The 2010 Alexander Shmemann Lecture

During our final day of class in the Theology of Maximus the Confessor, Fr. John Behr brought it to our attention that Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, will be delivering the annual Alexander Shmemann Lecture at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary here in New York. The lecture is tentatively titled “Theology and the Contemplative Calling: The Image of Humanity in the Philokalia."

This was exciting news; as I have never heard the the Most Reverend and Right Honorable Williams speak before. You can find more info about the lecture and the visit at the SVOTS website.

Here is the statement released by Fr. Behr, dean of St. Vlads, who did his doctoral work under the supervision of Williams:

“Many Orthodox Christians may be unaware of Rowan Williams’s research and contribution to the field of Orthodox theology,” said Father John. “But he was a pioneer in this field, with outstanding breadth and depth. The subject of his own doctoral thesis, for instance, was the work of the great Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky, the first academic study of the émigré theologians. He has also written beautifully on the icons of the Theotokos and the Transfiguration, and, most recently, has published a highly regarded volume titled Dostoevsky: Language, Faith and Fiction. In recognition of his outstanding work and contribution to the study of Eastern Christianity, we are very pleased that he has accepted to deliver the 2010 annual Schmemann lecture.”

A Postmodern Simulacrum: Generate Your Very own PoMo Essay!

A friend of mine suggested that, rather than actually write one of my final papers, I should venture over to The Postmodernism Generator and simply hit refresh until an essay which suits my liking appears.

This whole thing is amusing, impressive, and disturbing all at once. At the very least, I enjoy the website's humorous jabbing at postmodern rhetoric. Here is the essay I came up with:

The Meaninglessness of Reality: Postcultural discourse and Marxism

Stephen L. Porter
Department of Gender Politics, Carnegie-Mellon University

Thomas M. B. Parry
Department of Future Studies, Yale University

1. Pynchon and postcultural discourse

If one examines pretextual capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject postcultural discourse or conclude that academe is part of the economy of narrativity. But many theories concerning the neomaterialist paradigm of context may be discovered. The characteristic theme of d’Erlette’s[1] analysis of capitalist nationalism is the absurdity, and eventually the defining characteristic, of subtextual sexual identity.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a Marxism that includes consciousness as a paradox. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is not discourse, but prediscourse.

But Prinn[2] suggests that we have to choose between capitalist nationalism and conceptual subsemioticist theory. Several desublimations concerning a mythopoetical whole exist.

2. Marxist class and textual precapitalist theory

“Truth is intrinsically meaningless,” says Baudrillard; however, according to d’Erlette[3] , it is not so much truth that is intrinsically meaningless, but rather the absurdity of truth. Therefore, textual precapitalist theory implies that the significance of the participant is significant form, but only if language is interchangeable with art. If postcultural discourse holds, we have to choose between Marxism and structural discourse.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of neocultural narrativity. Thus, Sontag uses the term ‘textual precapitalist theory’ to denote not construction per se, but subconstruction. Lacan’s essay on Marxism suggests that consciousness is capable of truth.

But in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz, Burroughs reiterates postcultural discourse; in Port of Saints he deconstructs dialectic pretextual theory. The primary theme of Prinn’s[4] critique of textual precapitalist theory is the role of the artist as writer.

Thus, Lyotard promotes the use of dialectic postmodern theory to analyse sexual identity. The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the difference between sexuality and society.

However, the premise of Marxism implies that context is created by communication. Sartre uses the term ‘postcultural discourse’ to denote the role of the poet as participant.

3. Expressions of dialectic

The main theme of Bailey’s[5] analysis of Lyotardist narrative is the meaninglessness, and eventually the dialectic, of capitalist class. Thus, the primary theme of the works of Burroughs is the role of the writer as participant. Baudrillard’s essay on postcultural discourse holds that narrativity may be used to disempower the Other.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. However, Marx suggests the use of textual precapitalist theory to challenge class divisions. Sontag uses the term ‘postcultural discourse’ to denote the bridge between society and sexual identity.

It could be said that Brophy[6] suggests that the works of Burroughs are an example of dialectic objectivism. Debord promotes the use of textual precapitalist theory to read and modify language.

Therefore, the example of the prestructural paradigm of discourse intrinsic to Burroughs’s Queer is also evident in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz, although in a more self-falsifying sense. Sartre suggests the use of Marxism to deconstruct archaic, sexist perceptions of class.

However, many theories concerning capitalist desublimation may be found. The subject is interpolated into a textual precapitalist theory that includes narrativity as a totality.

4. Marxism and neodialectic deconstructivist theory

“Culture is part of the defining characteristic of reality,” says Marx. But Bataille promotes the use of the subdialectic paradigm of expression to analyse sexual identity. Marxism implies that the task of the poet is deconstruction, given that the premise of neodialectic deconstructivist theory is valid.

If one examines materialist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept Marxism or conclude that society, perhaps paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. Thus, Sontag suggests the use of neodialectic deconstructivist theory to challenge the status quo. Any number of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist.

However, Debord promotes the use of Marxism to deconstruct and analyse truth. Sontag uses the term ‘postdialectic theory’ to denote not, in fact, appropriation, but preappropriation.

Thus, a number of discourses concerning neodialectic deconstructivist theory may be discovered. Bataille’s critique of textual neoconstructivist theory states that the establishment is capable of intentionality.

But the subject is contextualised into a neodialectic deconstructivist theory that includes art as a reality. The main theme of Brophy’s[7] model of patriarchialist theory is the difference between sexual identity and language.

