The Shack: Concerning Closure and Inaction

So I managed to read The Shack by William Paul Young inbetween my other reading assignments (the fact that I am still reading is a rather dire situation considering I am trying to finish a first draft by the end of the month!). It tells the story of Mackenzie Allen Philips (Mac), the daughter (Missy) of whom has been abducted, her body never found. Four years after this horrific experience, Mac receives a note from God asking him to come to the deserted and isolated shack where Missy's blood was found. What follows is a meeting between Mac and God.

At the monthly discussion group that I go to at a local church here, Theologically Speaking, we reacted to the so-called "radicality" of the theology that permeates this fictional narrative, the disappointing "did it happen or not" aspect to the story, the lucrative nature of the publication of a book initially written for his children, and the level of "closure" offered by its ending.

We remarked that narration is a useful means of engaging readers with theological issues. But we felt that, in this case, we were very cognisant as we read of the fact that the story was intended as a vehicle for theology. We found that the story contains theology that was "radical" fifty or so years ago, remaining radical for only a certain kind of Christian (and atheist, given many atheists perceptions of Christianity).

We also felt that the narration itself suffered from a disatisfying ambiguity. We felt that we were comfortable with this story being a parable of meeting God, and that it did not need the "real-world" explanation ("it was all a psychological event caused by massive physical trauma") that was provided. Why not just tell the story of a man meeting God? Did Young really think that such a story would be unpalatable without a "get-out" aetiological option? We displayed a level of comfort and familiarity with parable as a means of communication and an understanding of the narratival nature of communication today that suggested that more readers than just us would have prefered a simple parable, uncomplicated by such ambiguities.

It left us disappointed and (too?) keen to ask whether or not the events narrated "actually happened." The point of Jesus' parables were never to get the listener to ask, "did this happen or not?" If that is the first question, then the point of the tale has been missed. This is how we felt about The Shack. The preoccupation with the "did this actually happen?" question, evoked by Young's decision to include a "real-world" explanation alongside a "religious" one, meant that questions of theology (the whole "point" of the narrative) were not asked immediately.

We were also suspicious of Young's motivations for publication. What started out as a story for his children is now a multi-million-copy-selling (some websites say 6 or 7 million) phenomenon of "grass roots" publishing. I have absolutely no problem with this aspect of the book. Good for "ordinary" story tellers using their own finances to fund projects they, their families, and their friends feel passionate about.

But, at the end of the book, there is a page advertising "The Missy Project." Rather than being a charitable organisation raising funds to support the families and friends of abducted children, The Missy Project (not to be confused with The Missy Project, a nonprofit organisation promoting awareness of brain aneurysm disease in children) is a means of promoting The Shack. Very far from a not-for-profit organisation, The Missy Project is precisely designed to increase profit!!!

The page advertises the fact that film producers are interested in purchasing the publishing rights - but only after a certain number of copies are sold!!! It then suggests ways of helping the book "gain traction in the wider culture," such as posting promotional jpgs on your websites and blogs, asking radio stations and podcasters to invite Young as a guest speaker, and, of course, buying it for your friends and families. The Missy Project site says: "Don't make it an advertisement, but share how this book impacted your life and offer people the link to The Shack website." Certainly don't advertise... but talk about how personally valuable you found the book and then link to a place where readers can buy it - as I've just done... How is that not an advertisement?!? Surely, by linking to Amazon.co.uk in the first sentence of this post, I am engaging in precisely an advertising campaign for The Shack?

So I was personally disgusted that the book included a page advertising itself and suggesting ways readers could engage in the books' promotion, and not a page of information pointing readers to a not-for-profit charity where they could contribute to the support of families and friends of missing children, and to the individuals and organisations that help in the search.

Finally, I was also repelled by the ending of the book. Without revealing the precise nature of the ending and thereby "spoiling" the reading experience of those who have not yet personally bought and read a copy (follow the links in this post to purchase your very own book!!!), Mac and his family find a level of "closure" that, sadly, many parents of abducted children experience do not. Madeleine McCann's family do not have such closure. The parents of most missing children do not experience the levels of media attention and charitable funding that her parents have experienced - which leads me back to my earlier point about the (missed) opportunity that The Shack offered for raising awareness about means of financial support. The Find Madeline website includes a page linking to Missing Children Organisations throughout the world. Why do copies of The Shack not include a page of such information? Why does The Shack website not include such information? After reading The Shack, I was left with the distinct impression of an "it'll be all right in the end" theology. Mac's relationships, with his father, his daughter, his wife, the rest of his family, his friends, with God, are ultimately reconstructed, repaired, rebuilt, restored. He is no longer broken and shattered, but whole. No longer angry, but peaceful. I feel that such a "everything will be fine" theology is disingenuous and very far from the day-to-day experience of most people, including most Christians, let alone from the experience of those whose lives are marked by the abduction of a loved one.

I feel strongly that the purpose of this book was to use the experience of child abduction as a vehicle for theologising and for the promotion of a particular theological outlook that appears to promote "righteous" complacency in a divine plan rather than Just action for change.

Viewed in such a light, this book is in no way radical.

Please ignore the links I have made to places where you can purchase The Shack. Instead, please follow the links to the following missing children organisations, and donate generously.

Missing People
Parents and Abducted Children Together
International Centre for Mssing and Exploited Children
Missing Children Europe

Also, visit the Don't You Forget About Me channel on Youtube.com to view videos of missing children.

Greenbelt 2010

Further to Friday's post, according to Christian Aid, Greenbelt 2010 will be from Friday 27th August until Monday 30 August. Although I can't find any details on the Greenbelt website, Wikipedia is listing next year's theme as "The Art of Looking Sideways."

Greenbelt 09 Talks

Unable to get to Greenbelt this year (theme: Standing in the Long Now), I've been eagerly scanning the talks available on CD or MP3 download from the website. I'm looking forward to hearing Kester Brewin's talks in advance of his next book (hopefully available next year some time), as well as Mark Vernon (my partner Sim happened across his book, After Atheism, yesterday). And, as ever, Pete Rollins' contributions. In particular, I'm going to fork out for:

• Church Without Borders, Dave Tomlinson


• How to be a Religious Agnostic, Mark Vernon


• We Are Strange; God is Stranger, Kester Brewin


• The Birth of Christianity and the Death of Meaning, Pete Rollins


• A Plea for Christian Piracy, Kester Brewin


• Justice is Not Christian, Nigel Varndell


• How Not to Believe, Maggi Dawn, Pete Rollins, Roman Krznaric, and Mark Vernon.

Lots of academics also give talks at Greenbelt - this year included Ursula King (Bristol, and SOAS) who I met when I organised an international conference on Gender and Spiritual Praxis in Asian Contexts at Lancaster in 2006, and Andrew Tate (Lancaster). Other academics that I know and whose work I use or have used that have also spoken at Greenbelt include Kristin Aune (Derby), Grace Davie (Exeter), Tina Beattie (Roehampton) and Jolyon Mitchell (Edinburgh). Greenbelt is a fantastic place for disseminating research and I hope to be able to do something next year... if my proposal(s) get accepted.

