on worldly respect will it be able to follow the steps of its Messiah. Then it may offer a critique of empire, injustice, and selfishness by opening up a pathway to palpable redemption, both in this world and the world to come. “A religion need not be particularly concerned about the myths it has created, so long as its power to generate myths remains a living force, i.e. so long as the miraculous forces that produced its basic myth still remain operative in it.”[19] Mystery and ambiguity are the most significant parts of faith. Mystery allows for the creative unfolding of God’s power and the possibility of a real community that may speak prophetically into the world. This community must overcome its insecurities not by appeals to apologetic theology but by the faith it builds itself on through prayer and action. This is not to say that there is no place for reason or the dialectical process. Instead it is to uphold the primacy of faith and declare, along with Anselm: faith seeks understanding.
[1]Franz Overbeck. How Christian is our Present-Day Theology? Trans. Martin Henry. London : T & T Clark International. 2005. 30. Emphasis in original.
[2] Ibid. 32. Emphasis in original.
[3] Ibid. 49.
[4] Ibid. 40.
[5] Ibid. 97.
[6] Ibid. 92.
[7] Ibid. 97.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. 91.
[11] Ibid. 37.
[12] Ibid. 72.
[13] Ibid. 39.
[14] Ibid. 64.
[15] John 18:36.
[16] Overbeck. How Christian…footnote 39. xxix.
[17] The duality of the Kingdom is preserved in two strands, one within monasticism and the other in works like Augustine’s City of God.
[18] Overbeck. How Christian…113.
[19] Ibid. 41.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to share your thoughts, dissenting or otherwise.