1. d’Erlette, Q. V. C. ed. (1983) Marxism in the works of Rushdie. Schlangekraft

2. Prinn, H. C. (1997) The Narrative of Paradigm: Postcultural discourse in the works of Burroughs. Cambridge University Press

3. d’Erlette, N. ed. (1989) Marxism in the works of McLaren. Loompanics

4. Prinn, F. Q. (1994) Reading Lyotard: Socialism, Derridaist reading and Marxism. University of Georgia Press

5. Bailey, S. ed. (1971) Marxism and postcultural discourse. And/Or Press

6. Brophy, K. M. (1996) The Stone Fruit: Postcultural discourse and Marxism. Harvard University Press

7. Brophy, S. T. C. ed. (1981) Marxism and postcultural discourse. O’Reilly & Associates
_____________

Tangled up in the Interwebs: Professional-Social Media

While final papers loom and substantive posting becomes sparse, I thought I would take the chance to point out that I have created an Academia.edu profile. To be honest, I am not sure exactly what benefit this has...but perhaps in time it will prove to be an excellent way of seeing who else is researching in your area of interest. It certainly seems to be a better option for academicians than LinkedIn, which has a more corporate feel about it.

Either way, I would be curious to hear what others think about Academia.edu and if there are any suggestions on how to make it more useful.

In other news, the Fordham Theology Department has created a webpage for current graduate students to post individual profiles. It is not the most aesthetically pleasing website, but it does give you a general sense of what students are doing in different fields of study...though I would also say that many of the third and fourth year students have yet to post anything.

Back to thinking about Aristotle on friendship and Maximus the Confessor on sexual difference...

Don't wait up for me.

*****

Aristotle and Viagra: The Elderly and Pleasure

I am finishing up my coursework over the next week, which means my semester of reading the Nicomachean Ethics is coming to an end. I can't say that my attention has been rapt by Aristotle, but there are plenty of things that I will continue to think on in terms of my broader scholarly interests.

This post is not concerned with one of those things:

In his discussion of friendship, Aristotle distinguishes between three kinds: friendship based on pleasure, friendship based on utility, and friendship based on the good. The first he suggests is endemic to youth and the second to the elderly. But his description of this second point struck me as quite amusing:

This kind of friendship [ie one based on utility] seems to exist chiefly between old people (for at that age people pursue not the pleasant but the useful)...

~NE VIII.3, Ross

A bold claim which, it seems to me, the entire state of Florida stands as a huge rebuttal.

(ps. the photo comes from the Philosophy department here at Fordham. I laugh every time I walk past the sign. It also seems apropos for a conversation about Philosophy and the elderly).

*****

In Defense of Weakness: Nazianzus Against the Novatianists

I have been reading through Gregory of Nazianzus' Oration 39: On the Holy Lights in preparation for my paper on Maximus' Difficulty 41 (in which he begins with a quote from this Oration). Oration 39 is a brief but dense sermon covering significant ground in issues surrounding baptism, Christology, and ecclesiology among others. But in one particularly polemical section, Nazianzus puts his rhetorical skills on display against the Novatianist Heresy:

I confess to being a human being, a changeable animal with a nature always in flux; I accept this gift eagerly, and adore the one who has given it, and I share it with others; I pronounce mercy on others before receiving it myself. I know that I, too, am beset by weakness, and that I will receive in the measure with which I measure. And what do you say? . . . Will you not accept conversion? Do you leave no place for lamentation? Will you not shed a tear for tears? May you never come upon such a judge yourself! Do you not reverence the compassion of Jesus, who 'took up our weaknesses and bore our ills,' who 'came not to the righteous but to sinners' for their conversion, who 'wished mercy rather than sacrifice,' who pardons sins 'seventy times seven times?' . . . Show me your purity of life and I will accept your harsh attitude. But as it is, I fear that while bursting with wounds yourself, you charge others with being incurable. Will you refuse to accept David in his spirit of conversion, although conversion preserved in him the gift of prophecy? Or the great peter, who suffered human pangs concerning the suffering of the Savior? Jesus received him, and by his threefold questioning and Peter's threefold confession healed his threefold denial . . . If the case is in doubt, let compassion win the day!

*****

Paul Kolbet's New Book

I should have mentioned this back in September following the Reconsiderations conference at Villanova (or, at the very least, after AAR in November) - where both times I got to chat with Prof. Kolbet - but it has completely slipped my mind: Paul Kolbet's new book on Augustine is now available from Notre Dame Press and looks to be a fascinating and important study on Augustine and the emotions. This has been an enduring area of interest for me (I wrote my Masters thesis on Augustine and sorrow) and I will be excited to pick up a copy of the book...perhaps at NAPS.

Either way, if you are interested it is intriguingly titled Augustine and the Cure of Souls: Revising a Classical Ideal. Here is the description:

Augustine and the Cure of Souls situates Augustine within the ancient philosophical tradition of using words to order emotions. Paul Kolbet uncovers a profound continuity in Augustine’s thought, from his earliest pre-baptismal writings to his final acts as bishop, revealing a man deeply indebted to the Roman past and yet distinctly Christian. Rather than supplanting his classical learning, Augustine’s Christianity reinvigorated precisely those elements of Roman wisdom that he believed were slipping into decadence. In particular, Kolbet addresses the manner in which Augustine not only used classical rhetorical theory to express his theological vision, but also infused it with theological content.

This book offers a fresh reading of Augustine’s writings—particularly his numerous, though often neglected, sermons—and provides an accessible point of entry into the great North African bishop’s life and thought.

Head over to ND Press if you are interested. It is currently priced at $45.

*****

Augustine for Dummies?

While surfing the interwebs, I came across this little gem over at the Mental Floss blog:

How to Fake Your Way through a Conversation About Saint Augustine.