The (Shocking?) Shack

Over our summer hiatus, "Theologically Speaking," the theological discussion group that I'm part of at my local Anglican church, has been reading The Shack by William P. Young. Although I have very little time to read anything that I don't have to read for my doctoral studies, I'm going to try reading a few chapters of this a night, ready for our meeting towards the end of September (also when I hope to have a finished "first final draft" of my thesis for my supervisor to read!).

I'm not particularly looking forward to reading it. I've only ever read Brian McLaren's "Christian fiction" (A New Kind of Christian, The Story We Find Ourselves In, and The Last Word and The Word After That). I found the quality of writing rather disappointing, even though the theological perspectives put forward (not necessarily all held by McLaren himself - this is fiction, after all, and aims at provoking indepdent thought rather than instilling a particular line) were moving closer to my own position. However, I find the fragments of fiction in the work of someone like Pete Rollins (now collected here) and in the liturgical practices of communities within the emerging church milieu must more inspirational than I imagine any single sustained work of ficiton could be (as it often entails the systematization of perspectives into a unified narrative). Anyway, my presuppositions about The Shack (based only on a quick reading of a few reviews, see here and here for example) are that it is going to be theologically "daring" only from the perspective of conservative Christianity. I don't think it is going to be that radical - i.e. it is not so audacious to imagine God as a black woman - and so will end up, I imagine, coming off as a bit pedestrian from the perspective of my own thinking.

But, I stress, I haven't even opened it yet. I am prepared to be shocked by The Shack. In fact, I hope it does surprise me out of my own presumptions. It would be great for it to stimulate some thinking for me and, hopefully, in conversation with everyone else at my discussion group, it will. I imagine that some of the others at Theologically Speaking will also be hoping that The Shack doesn't still domesticate whilst seeking to radicalise. I'll have to wait and see. Anyone else read it?

[Post Update: Having read it, you can now read my reflections on The Shack here.]

Review of Reading Spiritualities

The current issue (vol.23,no.3,Sept09) of Literature & Theology includes a review of the collection of papers edited by my supervisor, Deborah Sawyer, and fellow PhD candidate, Dawn Llewellyn, Reading Spiritualities: Constructing and Representing the Sacred.

Anna Fisk (University of Glasgow) writes that the editors' introduction is 'an excellent stand-alone map of where postmodern theological interpretation is situated today' (p.368).

She ends by commenting that,

'In her introduction to Is There a Future for Feminist Theology? Deborah Sawyer identifies feminist theology's tendency to work in a ghetto, separate from secular feminism and other branches of theology. Reading Spiritualities is a valuable example of resistance to that trend, asserting the continued relevance of doing theology with a political edge, yet without staying boxed in a room of one's own' (p.370).

But, more importantly, here's the bit about me:

'Katharine Sarah Moody examines the blogs of the 'emerging church' movement as an example of the wish to move from being 'passive consumers' to 'active creators' amongst Christians influenced by postmodernity. One major insight of Moody's study is that the censorship of readers' comments, and the hierarchy of credibility that exists amongst blogs and bloggers, may herald the return of textual 'authority over' in a new guise' (p.369).

Joking aside, Dawn did an especially great job not only being the primary organiser of the international conference from which these papers stemmed, but also putting together the collection and doing such a stirling editing job! Yay for Dawn!!!

Queerying Sociology of Religion Article

Further to the saga of publishing my "Queerying The Spiritual Revolution: Religious Mediation Among LGBT Christians" (see here, here, here and here), I've finally decided to go for it and submit it (once I've played around with the house publishing style) to the Journal of Contemporary Religion. Paul Heelas was very generous, as usual, in his advice and has given me the confidence to give it a go! So, watch this space...

External Examiner News

Also whilst we were away in Andalucia, I got the news from my supervisor, Deborah Sawyer, that Gerard Loughlin has provisionally agreed to be the external examiner for my viva, barring natural disasters and the like. Gerard is a Professor in the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University. He likes telling stories and sex. Okay, so, slightly overfamiliar way of putting that... but you followed those links, didn't you?!? He's co-editor (with Elizabeth Stuart) of Theology & Sexuality. His doctoral research was on the philosophy and theology of John Hick (who features briefly, one might say fragmentally, in my thesis). He's a fan of interdisciplinarity, or "cross-dressing," as he puts it, so my positioning within philosophy, theology and religious studies (particularly the sociology of religion) is a location with which he is familiar. His research interests (Christianity, gender, sexuality, popular culture) clearly overlap with my own (both displayed in my thesis and in my MA studies on LGBT religiosity), but its his emphasis on narrative theology that is a particular reason he will be a really interesting dialogue partner (if that is what the viva experience actually is, rather than what it is just sold to us as!!!). My Chaper Six, "Truth, Theology and Fictionality" will hopefully be something he can sink his teeth into - but not too hard, I hope! He'll be a fantastic guy to (hopefully) get a reference from, particularly if I get to apply for research funding at Manchester with Graham Ward. Finally, Deborah says he's a really nice guy... Always, always, always a bonus.

Updates After Andalucia

So I didn't get all my holiday reading done. Mainly because it's quite hard to read when its 40 degrees. I did get through Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter and Reading Derrida / Thinking Paul: On Justice, though. So I've got a few more texts to go (especially Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age, which I got half way through about two years ago) before I feel more comfortable in moving ahead with my remaining chapters (mainly Chapters Four, Five and Seven).

While we were away, I did some good thinking on how I'm going to characterise the relationship between my different sources of empirical and theoretical data. I have both empirical texts (interview transcripts, e-questionnaires, and a variety of emerging church media) and theoretical texts (mainly by Jack Caputo and Jamie Smith, but including secondary literature by people like Gavin Hyman, Theodore Jennings, Bruce Ellis Benson, Richard Kearney, Robyn Horner, Merold Westphal, Kevin Hart, and Mark C Taylor).

My starting point is, of course, my empirical data. But because of the very nature of this starting point, my own reading of theology and philosophy has to follow the trajectories of my participants. Therefore, the theoretical texts augment the empirical ones, making in particular two strands clearer within the data. In the process, then, there is a massive amount of literature that I've only been able to dip into, including work by St. Augustine, Alain Badiou, Jacques Derrida, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger, John Hick, Gerard Loughlin, Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion, John Milbank, Friedrich Nietzsche, St. Paul, and Graham Ward, etc.

