"How Christian is our Present-Day Theology?"

So I finally had my first tutorial with Dr. Kanterian. It was actually very interesting, to say the least. His office is nestled deep within an obscure building in Trinity College. After finding it, I sat outside the top room where I heard a tutorial going on. I then discovered every possible way to make unexpected noise which was surely disruptive including eating a loud granola bar, walking with my hard shoes to find a garbage can, having water go down "the wrong tube" causing a hellish coughing fit which I had to fight back, and (the definite classic from having backpacks and loose sneakers in mass during gradeschool) trying to figure out the best speed at which to pull velcro apart to be the least noticeable.

Of course, after about twenty minutes of eavesdropping on what sounded like a chemistry lecture, I decided this probably wasn't Dr. Kanterian's office. So I explored some more, tried a random door, and lo and behold--Dr. Kanterian.

We were actually dressed in the same outfit--cool shoes, courdoroy pants, and a sweater over a button-up shirt. The first thing I noticed was a copy of Sein und Zeit by Martin Heidegger on the ground (just light reading, of course). I then saw a wall of books including a vast array of German philosophers in German, which made perfect sense since it turns out Dr. Kanterian is actually German himself, as well as an entire shelf of Wittgenstein writings.

The tutorial itself was quite an experience. The essay question, as I mentioned here before, was "Should we believe in what is paradoxical?" Fear and Trembling was to be my guide with limited secondary material consulted. After some quick but cordial introductions, Kanterian asked me to read my essay aloud (we both had hard copies). I was initially nervous, but soon really enjoyed being able to draw out my inflection in the writing and provide some clarification on a few footnotes. He stopped me every once in a while to write comments on his copy and asked me to proceed. He never verbally made a comment during my reading other than to have me wait. At the end, he posed this scenario to me. Suppose you and I are walking on the street and we see a man who holds a knife up to his son's throat in front of us. What are we to do? This led to a lengthy discussion of the universal, the ethical, and the paradoxical. Kanterian was clearly coming from an analytic vantage point, as he often keyed in on the term "paradox" and was quite upset with Kierkegaard's usage of the term.

From Kanterian's perspective, the term paradox must be either impossible to do or impossible to talk about, neither of which Johannes de Silentio (Kierkegaard's pseudonym) affirms. I tried to state that Silentio is being playful with the term and has his eyes set on a Hegelian, Danish Christianity, in which Abraham really does seem to be totally paradoxical. After several long discussions and attempts at defining terms, we discovered we had reached an impasse. I believe we were talking passed each other, and I am still convinced that Kanterian is trying to box Silentio into a box of logic and tidy terms while I think Silentio is doing something purposefully frustrating and playful. Regardless, however, Kanterian argued with clarity and great manners and legitimately sought to help me understand what was going on. I never felt offended or that he was aggressive, and I hope he could say the same for me.

At the end of the tutorial, Kanterian asked me why I was interested in Kierkegaard. I basically summed up my first post I made on this blog. I think Kierkegaard offers an incredibly helpful hermeneutic for navigating complacent Christianity, especially as evidenced in America (Kanterian seemed shocked to find out that many American Christians affirm the death penalty). He decided I was a bit too familiar with Kierkegaard for the tutorial to be of much use and suggested a few alternatives, which leads to what I am most excited to talk about here: Franz Overbeck.

When Kanterian thought about my project, he first suggested I read Nietzsche. After some discussion he came up with another name. Franz Overbeck. Overbeck was a theologian who lived on the same floor as Nietzsche and became close friends with him. He didn't write a lot, but he did cause quite a stir. Apparently he also fed quite heavily into Karl Barth. Overbeck has been ignored largely in the English-speaking world since not much of his work is translated, but his major work, How Christian is our Present-Day Theology? was available in English at the Bodleian Library.

In the work, Overbeck really takes theology, both conservative and liberal, to task for having negated all of Christianity. And this critique is not isolated to the modern critical Protestantism but in fact extends all the way back into the Greek Christian Fathers. In Overbeck's view, Christianity is a religion of finitude--it reminds humans of the transient nature of life and it emphasizes death, always looking to the world to come. Theology, instead, tames the radical message of finitude in order for us to enjoy life here and now. As he says on page 54, "...the light that [Christianity] casts on the world to come serves not so much to illuminate the next world as to emphasize the darkness of this world." He rails against the attempts to systematize and legitimize Christianity to the rest of the world (via any proofs other than experiential ones, whether they be philosophical, historical, scientific, etc.), instead saying Christianity is a religion of "lived realities." My next essay, due Saturday, takes the title of Overbeck's book as its driving question--how Christian is our present-day theology?

So basically, I have 1500-2000 words to explain the critique of an obscure German (anti?)theologian and apply it to American Christianity. This is a challenge I will gladly accept.

I am about 90 pages into the book so far (almost half way through it), and I must say it's a wild ride but very fascinating and seemingly rewarding. I must say that I am really looking forward to finishing the text and writing the paper (I can only read it on weekdays from 9-5 in the Bodleian, so today is my forced day off).

Until then, I will close with this quote from Overbeck:

The only serious grounds human beings have ever had for accepting Christianity has been their awareness of the misery of existence. If apologetics does not find again the ability to speak as it did in the past, then it may ransack heaven and earth in search of proofs from history and natural history, but no one who can think for himself--or no one of any real sensitivity--once he has lost his faith, will be won over to belief in its myths and dogmas. (72-73)