I cannot decide if this is the most vapid or most entertaining assessment of the Bishop in pop-culture parlance I have encountered...perhaps it is both.

For instance, here is when the author suggests you name drop our friend Auggie:

When to Drop Your Knowledge: Adds heft to your religion debates. But more importantly: Augustine authored one of the greatest pick-up lines in history, which works today just as nicely as it worked in CE 400 ["give me Chastity, Lord, but not yet"].

Do with this what you will.

*****

And Now a Word from Our Sponsor...

I was hunting for some beer at the grocery store a couple days ago, and remembered that I had been meaning to try North Coast Brewing Company's Brother Thelonious Belgian Style Abbey Ale. Luckily, they had a bottle chilling in the cooler.

My point for posting about this here is that, when I examined the label, I noticed a small but subtle plug for this blog:



Not to mention, this is one helluva beer (especially when sampled in combination with the playing of Monk's At Carnegie Hall album with John Coltrane). Perhaps I can work some arrangement out with the fine folks at the Brewing Company to provide free cases each month in exchange for a plug on my sidebar? If only blogging had this kind of benefit!

*****

Theology as a Discursive Practice: Some Thoughts on Weinandy and Tilley

Having been at Fordham for a semester now, I find that I am also becoming more aware of discussions, debates, and concerns at the heart of contemporary Catholic theology and ecclesiology...at least relative to before I arrived (having spent my previous tenure as a student at a Methodist school).

One such case is the critical reply of Thomas Weinandy, OFM, Cap. to the presedential address of Terry Tilley (my department chair) at the Catholic Theological Society of America annual meeting. (Keep in mind, Weinandy is executive director of the US Bishop's Secretariat of Doctrine and Tilley has recently been appointed the first Avery Cardinal Dulles Chair in Catholic Theology here at Fordham. Two rather eminent positions, though the former clearly carries with it some considerable ecclesial heft).

You can find a brief synopsis of the speech and Weinandy's critique here. However, I highly recommend reading both articles as it provides an instructive example of what Tilley describes as the theological "impasse" in contemporary Catholicism.

I am still mulling over both articles - and both provide lots of food for thought. As such, I will refrain for the moment from making substantial comments, but a few things do strike me as important.

Weinandy criticizes Tilley for shoddy scholarship, relativizing Christological reflection, and tossing out the historical tradition under the assumption that it has become outdated. Weinandy is also frustrated with Tilley's portrayal of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith. While Weinandy ends his article with a caveat that its opinions do not reflect those of the USCCB, one cannot help but wonder if a gauntlet has - in some sense - been thrown down.

Here is what struck me on a first run through: Tilley does not seem, at least in my reading, to be making quite as strong a case for any particular position (Christological or otherwise) as Weinandy accuses. Nor does Tilley ever use the language that there are "competing Christologies" within the New Testament - as Weinandy repeatedly avers. All of this is inferred. In fact - and perhaps my reading is overly generous to Tilley - the major point of Tilley's address seemed less prescriptive and more descriptive. Put another way, his major thrust seemed to be that, in light of major ecclesial divides within the Catholic communion, the Church inculcate more deeply the foundational understanding of theology as a discursive practice in the hopes that this will over time yield theological and practical fruit.

This is, of course, a simplification in some ways. But Tilley's concern for how theology is done within the Catholic church is an outcropping of the various symptoms of deep ecclesial unrest which he finds unsettling. Not least of which of these are the "shrinking, and in some places demoralized presbyterate," "a laity that loves the church but has stopped listening to the bishops", and "a hard-working and loyal body of religious women who are disgusted and discouraged by repeated investigations."

Most strikingly, Weinandy does not even consider the social import of Tilley's reflection and fails to mention any of the major ecclesial issues which could possibly call for theological dialogue among Catholic thinkers. His only discussion of social issues is an ad hominem attack on Tilley, linking the professor to a variety of crucial and stereotypically "liberal" views on sexuality:

Nonetheless, Tilley has a point: Good doctrine does bear the fruit of a good moral life. However, his own criteria undercut his whole theological proposal. Those who argue in a manner similar to Tilley with regard to what is to be the content of faith also often espouse contraception, abortion, fornication, adultery, divorce and remarriage, masturbation, homosexual activity, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc. Tilley himself states in a footnote: "Laity seem to have been disaffected by the bishop's preaching about sexual morality that is increasingly incredible." While Tilley is not specific, one can presume that he would include at least some of the above list. However, the above enumeration is hardly the fruits of a holy life founded upon the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Weinandy's reading obfuscates the complexity of what Tilley sees as the roots of current ecclesial disillusionment and is therefore a rather uncharitable truncating of the text. What Tilley actually says is that, "The laity seem to have been disaffected by the bishops' preaching about sexual morality that is increasingly incredible, by bishops' abetting or ignoring the sexual abuses by clergy, and by their closing parishes that members support spiritually and financially. The fact that a number of bishops have punished Catholic Scholars for supporting the Obama campaign...may also be a factor" (emphasis added). Weinandy's truncation, and his failure to acknowledge that there may in fact be causes for unrest within the Catholic communion, is a blaring oversight. It is, in fact, the kind of oversight which Tilley is primarily concerned with in his suggestion that dialog be allowed to flow freely so that no grievance or issue be swept under the rug:

Some bishops have tried to work through these difficult impasses. But others have tried to "change the subject" and ignore these elephants in their living rooms. Some have followed vigilantes of the political and religious right by making noisy attacks on Catholic institutions of higher education. Some have berated politicians - Catholic or not - whose political strategies differ with theirs.