My thesis is not "on" the work of any of these people. To an extent, it could be said to be "on" deconstructive theology, or Radical Orthodoxy, or, of course, the emerging church milieu. It might even be said to be "on" Jack Caputo and/or Jamie Smith. But I have to be clear that mine is not, for example, a thesis "on Derrida." Instead, I've been thinking about using the word "fragments" to refer to the other reading practices that I have had to engage in. This form of reading does not, for example, "do justice" to "Derrida." On the contrary, it probably does a lot of violence. This is similar to the way that Jennings frames his use of both Derrida and Paul in his Reading Derrida / Thinking Paul: On Justice. He writes,

"the procedure here adopted entails a certain violence to the texts both of Derrida and of Paul, for it requires extracting bits and pieces of their respective arguments in order to show points of convergence and illumination... I hope, however, that the violence of this reading is to a certain degree mitigated by its attempt to undo the greater violence that has come from the supposition that neither author is really concerned with the question of justice" (p.xii)

In the hope of "doing justice" to my empirical texts, I have done violence to the theoretical texts of several philosophers and theologians. As (a "fragment" of!!!) "Derrida" says, "in order to be just, I am unjust and I betray... it is unjust to be just. I always betray someone to be just; I always betray one for the other" ("To Forgive" in Questioning God, p.49).

Also whilst we were away, I also realised that a guiding structural question of my thesis is "how do non-propositional understandings of truth affect participants' relationships to religious propositions?" I had already worked out that Chapter Three, "Thinking Truth(s) Otherwise," moves from participants' considerations of religious propositions to ask whether this is even where religious truth is located and, further, to explore whether religious truth is (also) non-propositional. I had even created a three-fold structure for the closing section ("Non-Propositional Religious Truth"): Truth is God, Truth-Event, and Living in Truth. But, on a train (dictating to Sim, as I don't travel very well), I worked out that part of what my thesis is actually asking is how participants relate non-propositional understandings of religious truth to religious propositions.

In turn, this means that I've been able to much better articulate (should that be, "articulate much better"?!?!?) what I'm up to in some of my thesis chapters. So, the "Interlude" makes clear that a structuring question is, "what does non-propositional religious truth mean for religious propositions?" Then, chapters four, five and seven detail the implications of the non-propositional understandings of truth I enumerated in Chapter Three (Truth is God, Truth-Event, and Living in Truth) for religious propositions. So, Chapter Four presents the implications of "Truth is God" for religious propositions, Chapter Five details what "Truth-Event" means for religious propositions, and (part of) Chapter Seven demonstrates how "Living in Truth" relates to religious propositions. That means that I can clarify that, for the two strands in my data, "dialogue" and "deconstruction" become the respective guiding principles for non-propositional notions of truth to religious propositions. Well, I think that's clearer, at least!

The Ethics of Participant Confidentiality

Cory Labanow's (2009) Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church (see here for my overview and review) raises again the interesting issue of participant confidentiality and anonymity in empirical research. The covering letters for Labanow's demographic survey and interviews contained a promise that anonymity would be preserved (pp.129,131) and he details the initial conversation in which the congregation's pastor asked that congregants be 'unrecognizable' in the research findings (p.41). Labanow is therefore careful to avoid 'any detailed description of specific church members which could lead to their identification' (p.41). However, the community itself (Jacobsfield Vineyard, JV) and its pastor (Mark Lawton) are likewise pseudonymous.

But JV and its pastor are easily identifiable by those familiar with what I call in my study the emerging church milieu. Such recognition stems not only from the community's classification as a UK Vineyard church involved in the emerging church conversation, but also from the narrative of Mark Lawton's personal religious journey and role in relation to a named emerging church organisation readily available through the Internet. These incredibly important situational factors relating to JV could and should not be completely masked (by, for example, excluding all historical or contextual data about the community and its pastor) in the name of protecting either the congregation's collective identity or the pastor's individual particulars, as it would considerably neuter congregational analysis. The necessary inclusion of these factors, however, thereby renders Labanow's attempts to provide anonymity redundant. Further, as an attempt at providing anonymity it is utterly unsuccessful.

It is unclear, therefore, why Labanow bothers. Why not just name this community and its pastor, whilst continuing to provide pseudonyms for the other members of the congregation that he surveys and interviews in order to successfully protect their confidentiality and anonymity?

Such an approach is taken by other researhers in their congregational studies, for example Mathew Guest's (2007) Evangelical Identity and Contemporary Culture: A Congregational Study in Innovation. In his study of St. Michael-le-Belfrey and Visions, York, Guest names the church and therefore its incumbents covering the last forty years, because the history and context of St. Michael-le-Belfrey (a church well-known as a 'vanguard of charismatic evangelicalism since the 1960s,' p.54) are 'illuminating factors' central to the sociological and theological study of its congregation (p.239). Nevertheless, beyond the four most recent vicars, individual congregation members are given pseudonyms to protect their identities.

Guest's method for dealing with the ethics of participant confidentiality is sensible, considering the likelihood of both "insiders" and academics being able to identify St. Michael-le-Belfrey even if anonymised and of significant factors being masked or lost through such a process of anonymisation. This seems to me to be a better way to protect the anonymity of the majority of participants whilst preserving important factors concerning the congregation in general and past and present incumbants that are readily available to the public.

While a congregational study can proceed using pseudonyms for, and a minimum of contextual data about the lives of, individual participants, my own interview-based study requires a different approach. As my participants are from a diverse range of religious communities and backgrounds, I cannot contextualise interview data through recourse to a shared narrative of collective context and history (given not only the diversity of participants' communities but also the diversity of the emerging church milieu itself). My readers can only make sense of the discourses and practices related to me in the interviews through a presentation of aspects of their life-stories. However, the provision of pseudonyms for those participants wishing to remain anonymous must be accompanied, therefore, by a narration of their lives constructed in collaboration with them so as not to reveal what they might regard as identifying factors.

This approach appears adequate for those participants for whom there are no other publically available sources of personal information which might threaten their anonymity. However, I interviewed several participants who have published print media, most notably emerging church, fresh expression, or alternative worship books, and/or write blogs. Whilst only one of these participants requested anonymity (I'll comment on this in a moment), I have for the following reason decided to reject the practice of anonymising all of my participants. I might quote from my interview with, for example, Pete (ikon, Belfast) and then quote a passage from one of his books (the same goes for Kester, Vaux, London; Paul, Foundation, Bristol; Sue, Visions, York; and a number of others). The problem goes like this.

• I use a pseudonym for quotations from interview and e-questionnaire data (for example, my interview with Interview-Pete; Kester jokingly suggested Elvis for his own pseudonym before opting out of being anonymised, so we'll borrow that for now!).
• I retain, however, the participants' given name for quotations from his published works (this is Published-Pete, i.e. I reference him as Rollins and then the date of publication, e.g. 2006).
• The reader is thereby left with the mistaken impression that the view espoused by Elvis and Rollins 2006 is more prevalent than it actually is - as, in reality, they are the views of only one person, Pete Rollins.

I have rejected, therefore, the option of giving all of my participants pseudonyms. I am left then with the task of writing introductory narratives to those participants who wish to retain their anonymity that do not inadvertently reveal their identities. But I am also left with the dilemma of how to respect one participants' wish to be known by a pseudonym, whilst at the same time not giving readers the impression that the views he reveals both in my data and in his print and online publications are more prevalent within the UK emerging church milieu than they are. What to do?