That Weinandy can ignore these issues in his reply or obscure them by pointing in a very cursory way to masturbation and abortion (while also claiming that when "the CDF does indeed criticize and condemn particular opinions, it always does so in a scholarly, respectful and professional manner") seems to me representative of what Tilley et al. are concerned by and frustrated with. Namely, there is a log in the eye of ecclesial authority which it continually refuses to acknowledge, much less attempt to remove.

Weinandy is a first rate Historical Theologian. And he surely has his bones to pick in Tilley's depiction of how doctrinal formation occurred and how its elucidation should continue to occur. But the scope of Tilley's address was not to reinterpret the doctrine of the Incarnation. It was to suggest that if the Catholic community is to move from impasse into flourishing (rather than impasse into stalemate and division) it must needs be through the engendering of further discourse rather than the quashing of it.

Not really a radical message, after all. But given Weinandy's reply, it does appear to be a timely one.

UPDATE (6:36 PM, Dec 5)

Professor Tilley has provided a short reply to the accusations leveled by Fr. Weinandy over at Commonweal. You can find them here.

Tilley's comments are brief, but I think they touch to the core failures of Weinandy's hasty and perhaps overzealous rebuttal.

UPDATE 2 (4:26 PM, Dec 6)

Weinandy has provided a reply to Tilley which is more dismissive than anything. In it, he fails to address any of the major questions which Tilley raised in his response to Weinandy's initial critique - some of which were substantive and called for serious engagement. I can't help but feel that Weinandy has simply "shot from the hip" and is now uninterested in assessing the damage which comes from such an attack.

He says:

Dear Terry,

My response to your open letter to me is quite brief. I would simply ask that all those interested in this academic debate to read your Presidential address and my response to it. After reading both the reader can make his or her own considered judgment.

Take care,
Tom

How's that for a conversation stopper? So much for theology as a discursive practice.

(H/T to Brian for the link)

*****

Seducing Augustine: A Naughty Little Book on the Confessions

I was delighted to find out this week that Fordham University Press will be publishing a book titled Seducing Augustine: Bodies, Desires, Confessions which is coauthored by Virginia Burrus, Mark Jordan, and Karmen MacKendrick.

This tiny tome looks to provide an innovative and provocative reading of desire in Augustine's work (primarily the Confessions, but other works will be considered as well). The essays will focus on four coupled themes: secrecy and confession, asceticism and eroticism, constraint and freedom, time and eternity. Through these paradoxically related opposites, the three authors will explore how Augustine's Confessions joins "the erotic to the hidden, the imaginary, and the fictional."

Shying away from the typical arm-chair psychoanalysis which characterizes much modern writing about sexual desire in the Confessions, the authors seek instead a constructive account of Augustinian desire which plumbs the depths of his rich rhetoric for new and innovative resources. In conversation with critical theorists (Barthes, Baudrillard, Foucault, et al), I think this study will provide a rich and necessary shift in discourse on desire, the erotic, and sexuality as we encounter it in Augustine's thought.

It hits the bookshelves in Spring 2010.

Take. Read.

*****

Linking the Cross to the Cradle; Or, Why Advent Should also Haunt

I've been listening to the hymn "This is the Christ" as sung by Sandra McCracken (who made this recording available for free on Noisetrade recently). The song is beautifully composed, hopeful, and yet haunting.

Something about an advent hymn that haunts, unsettles, seems fitting to me.

The joy associated with the Advent season - particularly in its popularized hymns - have become so commercialized as to border on superficial platitude. Perhaps the only way to rescue the heart of Advent joy (and, in some small way, rescue its songs which now play on loop in Macy's) is to remember the sorrow of Good Friday towards which Advent bends.

The miraculous in-breaking of God at Advent is irrevocably bound to the cataclysm of the Cross on Good Friday and, ultimately, the unsettling mystery of Easter's empty tomb. Has anyone described this unsettling, this haunting of Advent better than TS Eliot?

...All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.
~(Journey of the Magi, 1927)

Can the Christian community await Christmas morning in joyful expectation without being unsettled by the knowledge that this is the Christ? Is this not the One who comes to bring the powerful down from their thrones, lift up the lowly, shine light on those in darkness, fill the hungry with good things (LK 1)? Is this not the Word become flesh which the world has not understood (JN 1)? Is this not Emmanuel, whose life meant death for the unnamed, innocent children (MT 2)?

Are we not the powerful in need of bringing down? Are we not those who have failed to understand? Do we not still bear witness to the oppression of the innocents? Are we, perhaps, the alien people clutching our gods?

What makes Advent hopeful, joyful, is not that a god appears on stage (Deus ex machina!) and makes everything okay. Rather, our hope and joy are found in the God who was with us and for us all along and yet draws nearer to us so that we might draw nearer to the Divine.

What makes Advent haunting, unsettling, is that this drawing near of God makes the world we know less familiar and less comfortable. Advent unhinges us from our pleasant captivities and draws back the curtain revealing the at-once ugly and beautiful nature of things until we are no longer at ease here in the old dispensation. And while this birth is cause for hope and joy it is also a hard and bitter agony, like Death...our own death.

*****

Pannenberg on Augustine

A while back I offered a brief prolegomena to Augustine's De Trinitate in which I suggested that the themes which have became so contentious in the Bishop's work represent components of a much larger project. Instead of seeing the "psychological analogy," the "love analogy," or interiority as the core of Augustine's trinitarian thought, I contended that these are actually methodological elaborations on the question which he asks in Confessions 10 ("what do I love when I love my God?").