Overview and Review of Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church

As the first academic study of a UK Vineyard congregation, Cory Labanow's Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church focuses on the very interesting case of a Vineyard church with a historical connection to and continuing relationship with the emerging church conversation. In order to be what the author calls 'sociologically rigorous' whilst retaining a 'decisively theological orientation,' an ethnographic methodology is combined with a practical theology to construct a description and interpretation of the congregational situation of this church community. Labanow therefore provides in Chapter 1 useful accounts of the developments of practical theology and congregational studies, and the relationship between theology and the social sciences that should be of interest to anyone exploring lived religiosity, whatever particular community is being explored. His work also closes with some recommendations for such an approach to the study of contemporary religious communities.

The thick description of this Vineyard congregation (Jacobsfield Vineyard, or JV, a pseudonym) is given in Chapter 2, through a narrative of its recent history before Labaow's arrival, his initial entry into the community and the participant-observations through which he familiarised himself with the church (followed later by thematic analysis of interview data). Of central importance to this narrative is the religious journey of JV's pastor, Mark Lawton (also a pseudonym). Labanow provides illustrations of the Sunday service, as well as the church's home groups and local community projects. As a study of an ostensibly evangelical church's relationship with both the evangelical tradition and the emerging church conversation, Labanow employs Alan Jamieson's (2002) A Churchless Faith and Robert Webber's (2002) The Younger Evangelicals as what he calls 'analytical aids' (along with Lawton's own claims regarding community identity, pp.60-65) to map the dual aspect of this congregation's situational landscape.

The changes arising from the deeper engagement of an evangelical congregation with the emerging church observed by Labanow include JV's reading and theological discussion groups, Lawton's teaching techniques, and the increased attention given to practices from historical Christian traditions. A quotation from a JV leader in September 2003 expresses the nature of these changes:

'This is now a key moment in [JV] history because what is happening... is that we are transitioning from just talking about the emergent theological conversation to actually embodying the emergent theological conversation in our everyday faith and life and the forms of our church. And you're going to see a transitioning of forms, an evolving and a deepening' (p.49)

However, Labanow makes interesting observations regarding the maintenance of experimental religious identities. Towards the end of his fieldwork, although an emphasis on an ancient-future orientation (see Webber's Ancient-Future series of titles) was sustained, its value was not made explicit through explanation of the reasons for such an approach to worship. Without a regular promotion of alternative communal identity (as a "church for people who wouldn't normally go to church"), Labanow believes a reversion back to the evangelical forms and styles of worship most familiar to the congregation occurred. This period provides the lesson that 'without a continual emphasis on cultivating a new identity, people will tend to retreat into that pattern of being which they know best, and in a church of people reared in evangelical churches, that will likely be in the direction of an evangelical brand of faith' (p.52).

This example hints at Labanow's observation that congregational attitudes were often dissimilar from Lawton's claims regarding community identity, especially in relation to their relationship with the emerging church conversation - a difference that Labanow explains with recourse to Lawton's privileged access to formal training both within the church structures and within academic institutions (p.73). In this respect, therefore, no clear congregational consensus arose regarding JV's relationship to the emerging church. Labanow's data does suggest, however, that an understanding of JV's relationship to the evangelical tradition is more commonly held. He identifies it as one of 'unease,' and characterises it as a process of sifting and discerning (not only with regards evangelicalism but also secular popular culture). As a result, JV can be neither wholly identified with nor wholly differentiated from evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic, or EPC, churches.

Particularly interesting , and worth mentioning in brief, are the questions raised about Lawton's leadership role, the structures of authority in place at JV, and the particular events or crises in the history of these organisational patterns. On this theme, Labanow's research suggests that:

1. 'Lawton uses power more responsibly than many other leaders whom the interviewees' (sic) encounter in other circles'
2. 'JVers are not very democratic due to the large amout of power Lawton holds' and
3. 'JVers are relieved that the elders and trustees are in place to (theoretically) balance his power if he tried to use it improperly' (p.80)

In order to make sense of the themes arising from his fieldwork, Labanow's approach to the exploration of this congregation also involved the identification of what he calls its 'central theological question.' Throughout the period of investigation, the theme of relevance was particularly observable. The central issue, for Labanow (though obviously in conversation with his data and the issues identified by participants as central), was the 'dual emergence' of this congregation, dissatisfied with elements of both evangelical Christianity and post-Christian culture and hopeful of the discovery of new ways of being and doing church.

However, an especially interesting but odd disparity is noted between this desire (expressed in interviews and by Lawton's claims regarding congregational identity) to address both of these sources of discontent and the congregational practices recorded by Labanow in his participant-observations. A disjunct between discourse and practice was noted:

'Though much of JV's teaching was spawned from, or at least evolving into, an "emerging church" school of thought (if such a thing can be said to exist), their practice of worship was still thoroughly Vineyard; while experimentation with different sounds and interludes of Scripture readings and/or prayers may have been occurring on an occasional basis, even that genre of experimentation itself is very characteristic of the Vineyard movement and EPC churches in general' (p.97)

From this observation, Labanow suggests that

'until JV generate an ethic by which to reconstruct their worship on a basis of renewed identity (pertaining to who they are and what worship is) instead of changing aesthetics, their transition may be incomplete and counterproductive' (p.98)

This broader central question of the relevance of both discourse and practice to a religious context of dual emergence raises wider questions that Labanow's final chapter enumerates as questions of religious parentage, the creation of safe space, resources for Christian growth and maturity, strategies for communicating with conteporary culture, and the reconstruction and future shape of Christianity.

Labanow's Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church is therefore an intriguing study of a UK congregation exploring its self-identity in relation to the evangelical tradition and elements of the emerging church conversation (despite incongruences between the more explicitly emergent discourse of Lawton and the emergent themes only implicit in interview data). It is one of only a few academic explorations of congregations connected to the emerging church, but its ethnographic approach to data collection is a very welcome departure from an over-reliance on either published emerging church literature or interviews with ec authors/leaders/bloggers. It refreshingly engages the voices and activities of "ordinary" people. The disparities between Lawton's views and the perspectives of members of the congregation highlight the problems inherent in other studies; namely, the methodological reductionism that assumes the views of emerging church authors/leaders/bloggers are held in an unmodified form by other participants. Labanow's approach means he does not fall into this trap. Consequently, this book holds value not only in its presentation and thematic analysis of a particular evangelical/emerging congregation but in its highly advantageous methodology for the study of such religiosity in general.

Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church is published in Ashgate's Explorations in Practical, Pastoral and Empirical Theology series at the end of this month (August 28 2009). The hardback copy is expensive (£50 rrp) so awaiting the paperback edition (as I have with other texts in this useful series) might be more manageable. But it is well worth the price for anyone interested in contemporary Christianity. Buy it here at amazon.co.uk or here from Ashgate.