With this in mind, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Wolfhart Pannenberg agreed with me:

Augustine did not try to derive the trinitarian distinctions from the divine unity. The psychological analogies that he suggested and developed in his work on the Trinity were simply meant to offer a very general way of linking the unity and trinity and thus creating some plausibility for trinitarian statements. The analogies do not depend on the common outward operations of God because the picture of God in the human soul reflects three persons not alone but in concert. The copy, of course, falls short of the original. Augustine could not develop a psychological doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of a derivation of the three divine persons from the unity of the divine Spirit. On the contrary, he stressed the inadequacy of all psychological analogies...Augustine's psychological analogies should not be used to derive the trinity from the unity but simply to illustrate the Trinity in whom one already believes. All the same, Augustine so strongly emphasized the unity of God that strictly no space was left for the trinity of persons. (Systematic Theology I; 284-285, 287)

The final sentence is crucial: yes, Augustine does seem to place more emphasis on the unity of God. But the analogies are not meant to be proofs for or a defense of this emphasis as the starting point for any and all Trinitarian relfection. Pannenberg's suggestion that the analogies are meant to be used to "illustrate the Trinity in whom one already believes" echoes much of what I was driving at earlier. Though, my point is that the process by which one comes to believe and reflect on that Trinity deserves much more attention regarding its place in the structure of Augustine's Trinitarian theology.

*****

On the Current Populist Rage: Won't You Be My Frankenstein?

In Thucydides, there is a wonderful passage where the author describes how "factional strife" among the Greek cities altered the very linguistic structure of the culture:

For in peacetime, and amid prosperous circumstances, both cities and individuals possess more noble dispositions, because they have not fallen into the overpowering constraints imposed by harsher times. But war, which destroys the easy routines of people's daily lives, is a violent schoolmaster, and assimilates the dispositions of most people to the prevailing circumstances. (3) So then, affairs in the cities were being torn apart by faction, and those struggles that occurred in the latter stages of the war - through news, I suppose, of what had occurred earlier in other cities - pushed to greater lengths the extravagance with which new plots were devised, both in the inventiveness of the various attempts at revolt and in the unheard-of nature of the subsequent acts of retaliation. (4) And people altered, at their pleasure, the customary significance of words to suit their deeds: irrational daring came to be considered the "manly courage of one loyal to his party"; prudent delay was thought a fair-seeming cowardice; a moderate attitude was deemed a mere shield for lack of virility, and a reasoned understanding with regard to all sides of an issue meant that one was indolent and of no use for anything. Rash enthusiasm for one's cause was deemed the part of a true man; to attempt to employ reason in plotting a safe course of action, a specious excuse for desertion. (5) One who displayed violent anger was "eternally faithful," whereas any who spoke against such a person was viewed with suspicion. One who laid a scheme and was successful was "wise," while anyone who suspected and ferreted out such a plot beforehand was considered still cleverer...The cause of all of these things was the pursuit of political power, motivated by greed and ambition. And out of these factors arose the fanatical enthusiasm of individuals now fully disposed to pursue political vendettas. (The Peloponnesian War, 3.82, emphasis added)

This perversion of language is not without its contemporary correlates. Over at the Broadsheet (my favorite place for feminist-y news commentary) there is an interesting post on the Conservative talk show host obsession with "rape metaphors."

Yep, wealthy middle-aged white men love using "rape" language to describe how they feel the government is treating them

Surely, the colloquial usage of sexual abuse terminology is (sadly) ubiquitous. And perhaps it should not always be looked upon with scorn. But spend just a moment and bask in the spectacle of how these commentators deploy their "rape rhetoric."



I will avoid arm-chair psychologizing for the time being. But this very well may be the nadir of political discourse in America. More than that, it is simply an offensive display of chauvinism which on the one hand downplays the serious and persistent scourge that is sexual abuse in our country while, on the other hand, suggesting that a perceived and metaphorical "rape" by a democratically elected official is somehow worse than the word's more literal usage.

Now, couple this with the past year of tea-partying, town-hall aggro-activism, and general populist rage incited by the very same talking heads and we have, indeed, created a monster. The problem, which even some conservative politicians have now rightly recognized, is that once this monster is vivified it will only bring about chaos and destruction (see this recent article on Palin and Populism which quotes even Rick Santorum suggesting that Populism without a positive agenda being bound for doom). The problem is, with the rhetorical foundation set in place by Limbaugh, Dobbs, Beck and Boortz I see no way for the current populist strand to be readjusted in a more constructive direction.

Populism today is destructive, not constructive. It is about uniting people - and, as a result, isolating them - under a common ire (no matter how ill-informed it may be), stoking the flames with inflammatory and abusive rhetoric (until reasoned and lively discourse becomes impossible), and then crying havoc to let loose the hounds of hell. Moderates beware, says Thucydides: "those citizens who chose the middle course of moderation perished at the hands of both factions, either for their failure to join in the struggle or due to envy at the fact that they were surviving amid the general chaos" (Thucydides, 3.82).

This Frankenstein, like Shelley's, will consume it's masters too. Because there is no agenda in today's populism. There is only fear and it's bedfellow, ignorant hatred. And by using the language of rape to further their political agendas (or vendettas, as Thucydides says), the talking heads have put the libido back into libido dominandi.


*****

Quote of the Day

"People who don't believe in evolution really shouldn't be allowed to get flu shots."

~ Twitter post by Rainn Wilson (@RainnWilson)

*****

Campaign Fail

For several weeks leading up to the November elections in Manhattan, I noticed that a certain Wanted poster was being hung from every available telephone pole in my neighborhood. It wasn't until I looked closer - after the election, mind you - that I realized it was not a Wanted poster, but instead was a campaign flyer.

Word to the wise: if your campaign flyer confuses you with a wanted criminal, it is time to hire a new strategist.

Needless to say, I don't think Mr Tajiddin won the election.

Two Books on Augustine and the Trinity (which I somehow missed)...and a third.

The Trinity and Creation in Augustine
An Ecological Analysis
(from the SUNY Series on Religion and the Environment)

by Scott A. Dunham

Interesting to see SUNY Press publishing a book on Augustine and the Trinity, but this looks to be at least an intriguing read. As the product description rightly notes, this is an area of Augustine's Trinitarian thought in serious need of further theological reflection from those working in the English language.

Hardback - $65, Paper Back - $24 (Both can be purchased at the SUNY Press site)

(From the description) The first English-language book on Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine of creation, The Trinity and Creation in Augustine explores Augustine’s relevance for contemporary environmental issues. Modern, environmentally conscious thinkers often see Augustine’s doctrines in a negative light, feeling they have been used to justify humankind’s domination of nature. Considering Augustine’s thought in his own time and in ours, Scott A. Dunham offers a more nuanced view. He begins with a consideration of the major themes that have characterized ecologically sensitive theologies and Augustine’s place in those discussions. The primary examination considers how Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity informed his interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, especially his conceptions of divine creation, providence, and dominion. This analysis of Augustine’s Trinitarian interpretation of Genesis stands in contrast to recent characterizations of classical conceptions of creation. The book concludes with a discussion of Augustine’s relevance for modern theological thought by appraising Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine of creation in relation to ecological themes in theological ethics.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Ecological Problem of Dominion and the Doctrine of God
Ecologically Informed Theological Ethics: Interrelatedness in Ecology
The Problem of Hierarchy in Modern Theology

Part I

1. The Contemporary Critique of Augustine

The Forms of Eastern and Western Trinitarian Thought
Augustine’s Western Form of the Trinity: Modalism
The Trinity and the Doctrine of Creation: Cause and Effect
The Scriptural Basis of Augustine’s Trinitarian Doctrine

2. Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity
Subordinationism and the Divine Missions
Monarchy, Simplicity, and Relations of Origin: Augustine’s
Trinitarian Logic
Modalism

3. Augustine and Hierarchy in the Trinity
Hierarchy and the Trinitarian Relations
Hierarchy and the Divine Substance

Part II

4. The Trinitarian Founding of Creation

The Structure of The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Naming the Trinity in Genesis 1
How the Trinity Founds the Creation 68 How the Trinity Converts and Perfects Creatures

5. Trinitarian Governance and Creaturely

Participation in God
Participation in Augustine’s Theology
God’s Providential Governance and Creaturely Motion
Participation in the Trinity through Measure, Number and Weight
Formless Matter and the Question of Passivity

6. Resting in God, the Image of God, and Dominion

Resting in God
Use and Enjoyment
The Work of Human Dominion and the Image of God
Dominion and Power
Conclusion


The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate
by Luigi Gioia OSB

This book looks to be a bold and energetic attempt to provide modern readers with an approach to the structure of and background to Augustine's most robust work on the doctrine of the Trinity. Just a brief glance at the table of contents demonstrates the volumes ambitiously exhaustive scope. I will be curious to see how Gioia's presentation of Augustine's thought takes shape given that, frankly, I have never heard of him before. Perhaps this was Oxford UP's attempt to answer Cambridge's much anticipated volume on the same topic?

Either way, the hardcover is (as expected) accessibly priced at $130.


(from the description) Luigi Gioia provides a fresh description and analysis of Augustine's monumental treatise, De Trinitate, working on a supposition of its unity and its coherence from structural, rhetorical, and theological points of view. The main arguments of the treatise are reviewed first: Scripture and the mystery of the Trinity; discussion of 'Arian' logical and ontological categories; a comparison between the process of knowledge and formal aspects of the confession of the mystery of the Trinity; an account of the so called 'psychological analogies'. These topics hold a predominantly instructive or polemical function. The unity and the coherence of the treatise become apparent especially when its description focuses on a truly theological understanding of knowledge of God: Augustine aims at leading the reader to the vision and enjoyment of God the Trinity, in whose image we are created. This mystagogical aspect of the rhetoric of De Trinitate is unfolded through Christology, soteriology, doctrine of the Holy Spirit and doctrine of revelation. At the same time, from the vantage point of love, Augustine detects and powerfully depicts the epistemological consequences of human sinfulness, thus unmasking the fundamental deficiency of received theories of knowledge. Only love restores knowledge and enables philosophers to yield to the injunction which resumes philosophical enterprise as a whole, namely 'know thyself'.

And, since I mentioned it earlier, here is the Cambridge volume due out some time next year.

Augustine and the Trinity
by Lewis Ayres

With plenty of hints and gestures towards a larger project within the articles of Ayres and Michel Barnes, we now have the first substantial consideration of De Trinitate from one of the leading voices in what has been called "the new canon" school of thought. Having only read a chapter that didn't actually make the final cut, I am unable to suggest anything other than that this volume promises to become required reading for students of Augustine. Due out sometime next Spring, you should be able to pick up a copy for a little light summer reading (check on the publication and purchasing here).