Holiday Reading

So I've been madly trying to get as much writing done as possible before our holiday to Andalucia in a few days. I've made a few leaps of progress, as well as making some detours and a few deadends.

I've written the first "final" draft of my Introduction, and finished most of the sections of the first "final" drafts of chapters one, two and three ("Emergence" - what is the emerging church? why study truth in the emerging chruch? - "Ordinary Philosophy" - how did I study truth in the emerging church? - and "Thinking Truth(s) Otherwise" - how is truth conceptualised in the emerging church?). I've also made headway with chapter six ("Truth, Theology, and Fictionality" - is Radical Orthodoxy or deconstructive theology more appropriate for the emerging church, given participants' conceptions of truth?).

That leaves me with a vague idea of what I want to achieve with my interlude ("Determining Truth") and chapters four, five, and seven ("Dialogue and Determinate Truth" and "Deconstruction and Determinate Truth" - what are the philosophical and theological implications of such conceptions of truth? - and "Truth/Justice and Kingdom Poetics" - what are the ethical and political implications of such conceptions of truth?). I've still got a bit of reading to do for these chapters, particularly now that I know what I want them to do, so I've chosen a few key texts to get to grips with on holiday. These are works that will help in particular with my distinction between two strands in my data (chapters four and five) and the practical translation of truth into justice (chapter seven). They include:

• Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter, edited by Michelfelder & Palmer;
• Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age, by Sue Patterson;
• Liturgy of the Neighbor: Emmanuel Levinas and the Reigion of Responsibility, by Jeffrey Bloechl; and
• Reading Derrida/Thinking Paul: On Justice, by Theodore W. Jennings, Jr.

The Discipline Proper to the Study of the Truth Proper to Religion

You know there are times when you just wish you'd come across or been told about a book earlier on in your studies? Well, I've recently stumbled upon two, each of which relate to the question of what discipline is best for the study of religious truth.

The first is a monograph by Donald Wiebe (1981) entitled Religion and Truth: Towards an Alternative Paradigm for the Study of Religion and argues that, since religious truth is primarily propositional (he does consider non-propositional truth but finds it problematic) then religious studies is able to ask questions regarding the truth of religion. He spends less time exploring whether the correspondence theory of truth is the theory of truth proper to religious propositions, than he does arguing that religious truth is primarily propositional. So it's a good one to get your teeth into and really problematise.

Secondly, I found an edited collection called Phenomenology of the Truth Proper to Religion, edited by Ganiel Guerriere (with contributions from Louis Dupre, Edward Farley, Merold Westphal, Richard Kearney, Jack Caputo and Walter Lowe) that explores the question of the type of truth proper to religion from the spectrum of phenomenological subdisciplines: existential, hermeneutic, ethical, deconstructive, and transcendental.

Oh to have located these studies earlier! They are both very useful for the sections of my thesis in which I consider the interdisciplinary nature of my project, particularly the relationships between religious studies, theology, and philosophy (incl. phenomenology). It's also been useful in mounting an argument against the routine exclusion of the religious elements of life and, therefore, of truth by theorists of truth. So a very useful find.

The Association for Continental Philosophy of Religion

I thought I'd post a few things about the ACPR, the Association for Continental Philosophy of Religion that was launched at its inaugural conference, "Towards a Philosophy of Life," at the end of June 2009 (see my blog post here for some reflections on this event). The ACPR has a website (here) and facebook group (here). Here's some blurb:

The Association seeks to promote renewed critical thinking on religion, drawing upon the continental tradition of philosophy. This tradition draws much of its impetus from Kant's transcendental project of exploring what makes knowledge and faith possible. Kant inspired reflection upon the active, constructive role played by the subject of knowledge as well as the creative transgression of the limits of reason in articulating religious ideas.

Subsequent to Kant, the continental tradition encompasses such figures as Hegel, Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Weil, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Derrida, Levinas, Irigaray, Deleuze, Agamben, Kristeva, Zizek, Ricoeur, Henry, Le Doeuff and Badiou. Despite the radical differences between these thinkers, key issues emerge about the attempt of philosophy to think its 'other', acknowledging the role played by history, culture and embodiment in our being in the world.

Reflecting on the wake of Nietzsche's proclamation of the'death of God’', continental philosophy of religion seeks creative ways of articulating the nature of faith, without presupposing any confessional stance. Which God has died? What future is there for the divine and the religious? What new possibilities are there for thinking philosophy's others in the light of 'postmodernism' and its after effects?

The Association is based at Liverpool Hope University in the UK. Its facilitators are Hope's lecturers in philosophy, Dr Patrice Haynes and Dr Steven Shakespeare, together with our colleague Dr Charlie Blake of the Media department. The Association is supported by a board of advisors, consisting of internationally recognised scholars in the field (incl. Jack Caputo, Pamela Sue Anderson and George Pattison).

The Association promotes research and reflection on continental philosophy of religion by:

• Holding regular seminars with invited speakers
  
• Running annual themed day conferences
  
• Organising occasional major international conferences
  
• Sponsoring colloquia on particular subjects
  
• Running a regular philosophical reading group
  
• Sharing information with other relevant networks and groups, particularly with regard to conferences, publications and sharing good practice in teaching continental philosophy of religion
  
• Encouraging research and publication
  
• Utilising online resources to promote wider discussion and dissemination of ideas
  
• Exploring the promotion of adult community learning initiatives through short courses on topics such as postmodernism and religion
  

In an embryonic form, the Association has already been involved (jointly with Liverpool John Moores University) in running a successful colloquium on Ethics and Animality, with a view to preparing a publication for 2010. Seminars, a day conference on the work of philosopher Mark C Taylor and other initiatives are being planned for 2009-10.

New Book on Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church

At the end of August, a new book in Ashgate's Explorations in Practical, Pastoral and Empirical Theology series will be published in hardback: Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church, by Cory Labanow. Cory's very kindly emailed me a PDF copy to review as soon as I'm able. I've had a very quick read through it and it looks very interesting.

Focusing on an ethnographic study of a Vineyard Church connected to the global emerging church milieu, Cory explores the congregational life and culture of a community working through issues of religious identity. Here's a bit of blurb from Ashgate to get you interested. I'll post a review as soon as I can.

"With the Christian church in the west in decline, some churches are undergoing difficult transitions as they seek to become relevant, to both themselves and their surrounding cultures. Evangelicalism and the Emerging Church details an ethnographic study of a Vineyard congregation making sense of their Vineyard roots and their growing relationship with the self-proclaimed "emerging church" network. Through a rich account of congregational life and tensions, universal issues are raised such as relating to religious parentage, creating safe places for spirituality, Christian growth and maturity, communication with contemporary culture, and the challenges of identity reconstruction. This book is the first to conduct an academic study of a Vineyard congregation in the United Kingdom."