(from the description) Augustine of Hippo (354–430) strongly influenced western theology, but he has often been accused of over-emphasizing the unity of God to the detriment of the Trinity. In this book Lewis Ayres demonstrates how Augustine’s writings actually offer one of the most sophisticated and persuasive of Nicene Trinitarian theologies. Culminating recent research by scholars in Europe and the US, Ayres argues that Augustine's earliest Trinitarian writings drew on a variety of earlier Latin traditions which stressed the irreducibility of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as on the Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus. Ayres then demonstrates how Augustine's mature writings offer an elaborate and unexpected account of the Trinity as defined by the inter-personal life of Father, Son and Spirit. Ayres also shows that Augustine shaped an account of Christian ascent toward understanding of and participation in the divine life which begins in faith and models itself on Christ’s humility.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part I. Origins:
1. Giving wings to Nicaea;
2. Through Him, with Him and in Him;
3. Faith of our fathers: De fide et symbolo;

Part II. Ascent:
4. The unadorned Trinity;

Excursus 1: The dating of the De trinitate;

5. Per corporalia … ad incorporalia;
6. A Christological epistemology;

Excursus 2: Polemical targets in the De trinitate;

Part III. Into the Mystery:
7. Recommending the source;
8. Essence from essence;
9. Showing, seeing and loving;
10. Loving and being;

Part IV. Memory, Intelligence and Will:
11. 'But it's not fur eatin'…';
12. '… It's just fur lookin' through';

Epilogue: catching all three

Quote of the Day

My experience of Catholicism is very much how Dan Brown describes it. When I was a monk, my monastery had a whole separate wing of albino monks.

~Luke Timothy Johnson (who, if you don't know, is a quotable-quote machine and one of the biggest reasons I miss Emory)

HT: Sitz Im Leben for putting me on to the Dear Candler blog which, ostensibly, is a gathering of funny and embarrassing quotes from around Emory's campus.

*****

A Friendly Reminder...

...to all you students/scholars of Patristics, Early Church History, and Historical Theology: the NAPS (North American Patristic Society) call for papers is open and accepting submissions until December 15. Also, they have miraculously redesigned their website, making it far more navigable as well as aesthetically pleasing (any website devoted to the Fathers should be Good, True, and Beautiful).

I really enjoyed NAPS two years ago, and it is a great time for people with particular interests in the Patristic period to connect. It is almost like a Patristics retreat, since everyone generally stays in the same hotel and gets drinks in the lounge at happy hour. Even for those of you who have only secondary interests in this area, I highly recommend making the trip to Chicago. I am encouraging most of my colleagues from Fordham to attend and hope that many of you will as well.

The student rate for membership is set at a very reasonable $26 (which includes a subscription to the Journal of Early Christian Studies!!!).

How to Get Accepted to a Theology/Religion PhD Program : The Series

The whole series (I have also added a link to this series on my sidebar at the bottom):

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

Feel free to drop comments, questions, or criticisms. As I mentioned in the last post, applying to a doctoral program is an inherently dialogical process.

Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

For those keeping score:

Part 1 - The Odds
Part 2 - The Process
- 2.1, Preparation
- 2.2, Execution
- 2.3, Community
Part 3 - The Agony
Part 4 - The Ecstasy
Part 5 - Conclusion
Appendix A - Walking the Tightrope? On Pursuing a Career in the Humanities
Appendix B - Whose Ranking? Which Criteria? Where Theology is Done in America (and Beyond)

On Wheres and Wherefores

Judging by the Google hits that my blog has been receiving, this final post may address the major issue for which most web-surfers come seeking an answer. Let me begin by way of an unequivocal caveat: I cannot tell you where to get a PhD. I cannot adequately rank them for your situation. To provide some general listing of programs in an arbitrary order would not only be counter-productive, it would be mendacious (I was, at one point, very guilty of doing just this). But the current post will attempt nothing of the sort. What I do hope to accomplish, however, is a kind of road-map towards deciding which programs might suit your particular interests and concerns the best.

This whole issue has been brought into stark relief by R.R. Reno's unabashedly biased ranking of graduate programs in theology. I will not spend time responding to his article(s) because Evan has already done an excellent job of parsing out the issues there. A few things, however, which Reno fails to even consider will become major factors in my advice below: these include 1) Financial Aid, 2) Pedagogical Training, 3) Job Placement, 4) Quality of Attention from Faculty, 5) have these professors published anything of substance in the past 5 years, 6) Quality of Classes offered, and 7) Years-to-degree...among others. But before we explore these issues, let me address one major question first-off.


Considering A PhD Program Abroad

During my first pass at PhD applications, I applied to the University of Durham. As a Patristics scholar with interests in contemporary theological discourse, this was a no-brainer. Carol Harrison and Andrew Louth are Early Church Historians of the first order. Durham had just hired Mark McIntosh as well. I exchanged many emails with Harrison and was very encouraged by her receptivity. Durham offered me acceptance well before any of my other responses came back. But, of course, financial aid was a whole different issue. It became very clear that there were scant-few resources for Americans seeking some form of scholarship. The administration suggested that I might be more successful in procuring funds upon my arrival. Had I been single and had I been convinced that Durham was the perfect location for me to do this degree, I would have spent much longer considering the option. But, as I will explain, too many factors seemed to indicate that this decision would be unsustainable.

There are many phenomenal programs in theology in the UK: St Andrews, Edinburgh, Durham, Cambridge and Nottingham to name a few. In choosing to go there, you may have the opportunity to work intimately with some of the brightest theological minds working today. But there is a trade-off for an American going abroad.

The UK Bachelors degree often functions like our American Masters. When I studied abroad at St Andrews during my senior year, I was struck by the intensive nature of the undergraduate Divinity program. I took a class on Bonhoeffer which, with only 7-8 students, was by far the most rigorous course I had ever taken in theology to that point. Student's from the UK who move from a Bachelors in Divinity/Theology into an MPhil, MA, or MLitt will have done a fair amount of graduate level work heading into their Masters degree. Thus, the UK PhD program remains a brief, research-based degree without coursework and without comprehensive examinations. An American who has one Masters degree in theology will (for the most part) be at a disadvantage compared to those UK students who have moved through their system in the traditional manner.