The Changing Face of Christianity

Although I got a very kind "heads up" from Gordon Lynch, we've just had the announcement for the British Sociological Association's Sociology of Religion Study Group's 2010 conference on the email list (no website as yet). The conference title is "The Changing Face of Christianity in the 21st Century," and, Gordon was right, I think it'll be a great opportunity to present some more of my thesis. Right now it's just the call for papers, with more details to follow, but the conference will be at Edinburgh University (co-hosted by the Institute of Geography and the School of Divinity) from 6th - 8th Apri 2010. Here's the conference blurb and call for papers:

"Christianity in the 21st century is characterised by rapid change, by both steep decline in membership in some areas, but resurgence in other contexts. At the same time, contemporary Christianity incorporates (sometimes uncomfortably) new forms and hybridisations. The lived experience and performance of Christianity in the West appears to be shifting according to influences from late-modern consumer and media cultures. World Christianities are increasingly influential and migration and diaspora Christianities are (re) shaping Christianity in the West. Meanwhile, far from disappearing from the agendas and language of the public arena, Christianity continues to excite debates around the place and importance of religion in the public arena, as well as discourses of citizenship, equality and well-being.

"We invite proposals for papers which explore issues surrounding the broad theme of the conference. We particularly welcome papers which fall into three sub-themes we have identified:

• Contemporary Christian Performance and Belief;
  
• World Christianities and migration or diaspora Christianities;
  
• Christianity in the Public Arena.

Individual paper proposals (max. 200 words) or proposals for panels of three or four related papers (max. 300 words) should be submitted by October 31st, 2009 to Giselle Vincett (at gvincett@ed.ac.uk).

Topics may include: World Christianities; post-Christianity; decline of Christianity, as well as Christian growth or resurgence; mission and reverse mission; Christianity and young people; the influence of alternative spiritualities on Christianity; hyphenated Christian identities (Buddhist-Christians, Pagan-Christians, etc.); new Christian movements; contemporary pilgrimage or (youth) festivals; Christianity in areas of social deprivation; social movements and Christianity; Christianity and the (new) media; Christianity and popular culture; Christianity and gender; Christianity and sexuality; Christianity and other religions, including indigenous religions; contemporary Christian ritual; Christianity and economics; Christianity and politics; Christianity and education; Christianity and the law; migration and diaspora Christianities; Christianity and healthcare; Christianity and public life.

Plenty for me to get stuck into. I'm thinking of presenting a piece that takes a broad look at my thesis and draws implications for the future of Christianity. So, it'll reflect on my general thesis argument but mostly be taken from my (as yet unwritten) conclusions, and be entitled something like "The UK Emerging Church Milieu: A/theism and the Future of Christian Spirituality."

The Culture of "Giving a Paper"

Further to my experiences of philosophical/theological conferences ("Postmodernism, Truth and Religious Pluralism," and "Towards a Philosophy of Life"), in contrast to more sociological conferences ("Gender and Religion," and "Religion, Media and Culture"), I found a copy of an article on academic presentations that we were given at a recent event for aspiring academics that I went to. It's called "How to Give an Academic Talk: Changing the Culture of Public Speaking in the Humanities," by Paul Edwards, and you can download it here.

I was reflecting (here) that the unfortunate norm at philosophical/theological conferences seems to be to read out pieces that have been written to be read, rather than written to be heard. This means that, even if you are familiar with the subject matter, it can be very hard to follow what is being said. Although there were some very well presented papers at the most recent conference I went to (Philip Goodchild, Jack Caputo, Don Cupitt, Neil Turnbull, John Milbank, Todd Mei, etc.), many others would have benefited from reading Edwards' short article.

Edwards notes two reasons academics resort to the literal meaning of "giving a paper," i.e. reading out an article rather than giving a presentation: fear - "it's easier to hide behind the armor of a written paper, which you've had plenty of time to work through, than simply to talk" and it's part of academic culture, which is "something we can deliberately change." Edwards continues by pointing his readers to what effective talks must do, by providing rules of thumb for how to make a presentation "usually better" and "usually worse", and by suggesting important principles for success.

I usually don't actually write a "paper" in the conventional sense until after I've done the presentation, so that's my tip: write a presentation, as a presentation (not as a paper) and then write the paper. Good pointers that Edwards gives and that I've found helpful include:

• talk, rather than read;
• stand up;
• vary the pitch of your voice;
• emphasise key words in your sentences;
• make eye contact with the audience;
• use visual aids (to highlight key points and main arguments, so your audience know where you are going and how you are going to get there)

Something else that I was taught was that you've only really ever got time to make three central points in twenty minutes. Try to do more than that and you'll lose people in details or move too fast.

Edwards makes another good point, too: emulate excellent speakers. I will always remember that Linda Woodhead gave the first academic paper (rather than lecture) I ever heard, in a small informal seminar series at Lancaster University. Her presentation style was friendly but focused and formal, with useful visual aids (okay, so it was Over Head Projector rather than PowerPoint, I'm not going to moan too much about that!). She had a slow but caring speed, and a clear structure. It was on the gender puzzle of the Kendal Project (why are 80% of people involved in the holistic milieu women?) and I was fascinated and enraptured. I wanted to be like her and I still do. I love the way she presents.

Pete Rollins on US TV show

Explaining Emergent Churches - Inner Compass from Calvin College on Vimeo.

Thesis Abstract - June 2009

My supervisor has asked for my most recent abstract to "sound out" potential external examiners with. It's all starting to feel a bit too real, now. Anyway, here's the latest version of my thesis abstract.

"On Truth/Justice: Post-Secular Theology and the UK Emerging Church Milieu."

The cultural and philosophical contexts of the global emerging church, a diverse network interested in Christianity and the postmodern turn, have shaped the ways in which the nature, as well as the content, of religious truth is being conceived. Building upon qualitative data from the UK emerging church milieu, this thesis takes the notion of truth to be an exemplary site for the exploration of what I term “ordinary” phenomenology and theology. Phenomenologically, religious truth involves an event of the radical transformation of subjectivity and behaviour, the substantive evaluations of which are undecidable, contingent and fictive. Reflecting theologically on their determinate interpretations of truth, however, the two divergent strands within the data exhibit different levels of fictionality. The first strand operates with a determinately religious hermeneutic, stressing the possibility of nearing theological alethic realism through dialogue, while the second is more thoroughly a/theistic in relation to both religious and tragic hermeneutics, emphasising the auto-deconstructability of all interpretations.

These strands mirror two post-secular theological sensibilities that have been suggested as apt for the emerging church, James K.A. Smith’s Radically Orthodox ‘catholic postmodernism’ and John D. Caputo’s deconstructive ‘weak theology.’ The preceding discussions of truth raise and answer questions of Radical Orthodoxy’s out-narration of other religions and deconstructive theology’s practical viability. It is suggested that Caputo’s theology, embodied by the second strand in the data, is more fully fictionalist than Smith’s Milbankian post-secularism, and therefore preferable for the emerging church milieu, given the nature of participants’ common phenomenology of religious truth. This thesis contests the suggestion that such a thoroughgoing fictionalism entails alethic relativism, however, through emphasising participants’ exemplarism, following which it is uncertain whether truth is an example of justice, or justice an example of truth.