If you chose to pursue the UK PhD route, you will have to come to grips with a few major issues: 1) You will most likely pay for the degree in its entirety. Remember, the British Pound is not necessarily a kind conversion to the US Dollar. 2) You will not have traditional coursework, nor will you have comprehensive examinations. In the US, these two elements not only broaden your knowledge base of the field, but also help you to sell yourself to potential employers regarding the possibility of teaching a diverse set of courses. 3) It is likely that you will miss out on the formal, pedagogical training which takes place in most American doctoral programs and thus will have to hone your craft as a teacher on your own. 4) For these reasons and others, much of the advice I received from faculty suggested that I would face difficulty in pursuing jobs in the States once I finished. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but indicates that you will most likely have to work harder to prove yourself upon your return.

This is not to say that UK PhD programs should be out of the question for all American students. It is merely meant to point out the hurdles you will face. Many students will find the brevity of the degree and the types of faculty available very enticing. I, for one, wish that I had at least considered UK programs for my Masters work. Really, the decision an American student must face when looking abroad will be a deeply personal one: can you uproot? can you afford it? can you accept the challenges that it may present in the future?

On Ranking American Programs for Yourself

I am not against ranking PhD programs in theology. In fact, I think it is necessary. But, it is also necessarily subjective. You, as the applicant, should constantly be revising your own list of schools based on the factors that are important to you and to your particular concentration. Just because the school has a "good name" doesn't mean it belongs high on your list. If you want to work in 20th Century Catholic Theology/History, Princeton probably isn't going to make it onto your top 10 list. If you want to do work in Karl Barth, Boston College may be a bit of a stretch. Each program has its own unique identity, strengths, and weaknesses. In an ideal world, you would get into a school that is strong in your concentration, provides solid funding, trains you as an educator, gets you to walk the stage in a reasonable amount of time, and places you in a job relatively quickly.

But of course, we rarely choose from ideal scenarios. Therefore, I suggest making a list of schools based on the criteria that are important to you: faculty, funding, pedagogy/teaching opportunity, job placement, location, etc. (I did not apply to Fordham the first time around because neither my wife nor I were prepared to consider life in NYC. This was very short-sighted on our part, because the program has turned out to be a great fit for my interests and the location has been less of an issue than we ever anticipated). So, when looking at programs where I might do doctoral work in Patristics, my primary list looked something like this (not a ranking, just a list):

Notre Dame
Fordham
Boston College
Marquette
Yale
Duke
Indiana
Brown

Each of the programs above have strengths in Early Christianity as well as resources in Theology, Philosophy, and/or Critical Theory. These factors were important for me, as I wanted not merely to be a historian but also to be someone who could constructively engage the ideas and issues which my study of the Early Church brought forth. It is for this reason that schools like Brown or Indiana (and to a lesser extent, UVA) remained interesting to me. State schools are not known as hubs of Patristic scholarship. But a David Brakke and a Susan Ashbrook Harvey provide solid footing in the Ancient tradition and could be paired in fruitful ways with faculty doing critical/constructive work from more a contemporary focus.

A list for other concentrations (Bible, Ethics, Systematics) will inevitably look different than the one above. For instance if you want to work in Modern Protestant Theology, the Catholic programs and the State Universities will most likely be bumped off (or at least lowered: Fordham, I have found, actually does Protestant stuff fairly well for a Catholic school - but applying to work solely in that area might be a tough sell). You should work out a criteria for selecting which programs to apply for in conversation with your academic adviser and (if needed) your family. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, do not assume that there is such a thing as a "Safety School" in the PhD process. Your list should be narrow enough so as not to include schools that could not support your project. But it should also be broad enough that you are not simply applying to Duke, Yale, and Chicago and hoping to win the lottery.

Some things to consider: How many faculty members are actually working in something related to your interests? What kind of work will the department require of you as a first/second year graduate student (do they expect you to teach undergrads from the get-go? Work 30 hours/wk in administrative functions)? What kind of personal attention can you anticipate from the faculty and is the department collegial or divisive? Does that matter to you? Can you relocate across the country? What is the structure of the examinations at the school? Is being in an environment where theological study and faith commitments are explicitly related something that is important to you?

The picture I am trying to paint makes the discernment process about where to apply more difficult. It requires more investigation than perhaps most applicants are able to do. But these are the only real criteria by which you could make an accurate ranking for your purposes. R.R. Reno failed to account for nearly all of these issues, choosing instead to use a school's commitment to less liberal/progressive agendas as the primary hallmark of a "good school." But that is all a bunch of hogwash, really. You could be an evangelical with strong confessional stances and still come out of Emory's GDR with top-notch training in theological studies...and it's not like this training would happen in some atheistic or spiritually-antagonistic vacuum. It just won't feel like Notre Dame or Fuller.

All that being said: before you rank schools, rank the criteria. What are your non-negotiables? What factors can be compromised or flexed? What schools match-up with these factors the best? Only you can determine the best programs for your interests and your personality.

I have surely disappointed some in not giving more concrete advice about this or that department and why you should or should not apply there. However, I hope you see why such a project is counter-productive and rarely anything more than a reflection of personal bias. A decision as large as selecting PhD programs should not be parsed out by someone who knows nothing of your interests, background, or commitments. That being said, it is important to tap into the institutional knowledge of the broader academic community in your attempts to gauge your fit from one program to the next. Don't hesitate to ask those who have gone before you for their opinions of certain doctoral programs...just don't forget take it with a grain of salt.

I hope that this series has been, in some small way, helpful for those of you discerning whether to pursue a PhD in Theology/Religion. I have surely left many questions unanswered, and perhaps elicited a few more. But this discernment process should take the shape of an ongoing discussion. It is my hope that these posts help to further that conversation.