Key words:

• continental philosophy of religion;
• deconstructive theology;
• emerging church;
• event;
• exemplarism;
• fictionalism;
• justice;
• Radical Orthodoxy;
• truth;
• undecidability.

Refuting the Allergy to Determinacy

My paper at the "Towards a Philosophy of Life" conference, "Making Good on the "Good" of Life: Emerging Logics and Poetics of the Kingdom" (see here for my abstract) was well received. A few people who hadn't been there had heard from others who were that it was good, which was really nice to hear. Jack Caputo called it 'sizzling,' but I don't really know what that means! He said he completely agreed with my analysis of James K.A. Smith's work, particularly the logic of incarnation (see blog post here about Jack's paper, "Bodies Without Flesh: The Soft Gnosticism of Incarnational Theology"), and said again that I read him very well (he had positive things to say about my Boston paper too, see here for an overview of what I said). But I guess it's easy to get those kinds of reactions when the person whose work you are reflecting on is a lovely guy and when you're saving favourable things! I'd love to get Jamie Smith's take on what I'm doing. Maybe I could email him? He's working on a trilogy (first part to be published this September, entitled Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation) on a theology of culture, but I'm particularly intrigued by his methodological work arguing for the importance of liturgical practices as the site for philosophical reflection on religion.

Anyway, this paper forms parts of my doctoral thesis, particularly chapter Six, "Truth and Fictionality." But, as slightly tangential to my main argument, it is something that could easily be turned into a journal article with some more padding out and the like. As you can see from the paper's abstract (here), my main concern is to refute the criticisms Jamie Smith levels at Jack Caputo's Derridean deconstructive theology. Jamie's criticisms can be found most accessibly in his "The Logic of Incarnation: Towards a Catholic Postmodernism" in Neal DeRoo and Brian Lightbody's The Logic of Incarnation: James K.A. Smith's Critique of Postmodern Religion, pp.3-37. Smith identifies in both Caputo and Derrida what he terms a 'logic of determination.' (See here for more details on all this). My paper argues that the operative logic at work in Caputo's theology is that of the call or the promise which, far from being allergic to particularity, as Smith contends, seeks to release the promise in particular determinate religious (and "non-religious") traditions.

My argument runs basically thus:

• A presentation of Smith's characterization of the 'logic of determination.'

For Smith, the Derridean/Caputian logic of determination results in an interpretation of particularity that assumes, first, the finite nature of human life to be structurally (that is, necessarily) regrettable and, second, the interpretive visions of life and hopes for life of humanity’s determinate religious traditions to be exclusionary, violent and unjust. Thirdly, for Smith, the consequences of such a logic include the translation of Derrida’s undeconstructible justice into an indeterminate, not specifically Christian, kingdom of God that is similarly structurally always to-come, never present.

• A defense of Caputo's theological project against these criticisms (in an alternative order).

Firstly, Caputo’s reflections on the name of God are associated with several particular determinate traditions, including the creation narratives and the kingdom parables of the Christian scriptures. Secondly, an exploration of these creation and kingdom themes reveals that finitude is affirmed as part of the "goodness" of creation, no matter what, by God's "good," his "yes," at the moment of creation, and that the kingdom of God is our second "yes," our affirmation of the task of "making good" on the goodness of creation, no matter what. Thirdly, then, a (mis)interpretation of the kingdom of God as a concept that corresponds to a literal reality that will either arrive (Smith) or never arrive (Smith's reading of Caputo) (mis)characterizes it as a concept that aims to be representational rather than as a concept that aims to be transformational.

• An argument that Caputo's theology is preferable to Smith's.
  

In reflecting phenomenologically on the general structure of religious experience, both Caputo and Smith emphasise the undecidability of life, the contingency of our interpretations of it, and the fictive nature of all hermeneutics. However, Caputo more successfully retains these phenomenologcal insights in his particular, determinate Christian theology than Smith.

You can view my powerpoint presentation below, and email me if you'd like a copy of the paper I gave; but I'm thinking seriously about turning it into a journal article. Over the next year (once I've finally submitted my thesis) I will be attempting to get a publishing contract to turn it into a book, but this little nugget of the argument could easily be slotted out and published in article form. At the moment, I'd entitle it: "Refuting the Allergy to Determinacy: Determining the Theo-Logic of the Call in Weak Theology."

Making Good on the "Good" of Life: Emerging Logics and Poetics of the Kingdom

View more documents from Katharine Moody.

Philosophy of Life Conference Round-Up

I got back last night from Liverpool Hope's "Towards a Philosophy of Life: Reflections on the Concept of Life in Continental Philosophy of Religion" conference, having had a thoroughly enjoyable (if not totally follow-able) weekend. My own learning style is not comfortable with listening to people read written papers. I'm much more at home with people presenting, rather than reading, work. But philosophers tend to go for the practice of writing a journal paper or book chapter or whatever, and then just reading it out - rather than thinking about their audience's learning styles and altering the piece in order to facilitate rather than alienate others! Only very few of the papers this weekend were easy to follow (even if you knew the material they were talking about) which was disappointing. But I have always felt that sociologists of religion are much better presenters, thereby actually helping their audience follow their argument. Didn't mean to start this post off with a bit of a moan, but philosophers' styles of presentation do tend to detract from the enjoyment of philosophy conferences.

I met a cool bunch of people, including Simon Scott (PhD student at Warwick), Shahida Bari (How To Live blog), Aaron Landau (University of Hong Kong), Todd Mei (University of Kent) and Chad Lackies (Concordia Seminary, here's his blog). It was particularly great to meet Colby Dickinson (KU Leuven) whose paper on Agamben, the messianic and canonicity was really stimulating because of a resonance with my own work. Canonicity, Colby writes, is "the 'desire' for the canonical over and beyond any canon," clearly mirroring the hope against hope for the messianic given voice in but not restricted to determinate concrete messianisms. My paper also charted this dual movement, but in relation to Jack Caputo's historical association with Christianity (I was looking particularly at creation and kingdom in order to refute Jamie Smith's characterization of Caputo's work as allergic to determinate particularities, more of which in a later post) and messianic disassociation. Colby made some intriguing connections with identity formation, and Jack, Colby and I had a useful discussion after his paper about how communities that adopt deconstructive theologies actually do (ir)religious community. It's what I'm hoping to work on next, getting together a proposal for a research fellowship after I've finished my thesis.

Anyway, Jack's paper on "Bodies Without Flesh: The Soft Gnosticism of Incarnational Theology" was very thought provoking, though I know there were a lot of people that were very disppointed that John Milbank only came for his own paper, rather than engaging with Caputo's criticisms of Radical Orthodoxy's incarnational theology. His excuse was that he had, apparently, been stuck on one of the amphibious vehicles (duck) that take you on tours round Liverpool and brokedown (lame). Well, Jack's paper draws from his work towards a sequel to The Weakness of God, currently entitled The Weakness of Flesh. He argued that incarnational theology's incarnation is not radical enough. It is a theology of in-carnation, rather than a theology of carnality. It places "the life of flesh within an economy of bodies without flesh." Like contemporary robotologists, incarnational theology attempts to transform bodies of flesh into bodies without flesh, in the process "betraying" flesh, harbouring a secret "horror of flesh." Instead, he asked, "What would a theology of carnality itself, before or without In-carnation, look like?" "Instead of a transaction between fleshly and fleshless being, I propose a more radical conception of incarnation as an event of flesh itself, of becoming-flesh," of taking, therefore, Christianity seriously, at its word, as the Word made flesh. Caputo is, as I intimated above, not removing himself from the Christian tradition but trying to make the tradition "make good" on its promises. Looking forward to The Weakness of Flesh already!

Congratulations to Dr. Carr

See? It can be done!!! Our friend, Patrick Carr, passed his viva on Thursday, June 11th. His thesis was entitled, "Moral Perception and Meditation: A Secular Study of Spiritual Exercises and the Cultivation of Compassion." Here's little bit from his abstract (hope he won't mind!):

"Forces of distraction and disorientation in contemporary culture which undermine moral engagement make the need for systematic means of cultivating moral agency particularly pressing. Whilst for many people today, religious frames of reference no longer remain convincing, religious traditions remain the repository of some of the most effective forms of self- and moral formation ever developed, so-called ‘spiritual exercises’. This thesis develops a naturalistic philosophical and psychological framework by means of which the form and content of one such historical spiritual exercise, Christian meditation, can be reformulated and applied to the challenge of moral formation in a post-religious context." If that's whet your appetite, you can hungrily await its publication!

Being a Young Theologian Today

In November, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Ireland, are hosting a conference called "Interface: Being a Young Theologian in the World," from the 6 - 7th. Here's a bit of blurb: "The conference is aimed at young theologians and has two objectives - to explore the role of the young theologian and to explore the role of theology in contemporary society." That really is a bit of blurb. The only other information I can find about this conference is that abstracts (of no more than 25o words) are to be submitted to interfacemaynooth@gmail.com (along with applicant's educational status: Institution, course, year, etc.) by September 7th, and papers should be 20 minutes in length.

I'm thinking of submitting an abstract but, due to its subject matter, it may well not get accepted. It stems from my supervisors persistence that she thinks what I am doing is theology. Maybe it is. But I don't want it to be. And I don't want to be a theologian... Why is that? I thought I'd interrogate my thoughts about theology and being a theologian today a bit more and see where they got me. The reason that such a discussion may not get accepted is because its more about not wanting to be a young theologian in the world than being one! But maybe this perspective would be of use to others... Maybe not.

But how does one "be" a theologian? Am I one? Do I even know what I am, in order to say I am, or I am not, a theologian? There are clear parallels here with Jacques Derrida's thoughts on "being" an atheist. He tells us he "rightly passes" for one. But "is" he one? Does he know whether or not he is "one"? Is he "one" of anything? Are we not radically plural in our selves? Is there both atheist and theist (and more besides) within him? Is there both a theologian in me and another self, or even other selves, that are not, that do not want to be, and that hate the theologian in me? Maybe I "pass" for a theologian? But that is up to other people, not me!

Maybe the problem I have with being a theologian has to do with the status, or nature, or interpretation of theology itself? Jack Caputo used to refuse the label of theology and of being a theologian, because (in his Derrideanicity) he equated it with "onto-theology" (The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, pp.288-289), with a project that "takes God as an object of conceptual analysis - rather than the addressee of a prayer - and is awash in institutional power" (The Weakness of God, p.301, footnote 1). Now, however, Caputo equates such dreams of a "calm and objectifying" discipline with Religious Studies, whereas Theology is a "disturbing passiong for God" which he loves madly (The Weakness of God, p.301, footnote 2). So maybe I do want to be a theologian? Afterall, Jack Caputo is my kind of theologian.

But, then again, the kind of theologian that Jack Caputo is, is an a/theologian. His theology exists on the slash of undecidability between atheism and theism; his is a theology, for sure. It names God within a determinate tradition - Christianity. But it never forgets that names are subject to endless translatability and substitutability (differance, Derrida would say) such that his theology remembers that it can be determined otherwise. Caputo does not say that he has named God once and for all; damn those who disagree to hell. Instead, he recognizes that what goes under the name of God also goes under other names. So maybe I want to be a/Theologian? (I reflect further on the nature of theology itself in my thesis, particularly on theology as fiction; its also something I cover in my paper for the Towards a Philosophy of Life Conference, which I haven't finished yet!)

Maybe I assume theology lacks humility about itself, about its status as theology, and maybe my presumption of theology as dogmatic is what makes me nervous about it, and about being one. In the West's pluralistic context, is this not how theology is viewed in the world today? Is this not how young theologians are viewed in the world today? As having "the truth" all sown up; damn everyone else's truth?

I don't know. But I thought it would be interesting to interrogate this presumptions a bit further, and to try and get a paper on it accepted to a conference on being a young theologian today. I think I'll call it "On (Not) Wanting to be a/Theologian."

I thought about doing an informal survey of undergrads starting theology and religious studies courses next year, asking about their preconceptions about the disciplines, the boundaries between them, and how they are/how they think they are perceived by "the public." Some useful resources on these topics from the Higher Education Academy's Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies includes Angela Quartermaine's "Theology and/or Religious Studies? A Response from Graduate Students."

Listen to "Studying Religion and the Internet"

You can (if you really want to!) download an MP3 of my session, "Studying Religion and the Internet," at the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies' study-day "Exploring New Challenges and Methods in the Study of Religion," from the Birkbeck webpage here. I've done one other podcast - a reading of my chapter, "Theo(b)logy: The Technological Transformation of Theology," for Voices of the Virtual World: Participative Technology and the Ecclesial Revolusion - and already knew that I hated the sound of my voice, so I was really not looking forward to listening to this. But it's not as bad as I remembered it being!


I had thought that it was the worst presentation I've ever done. Partly because we were waiting for another participant which meant that the time we had for discussion at the end was truncated; partly because I felt rushed anyway, getting everything in that I felt was valuable to know about studying religion and the Internet (which could have had a whole day to itself!); and partly because I felt I had written so many different things on religion and the Internet and in so many different formats that I got lulled into a false sense of security regarding my material: I felt that because I had already written particular points (and written them, of course, so well!) that I was loathe to change it; the result was that I felt I was reading my notes much more than I usually do when presenting. I should have had more confidence in my own abilities to make sense of sparse notes, rather than trying to convey that "already written perfectly" point, if that makes sense! Nevermind. It's there if you want it!